Agenda item

Since the creation of BCP Council through the merger of the four preceding councils in April 2019 we have been working with the trade unions to negotiate a new Pay and Reward package which aligns pay and conditions across all colleagues. 

This report sets out the results of the recent trade union ballot process and outlines next steps.

The Portfolio Holder for Transformation Resources and Governance presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute Book. The Board was informed that since the creation of BCP Council through the merger of the four preceding councils in April 2019 work had been ongoing with the trade unions to negotiate a new Pay and Reward package which aligns pay and conditions across all colleagues. 

The report sets out the results of the recent trade union ballot process and outlined the next steps.  The Chairman invited the Unison Trade Union representative to address the Board. They noted the expected costs of fire and rehire and noted that the union was opposed to this approach and would challenge it if that was the route the Council chose to pursue. The Board raised a number of issues in the discussion of this issue which included:

The difference in timeframe between option 1 and 2 was only 3 months and the reasons for this being the recommendation option were discussed further. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that it was important to get the pay and reward process finalised for those staff currently affected.

It was noted that the staff voting no to the proposals may be unhappy with both the proposals and the journey. It was noted that there was a lot of difficult history with the process and talking about fire and rehire at this stage would make things more difficult.

In response to question regarding the numbers involved in the union ballot voting against the proposals the Director of People and Culture, advised that they do not have access to the numbers in terms of union membership, but they had a reasonable idea around the potential numbers

It was proposed and seconded that Cabinet be recommended to proceed with Option 1.

During discussion of the motion it was noted that the confidence of staff had already been affected by putting option 2 on the table but that the reasons for the recommendation were understood. The Portfolio Holder made it clear that if it became apparent that it was worth continuing conversations to reach agreement with the unions there could be flexibility of the timeline.

The motion was put to the vote but lost by 4 votes to 6.

The Board questioned the impact on Council finances incurred by the decision to progress with option 2 and whether the impact of this should mean that it was considered by Council. It was confirmed by the Chief Executive confirmed that the initial decision within the Cabinet paper would not need to go to full Council but that the final decision on termination and reengagement would need to go to Full Council.

It was noted that the project team was funded through to the end of this financial year. It would be around April 2025 that additional costs would be incurred and at that point further decisions may need to be taken

It was then proposed and seconded that Cabinet be recommended to proceed with option 2.

Concern was raised regarding the Board endorsing the recommendation at option 2 including the fire and rehire process.  It was reiterated by the Portfolio Holder that nobody was in favour of fire and rehire but the process had been dragging on for a long time and there was a need to move forward as soon as possible.

RESOLVED that Cabinet be recommended to approve option 2 of the proposed process flowchart (Appendix 1 of the report) and the commencement of collective consultation under s188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (‘TULRCA’), which is a statutory obligation where an employer is proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees.

Cllr K Salmon and Cllr S Aitkenhead asked to be recorded as voting against the motion.

Voting: 6 in favour 2 against, 2 abstentions