Mr Howes
introduced the report and made the following points:
- On the 27 January 2020, the
Committee considered a report from the LGA on the application
and practicability of TDC’s current grievance policies;
- As a consequence of that report,
East Kent HR were asked to look at best practices for grievance
policies for statutory officers using the JNC for Chief Executive
Model;
- EKHR independently carried out that
piece of work and they checked how this model was implemented
elsewhere in other local authorities;
- The report was to inform the
committee on the content of the newly drafted grievance handling
procedures for cases that involves the Statutory Officers;
- The committee was not being asked to
approve the draft policy as HR matters including HR policies were
delegated to East Kent Services Committee, who then delegate some
those functions to East Kent Services staff;
- The Committee could comment on the
content in the draft policy;
- The next stage would be consultation
exercise with the statutory officers to be affected by this policy,
as this would involve a change to their terms and conditions of
employment;
- The necessary Grievance Committee
and Grievance Appeals Committee would have to be set up, in line
the new policy which would also mean making changes to the council
constitution;
- Members’ views were being
sought on those matters too.
Members responded through comments and
questions as follows:
- Why was this particular draft policy
being presented to the GPC and not the Constitutional Review
Working Party?
- Why was the Grievance Policy not
going to be considered by Full Council when the Disciplinary Policy
went to Full Council for approval?
- How would a grievance involving a
Monitoring Officer get to be handled by an external person from the
complainant?
- It was considered that when it came
to initial filtering of grievance cases, for the safety and
protection of the Monitoring Officer; the Monitoring Officer should
not have any part to play in the initial filtering of cases
involving other Statutory Officers;
- Whilst the disciplinary and
grievances processes were different, it should be noted that some
grievance cases might end up as disciplinary cases;
- In a grievance case if the
Monitoring Officer was involved then another suitable chief officer
should conduct the initial filtering process;
- The policy could be clearer, saying
that grievances involving the Monitoring Officer, should be
filtered by the CEx;
- What would happen in instances that
involved both the Monitoring Officer and CEx?
Mr Howes, Ms Homer
and Ms Ffion Pepper, HR Business
Partner (EKHR) responded as follows:
- The draft policy was being
considered by the GPC as a matter of courtesy. The Committee itself
requested a review of this particular policy;
- The constitutional change
requirements which would lead to the setting up of the Grievance
Committee and Grievance Appeals Committee would have to through the
usually constitutional review route that would include being
considered by the Constitutional Review Working Party;
- The disciplinary policy was a
statutory matter, which involved implementing legislation that did
not arise through a contractual change. It also required a change
to committees in terms of their new roles in that new statutory
framework. That was why the disciplinary policy went to Full
Council;
- In grievance cases that involved the
monitoring Officer, the CEx would
generally deal with the filtering of such cases;
- The draft proposals followed very
closely the JNC for Chief Executives model and the Monitoring
Officer acting in that independent role would be able to carry out
that filtering process. This was common practice in other local
authorities;
- Previously Members considered the
disciplinary procedures and not the grievance procedure. These were
completely different processes;
- The objective of having the policy
was to protect statutory officers and to provide clarity to council
on these how matters were dealt with. It was worth remembering that
statutory officers were professionals;
- The proposed set up was common
practice among a number of councils;
- Statutory officers had a duty to
respond objectively and appropriately to these matters;
- Not all cases would involve all
three statutory officers. Therefore the Statutory Officer would be
able to exercise an independent judgement on these matters;
- However should that not be case,
then there is an alternative process to follow;
- In instances that involve both the
Monitoring Officer and CEx, such
matters would be filtered by an appropriate Chief Officer and or
Monitoring Officer from a neighbouring local authority.
Thereafter Members noted the report.