Agenda item

This report sets out the results of the Council’s MedPay Pay Progression Award Scheme for the 2018/2019 reporting year.

Discussion:

The Committee considered a report on the results of the Council’s MedPay Pay Progression Award Scheme for the 2018/2019 reporting year.

The following issues were discussed:

·         Employee Survey – Members were informed that about 45% of staff had completed the last survey. The survey was bi-annual and the latest one was underway. One of the questions asked staff how they wished to be rewarded.

·         Independent review of the Medpay Scheme – in response to a question, the Assistant Director - Transformation confirmed that whilst the Scheme had been reviewed internally, in consultation with the trade unions, it had not been reviewed independently. A Member proposed that the Committee should look again at whether the Scheme should be independently reviewed in order that Members could satisfy themselves it was robust and delivering its objectives fairly. The point was made that an Employment Tribunal finding that the Scheme was discriminatory would cost the Council more than the estimated £23k cost of having the scheme independently reviewed. Only 45% of staff had completed the employee survey and therefore staff  views on Medpay were limited to this group. It was argued the Council, as a responsible employer, had an obligation to commission a review. It was proposed that the reconsideration of whether to review the Scheme take place later in the year at the same time the results of the latest employee survey were considered.

·         The performance element of the pay award – the Assistant Director – Transformation advised that anyone at the top of their pay range (at Levels 1A, 1B and 2) would not receive the performance element of the pay award, as it was not affordable for the pay bands to continually increase.

PDR Assessment Levels - the lack of any differential between the awards for Level 2 when at the top of the pay range and Level 3 was queried and why Level 2 no longer resulted in an additional day’s leave. The Assistant Director – Transformation explained the extra day’s leave had resulted from a proposal from the Trade Unions as part of their pay claim in a previous year’s pay negotiations.

Members queried the eligibility for being assessed as Level 1A and whether the assessment would take into account the fact that a member of staff had responsibilities as a carer etc. as this may prevent them from being able to take on extra responsibilities, for example, that may lead to a 1A award.  Members were advised that taking on extra responsibilities would not in itself result in Level 1A. Rather it was designed to reward people who went the extra mile and having caring responsibilities would not in itself preclude Level 1A  being awarded.

A Member queried why only employees classed as ethnically white had been assessed as Level 1A and was advised that all assessments were based on merit. After staff were assessed by line managers there was then a rigorous moderation process undertaken by senior management and the Acting Head of HR attended all moderation meetings to ensure a consistency of approach.

Regarding whether the moderation process looked at whether people on the lower pay grades were capable of achieving Level 1A, the Assistant Director – Transformation commented that most people assessed as Level 1A were at the lower end of the pay ranges.

Members were advised that the decreasing number of staff assessed under Medpay in recent years was due to the workforce reducing in size over this period.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)     note the report, and;

b)     bring back the paper on an independent review of the Medpay Scheme presented to the Committee earlier in the year, to be considered alongside the results of the 2019 staff survey later in the year.