Issue - meetings

To consider a recommendation from Personnel Board in relation to the Council’s draft Pay Policy Statement for 2019.

RECOMMENDATION:  That Council approve the draft Pay Policy Statement for 2019.

The Council considered the Pay Policy Statement, set out at Agenda pages 29 to 40.

It was proposed by John Halsall and seconded by John Kaiser that the recommendation be agreed.

Rachel Burgess expressed concern that the Policy did not make reference to gender pay.  Whilst she understood that it was not a legal requirement to include this information, the Council had a gender pay gap of 14%, which was 7% higher than the local authority average, and 11% higher than Reading Borough Council.  The median gender pay was 26%.  The Council needed to proactively put measures in place to close the gap.

Andy Croy also emphasised that he felt that the Policy should reference the gender pay gap and asked that this information be included in future.

Pauline Jorgensen indicated that the Council’s senior officers were a good mix of both males and females.

John Halsall emphasised that a separate report on the Gender Pay Gap was considered by Personnel Board.

Upon being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED:  That the Pay Policy Statement for 2019 be approved.

To consider the Pay Policy Statement.

The Board considered the Pay Policy.

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

·         Under sections 38 to 43 of the Localism Act 2011 the Council was required to prepare, approve by Full Council (as a Part 1 item), and publish on its website a pay policy statement for the financial year 2019/2020.

·         Members were advised that while there had been a slight increase to Senior Management pay the gap was narrowing due to the higher increases at the bottom end of the pay-scales as a result of National Minimum Wage increases.  Councillor Helliar Symons asked whether any concerns had been raised about this and was informed that there had not.

·         Councillor Weeks noted that the Personnel Board appointed Directors.  He went on to ask where the creation of Assistant Director posts were agreed. Sarah Swindley indicated that it was the responsibility of the Chief Executive.  There were currently 17 Assistant Directors. 

·         In response to a question from Councillor Jones regarding the appointment of Assistant Directors Sarah Swindley indicated that the appointment of the Assistant Directors by the Personnel Board would require changes to the Constitution and would also be difficult to resource from HR point of view.  She indicated that if there was not sufficient budget for an Assistant Director post the relevant service area would have to request a supplementary estimate which would be considered by the Executive.

·         Councillor Jones asked how many Assistant Director posts had been in place prior to the 21^st Century initiative.  Sarah Swindley indicated that she would circulate this information outside of the meeting.

·         Councillor Jones asked what was meant by the ‘wider market’ in terms of benchmarking.  Sarah Swindley stated that Wokingham benchmarked salaries against other unitaries and some county councils in the South East using E-Paycheck.  The search could be widened if necessary.

·         Members asked how often increments had been withheld in the event of unsatisfactory performance and were informed that this had not happened and that this would only occur if it was a sanction as part of a formal capability.

·         It was at an individual manager’s discretion to raise a member of staff up more than one more increment at a time.  There had to be sufficient budget.  Sarah Swindley clarified that the budget manager was usually at Lead Specialist or Assistant Director level. 

·         The Council did not enhance the number of statutory week’s redundancy pay an individual was entitled to under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Any requests would be considered by the Personnel Board.

·         A Member questioned at what age was the earliest a member of staff could retire and was informed that it depended on their age and the length of service.  Currently if a member of staff was made redundant aged over 55, the Council was required to release non-actuarially pension.  At present there was legislation under consideration that would put a limit of £90,000 on exit payments.  Councillor Kaiser asked if an employee who was over 55  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8