Agenda item

To consider the Workforce Equalities Monitoring Report.

The Board considered the Workforce Equalities Monitoring Report.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       The Workforce Equalities Monitoring Report was presented annually to the Personnel Board. 

·       Information was requested as part of the recruitment process, but it was not mandatory that it was provided.  Nevertheless, data collection was improving.

·       Louise Livingston highlighted an action plan.  Dates would be added actions and there would be a 6 month review of performance against these actions.

·       Data was shared with staff networks and these networks were asked for other initiatives where further improvements could be made. 

·       Prue Bray asked what was being done to address the lack of data around disabilities. 

·       Prue Bray went on to ask about the spread of ethnicity and gender in the salary ranges.  She commented that there seemed to be more men in higher salary ranges but more female employees overall.  Prue Bray suggested further analysis of the gender pay gap and how this would be addressed.  Louise Livingston commented that the Council was looking at using the Disability Confident Scheme around recruitment, sharing the learning around that, and becoming a Disability Confident employer.  The Neuro Divergent Staff Network was assisting around training for staff and managers.  Members were informed that further analysis work was being undertaken around the gender pay gap, and also around ethnicity and pay.

·       Sally Halliwell indicated that there were some gaps in the data.  A lot of data had not yet been transferred on to the system.  Officers were looking at employees could share this information via forms and the information then inputted.  Work was being undertaken around encouraging more people to share their data.

·       In response to a question as to when a change was likely to be seen in data collection, Sally Halliwell commented that it was hoped this would be seen by the end of the financial year.  HR met with staff networks on a monthly basis and were improving relations with them.  The networks were helping to encourage staff to provide their data.

·       Stuart Munro felt that achievements needed to be highlighted early in the report.

·       Lindsay Ferris felt that the reports had improved over the years.

·       The Board discussed job evaluation by job families.  Louise Livingston confirmed that if you were doing the same or a similar type of work, you would be paid at a similar level for that work.  An equitable job evaluation system was important.

·       Rachel Bishop-Firth questioned whether all salaries quoted were full time equivalents and were informed that they were.

·       Prue Bray commented that it would be useful to receive information about the percentage of males and females in each pay band.  She also suggested that reference be made to those who identified as neither male or female.

·       Rachel Bishop-Firth questioned whether information regarding ethnicity was broken down further than White British and Ethnic Minority Groups, and was informed that this information was collected at recruitment stage, but the information presented was simplified for reporting purposes.

·       Rachel Bishop-Firth suggested that reference be made to the possible effects of age on some elements such as disability, and comparisons with the Borough.

·       In response to a question regarding the bands for pay, Sally Halliwell confirmed that those used were standard groupings, used to enable benchmarking.

·       Members questioned what more could be done to encourage employees to disclose their sexual orientation.  Sally Halliwell stated that there may be some long standing employees who may not have been asked to update their data for some time.  Pauline Jorgensen indicated that some companies asked employees for information on an annual basis.

·       Louise Livingston agreed to check that the correct terms regarding sexual orientation were being used.

·       Rachel Bishop Firth noted that there was a gap between the number of White British applicants and Ethnic Minority Group applicant being shortlisted for roles.  She questioned whether numbers were skewed by applicants applying outside of the UK who did not currently have the right to work in the UK.  Pauline Jorgensen felt that applicants should be asked if they had the right to work in the UK and if the answer was no, then that individual not be included in the figures.

·       Prue Bray commented that the Council was looking to recruit from abroad for some roles such as social workers.

·       In response to a question Louise Livingston confirmed that an e-learning module on unconscious bias had recently been introduced.

·       Lindsay Ferris felt that the information provided in relation to employees with disabilities was vague.  He wanted assurance that any legacy issues experienced had been addressed.

RESOLVED:  That the workforce equalities monitoring report be approved and published.