Agenda item

This report details the Council’s proposals to implement a new Probationary Procedure.

Discussion:

This report set out proposals for a revised Probationary Procedure. The current Probationary Procedure had been agreed by the Committee in September 2007 and the review of the Procedure was set out in paragraph 4 of the report. The key proposed changes to the Procedure were to provide that all new joiners to Medway Council would be subject to a probationary period, irrespective of whether or not they have continuous local government service, that any appeals against a decision to terminate employment during the probationary period be heard by a senior manager, rather than a Member panel and newly qualified social workers will be subject to a 12 month probationary period in line with the assessed and supported year in employment scheme.

The report provided details of representations on the proposals from UNISON and GMB.

A Diversity Impact Assessment (DIA) had been carried out on the propsals as set out in Appendix F to the report.

Members discussed a number of issues including whether this procedure formed part of the collective agreement, whether greater clarity could be provided around the definition of senior managers, whether there could be an increase in appeals as a result of revisions to the procedure and the potential loss of goodwill with the trade unions in the light of the pay and grade review. A typographical error was highlighted in paragraph 5.5.1 of the procedure and clarification was sought as to what “normally” meant in paragraph 5.5.2 of the procedure. Members also asked how many staff typically were subject to the procedure.

The Employee Relations Manager responded that the procedure was not part of the collective agreement, that senior manager should be referred to as Assistant Directors or above from a separate service and more senior than the original officer hearing the appeal. She stated that greater support would be given to new entrants starting at Medway through the induction process and this would be monitored by HR, therefore, it was hoped that there would not be an increase in appeals. She also stated that with regard to paragraph 5.5.2 of the procedure that extensions may be granted if an employee, for example, had been ill during the probationary period and that whilst 3 months was the normal period for extensions, it could be longer in some circumstances. She stated that typically 3%-5% of new entrants may need support in reaching the necessary standards during the probationary period and that the mentoring scheme was still used as part of this process.

Decision:

a)     The Committee agreed to the implementation of the revised Probationary Procedure, as set out on Appendix A to the report subject to greater clarification being included within the procedure regarding the definition of senior managers and to ensure that any appeal is heard by a more senior manager to that of the original hearing.

b)     The Committee agreed the amended terms of reference for the Employment Matters Appeals Panel, as set out in paragraph 4.9 of the report, subject to Full Council approval of the amended terms of reference for the Employment Matters Committee, as also set out in paragraph 4.9 of the report.

c)      The Committee agreed that officers review the Probationary Procedure bi-annually and report to Committee when necessary with any changes.