Agenda item

The report seeks approval for a revised Redeployment Procedure for Medway Council.

Discussion

</AI8>

<TRAILER_SECTION>

The HR Consultant and Policy Lead introduced the report which sought approval for a revised Redeployment Procedure for Medway Council. The procedure provided greater clarity on the priority order of redeployment, how the process worked for redeployees, the responsibilities of parties involved in the process, and a concrete procedure for health and disability-related redeployment. It also included updated appendices, such as the introduction of an Employee Profile Form that aligned with our statutory obligations to provide a non-competitive procedure for redeployees. The revised procedure mirrored current redeployment practice within the Council, strengthened the Council’s statutory obligations, and reflected the stakeholder feedback and operational data collected on the procedure.

In response to a question as to why someone on a fixed-term contract would be made redundant, the Head of Employee Relations advised that the ending of a fixed-term contract constituted a dismissal in law and, depending on length of service, could attract redundancy rights. The Council also wished to retain talented employees where suitable opportunities existed.

In response to a concern raised that the procedure suggested that individuals could lose redundancy entitlements if they refused a role, the Head of Employee Relations clarified that the council was required to look for suitable alternative employment. However if an employee felt a role was not suitable, there would be a discussion around that, initially informal but potentially supported by written reasons, it was important to remember that anyone who was redeployed had a four-week trial period in the new role which gave both the employee and manager an opportunity to decide whether it was genuinely a suitable alternative.

Concerns were expressed about the significant difference in protections available depending on the timing of a pregnancy loss, as a family might experience a loss at one gestation point and have different rights depending on whether a baby survived briefly after birth or not and queried whether there was something that could be considered regarding viability, the 24-week threshold, and how compassionately the policy was applied. 

Officers advised that the provisions currently reflected statutory requirements. However, they acknowledged the concerns raised and agreed to consider whether additional measures could be incorporated to provide greater support and compassion within the policy framework. It was noted that, irrespective of statutory protections, the Council would continue to provide support and consider individual circumstances sensitively.

Members noted the Joint Consultative Committee comments from the earlier meeting which had included concerns raised regarding the use of redeployment in cases involving occupational health, particularly where staff were unable to return to their previous role, and specific concerns regarding communication with colleagues who were placed on the redeployment register, and some typographical errors which would be amended before publication.

Decision

a)       The Committee approved Option A and agreed to adopt the revised Redeployment Procedure at Appendix A and its appendices, Appendix B-E) for implementation in July 2026.

b)       The Committee noted the key improvements in health and disability-related redeployment, as well as increased clarity throughout the procedure document as set out in the Summary of Changes at Appendix F.

c)       The Committee agreed to the provision of targeted communications and training for managers, especially those in positions of making frequent hiring decisions, to support consistency and cooperation with the revised procedure, ensuring redeployees are protected and treated fairly.