Agenda item

To present the Committee with data regarding the workforce (included non-employed workers), absence rates and equalities data for the period January to March 2015.

The Committee considered the report on the workforce data for the period January to March 2015, as presented by Carole Engwell. The report set out information on the organisational profile, headcount, formal action cases, agency and consultants, sickness absence and equalities, and included details of the process for engaging a non-employed worker.

In respect of the data regarding consultants and interims, the Committee asked about the column entitled ‘Asst. Director’ – it was clarified that this referred to the line manager for the post referred to and it was agreed that the name of this column should be amended for clarity, for example to ‘hiring manager’. The Committee expressed particular concern regarding the costs flagged as red in the spreadsheet, and requested that more information on the recruitment timescales was required in order that these posts could be monitored more effectively. Ms Engwell advised that the Chief Executive had recently asked all Assistant Directors to review the use of consultants in their service areas in order that this could be managed better. It was noted that due to the reporting timescales, the current end date for certain posts may have changed since the report was produced.

The Committee asked about the Project Delivery Manager post reported to have been extended 17 times; it was reported that this was a specialist IT post and that this was an area in which recruitment to permanent posts was very challenging. It was agreed that the relevant assistant director would be asked for information on whether appointing to a fixed term contract for this post had been explored.

The Committee asked about the use of Hays, and it was reported that the Council had a framework contract in place with Hays in line with procurement guidelines. It was reported that the fee payable to Hays varied according to post. The Committee expressed concern at the costs associated with individual posts supplied through contractors such as Hays over a long period, and noted that, once fees were taken into account, the remuneration received by the individual may not differ substantially from what they would receive if employed directly, but at a significantly higher cost to the Council. It was advised that this was one of the reasons for the Chief Executive’s recent push to review the use of consultants in the organisation. In response to a question from the Committee, it was confirmed that this report only covered data relating to individuals contracted as consultants and interims and did not cover contracts with organisations such as iMPOWER.

The Committee noted the recent reductions in female and BME employees in the top 50% of earners. It was reported that this was as a result of resignations; this would be monitored, but it was not felt at this stage to reflect a trend that would be a cause of concern.

The Committee considered how they could have a constructive role in monitoring and managing the workforce data, in particular around the use of consultants. The Committee requested further detail on recruitment timetables for those posts to be recruited to on a permanent basis, and further detail on the end dates for short-term posts. It was agreed that details of recruitment attempts, reasons for the use of a consultant in this post, etc, needed to be provided for every post, in particular those flagged as red in respect of net cost / value for money status, and the Committee would review the explanations given, starting from the next meeting of the Committee in September. Where the Committee had further concerns after receiving this information, the relevant Cabinet Member and senior officers would be asked to comment and, where it was felt to be useful, the relevant Assistant Director would be invited attend a meeting to discuss the issue further with the Committee.

RESOLVED

That the Committee note the report.