Agenda item

This report updates the Committee on the implementation of the MedPay pay progression scheme.

Discussion:

Members considered a report on the implementation of the MedPay pay progression scheme. The MedPay Policy set out how staff were to be remunerated using a form of pay progression that was directly linked to the achievement of personal targets and reaching a specific level of competence. The annual Performance Development Review (PDR) process was the vehicle used by managers to discuss an individual’s performance and also agree any areas of development.

Following a review of the Scheme a number of suggestions had been received about possible changes, which would be shared with all employees and trade unions for comment, after which any proposed changes to the scheme would be brought to the Committee for agreement.

A Member referred to the moderation that took place whereby some people had been moderated down from Level 1 (excellence)  to Level 2 (performance to required standard) and asked what numbers were involved; who did the moderating and whether cases were looked at on their merits without budgetary constraints taken into account.  The Assistant Director replied that moderation happened at several levels. All cases were considered by HR so that an overview could be obtained. Level 1 recommendations were considered by the relevant Assistant Director, Directorate Management Team and finally the Corporate Management Team. Whilst funding was inevitably a consideration more Level 1 awards had been made than originally anticipated and the process had been robust. Where appropriate, managers were advised of the existence of other forms of reward for staff who had been moderated down to Level 2.

A Member noted that 100% of employees had been assessed under the scheme and asked how staff on long term sickness had been dealt with. The Committee was advised that such staff had been automatically assessed as Level 2.

Referring to the risk assessment section of the report a Member commented that this did not take into account an obvious risk which was not all employees carried out a role which afforded them opportunities to achieve Level 1. The Assistant Director acknowledged this was a difficult issue to resolve but pointed out all staff were on a level playing field when it came to a Level 2 assessment and HR did try to help managers identify alternative forms of reward for staff where Level 1 was not possible but nevertheless some recognition was appropriate.

In response to a question Members were advised the size of the sample group referred to was 700 which Members considered a good size.

A Member asked what had happened to the 39 staff at Level 3 (performance improvement required) and officers replied that a variety of actions and outcomes applied depending on the reasons in each case. Some employees had been given additional training; some were subject to capability procedures and some had concluded they were not suitable to continue in their role.

In terms of the 23 staff who had achieved Level 1 a Member asked if an analysis had been carried out to see which Directorates they were from in case there was any bias. Officers replied that the 23 employees were spread widely across the Council.

A Member asked how many employees had exercised their right to appeal against their Medpay level. The Assistant Director advised that no appeals had been lodged but the right to appeal had been clearly communicated to all staff.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

(a)          note the report

(b)          instruct the Assistant Director, Organisational Services to commence consultation as outlined in paragraph 6.1 of the report and make further recommendations to this Committee.

(c)          refer the outcome of the review and the proposals for change to the Joint Consultative Committee prior to consideration by the Employment Matters Committee.