Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of any petitions received by the Council which fall within the remit of this Committee including a summary of the response sent to the petition organisers by officers.

The Committee is also requested to consider a petition referral request.

Discussion:

Members considered a report advising the Committee of two petitions received by the Council which fell within the remit of this Committee including a summary of the response sent to the petition organisers by officers.

The first petition related to Uber, which Members were asked to note. The Council’s response to the second petition, which related to Medway Norse, had been referred to the Committee by the lead petitioner.

In relation to the petition on Uber, an update was requested on the Council’s current position on Uber and also regarding the legal position facing Transport for London following the latter’s decision not to grant Uber a further private hire operator’s licence. The Chief Legal Officer advised that progress in respect of both issues had been halted as a result of the pandemic but he was monitoring the situation and would report any developments to Members. Once the TFL legal situation was clarified the Council would be able to continue its discussion with local taxi drivers.

Mr Richard White, Unite the Union, addressed the Committee on behalf of the lead petitioner on why the Council’s response to the petition had been referred to the Committee to review. Mr White noted the challenges the pandemic was creating for employers and employees, with added pressures in waste services. In some cases this had led to a trade-off between the health and safety of workers and a business as usual approach. Guidance had been produced on how this potential conflict could be avoided and this recommended measures such as reduced collections, limiting the number of people in a cab etc. The phrase “where possible” was used in the guidance but most employers followed the spirit of the guidance and others had gone beyond the Union’s expectations in providing a safe place of work. However, in Medway Mr White considered that Medway Norse had relied too heavily on the phrase “where possible” to not meet their obligations to the workforce. The union considered the de-recognition of the union and the dismissal of 13 employees a hostile act which reflected badly on the Council. He called on the Council to instruct Medway Norse to immediately re-engage with the union and re-instate the recognition agreement.

In discussing the issues, some Members expressed sympathy for the union’s position and that the decision to de-recognise the union in a time of crisis was adversely affecting the Council’s reputation locally and in the wider local government family.

It was proposed that the petition response be referred to Cabinet to consider the issues raised and the reputational damage to the Council; that the Councillor Conduct Committee be asked to review the process for granting dispensations to Members who serve on Council subsidiaries and whether existing dispensations were still appropriate, and that the Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson of the Committee write to Unite the Union and the Chief Executive of the Medway Norse Group to express their concern and wish for both parties to meet to try and resolve the problems.

These proposals were put to the vote but not agreed. (Councillors Johnson, Maple and Stamp asked that their votes in favour be recorded.)

The role of Members on the Boards of Medway Norse and Council owned companies was also questioned. 

The Chief Finance Officer, corporate client for Medway Norse, re-iterated the comments made by the Deputy Chief Executive in his response to the petition and the referral request, adding he could not comment on what were operational matters for Medway Norse to deal with. The Chief Legal Officer added that the role of the 2 Directors appointed to the Medway Norse Board was to set the strategic direction and not to deal with employee relations, which were also not a matter for an Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In response the point was made that the issues raised by the petition affected the credibility of the Council and called into question whether the Council should have a 50% stake in the joint venture, which was a strategic issue. In terms of how O&S could hold Medway Norse to account, the Chief Legal Officer advised that the role of the Committee was to look at the performance of Medway Norse. If Members wished to see a prohibition on Medway Norse de-recognising a union then they could seek to have the agreement between the Council and Medway Norse amended to that effect.

Decision:

The Committee agreed:

a)     in relation to the petition regarding Uber, to note the petition response and appropriate officer action as set out in paragraph 3 of the report;

(Councillors Johnson, Maple and Stamp asked that their votes in favour be recorded.)

b)     in relation to the Medway Norse petition, to note the petition referral request and the Director’s response in paragraph 5 of the report and to thank Mr White for attending the meeting and speaking on the petition referral request.

(Councillors Johnson, Maple and Stamp asked that their votes against be recorded.)