In this week's Kilburn Times, Brent Green Party candidates for the forthcoming general election reiterate the Party's call for an independent inquiry into Brent Council, This would not only cover the human resources issues, including working conditions, but also the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive and the restructing of the senior managment team. We felt that an independent investigation was the only way to gain the confidemnce of staff and wanted to involve residents, associations, voluntary organisations, teneants; groups and trade unions.
Philip Grant in this Guest Blog gives his personal assessment of the more limited internal review being conducted by Michael Pavey:
--> Philip Grant in this Guest Blog gives his personal assessment of the more limited internal review being conducted by Michael Pavey:
Councillor Pavey’s Review of Brent’s HR and Equalities practices and procedures
Anyone who has been following the story of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case will be aware that when Brent Council announced on 26 September that they would be appealing against the judgement, they also said there would be a review. The Council said that its Deputy Leader, Cllr. Michael Pavey, would ‘take stock of our [Employment]policies and practice’, ‘to ensure that we learn lessons from this case’.
I did wonder at the time whether this was just a PR smokescreen, to draw attention away from Brent’s unfair and unreasonable decision to appeal. However, I have recently exchanged some emails with Cllr. Pavey which leave me a little more optimistic, and (with his permission) I would like to share some of the correspondence with you.
I did wonder at the time whether this was just a PR smokescreen, to draw attention away from Brent’s unfair and unreasonable decision to appeal. However, I have recently exchanged some emails with Cllr. Pavey which leave me a little more optimistic, and (with his permission) I would like to share some of the correspondence with you.
After I was prevented from speaking as a Deputation at the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 3 November, where I would have requested that the decision to appeal should be scrutinised, I wrote to Cllr. Pavey setting out the reasons and evidence showing why the Employment Tribunal appeal should be dropped. I suggested that his review could be used as a way for the appeal decision to be revoked, allowing the Council to “save face” in doing so. I was disappointed by his reply:
‘I understand your position but have to emphasise that the terms of reference for my review do not include considering the decision to appeal, or indeed considering any individual HR cases. The review is into the policies and practices of the Council. I will be leading the review in a considered and (constructively) challenging way, but we won't be going outside our terms of reference.’
At least Cllr. Pavey’s approach to his review seemed genuine, so I sent him an email with a link to a document:
‘… which I think that you, and those assisting with the process, should consider as part of your review. It is a guest blog which was posted on the "Wembley Matters" site in September, from an anonymous Brent employee who speaks up for some of the good things Cara Davani is said to have done for the Council, but concludes 'we now need to move forward with a different supportive, conciliatory and team-building culture' :http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/we-need-different-supportive.html
I believe that the reason this item, and a number of the comments on it (some almost certainly from other Council employees), were posted anonymously may well be a fear of "reprisals" from Brent's Director of HR, but I hope you and your team will not discount the relevant information which they provide for your review just because the people providing it have chosen to protect their identities.’
I also set out a concern which had struck me as soon as I heard about the review:
‘The other point I would make for your review is that even the best HR policies and practices are of little use if they are ignored by the officers who are supposed to follow them. Although your review will not be looking at individual cases, it is clear from the evidence in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal judgement that … [four named individuals] all failed to follow the Council's HR procedures. That is what lead to the judgement that Ms Clarke had been constructively dismissed. Senior Officers are meant to lead by example, and if they are allowed to ignore Brent's HR policies and practices, just because they have taken a personal dislike to a particular employee, or as a matter of course when it suits them, no recommendations that are made as a result of your review will bring about any change for the better.’
Unlike some other leading Councillors and Officers, Cllr. Pavey did not shy away from answering an email which contained some challenging points. His recent reply to me included the following comments, as well as sending me a copy of the Terms of Reference (“TOR”) for his review (see below)
‘On the terms of reference of my review, these were published on the Council intranet weeks ago and I’ve attached a copy. We didn’t do a press release as I’m keen for this to be a serious piece of work detached from any political grandstanding, but we wanted the TOR to be fully accessible to Council employees.
I agree with you that there is a risk that “fear of reprisals” will lead to a reticence on behalf of Officers to come forward. I have committed that there will be a system for Officers to make anonymous submissions. We’re still fine-tuning the details of this so it hasn’t been announced yet, but I am certainly cognisant of the fears you raise.
I also agree with your point about policies only being as good as their implementation. You will see that the TOR specifically refer to “practices” as well as “procedures.” ’
I hope that Brent Council employees will take the opportunity to honestly set out any genuine concerns and ideas for improvement which they have to Cllr. Pavey, even if they feel that they need to do so anonymously. With that input, and if Cllr. Pavey lives up to his comments to me, then his review of Brent’s HR and equalities practices and procedures will come up with some worthwhile recommendations, and learn some lessons from the Rosemarie Clarke case. Whether his Cabinet colleagues and Senior Officers will support him in making any proposed improvements a reality will remain to be seen, but I wish him the best of luck in his efforts.
-->
-->TERMS OF REFERENCE
REVIEW
In the light of the recent employment tribunal, Councillor Pavey will undertake an internal review of the Council's HR and equalities practice and procedures to secure improvement.
This will entail:
- surveying a comprehensive suite of policies to identify those which need detailed consideration
- reviewing those which need detailed consideration
- reviewing staff knowledge, understanding and practice
- reviewing progress towards the Gold standard in Investors in People
- reviewing progress towards the Excellence Standard in the Equality Framework for
Local Government
- ensuring that diversity underpins all aspects of the review, including BAME
involvement.
Methods will include:
- analysis and scrutiny of written reports and documentation
- discussion with staff
- discussion with Members
- advice from external experts
- use of staff focus groups
- best practice comparison with other local authorities. A report will be produced by the end of December 2014 with an emphasis on recommendations that will improve practice. An action plan for improvement will be produced by officers by the end of January, 2015. Councillor Pavey will be supported by dedicated resources which will provide high level administrative and analytical support.Note from Martin: I expect this article to get a number of comments. Your comment is more likely to be published if it sticks to the Guidelines you can see in the side panel.