Agenda item

Context:

The Committee received the People Services Annual report 2017.

Member Scrutiny:

A Member commented that the intended audience of the report was not clear and asked who was the report was aimed at; staff, Elected Members, volunteers or the community.

In respect of Mental Health a Member asked about People Services have done to date and what future plans were in place to support staff. It was felt that the changes needed to be expedited as mental health needed to be made a priority.

The Committee unanimously felt that the term ‘physiological illness’ should not be used and would rather see the term ‘mental health/wellbeing’ in its place.

In regard to the EVOLVE programme, it was asked who this is aimed at as this was not made clear in the report.

A Member questioned staff turnover with the organisation losing 300 staff in 2016, but employing 370. It was asked how many were made redundant as opposed to finishing training to allow them to work elsewhere.

It was asked of agile working was a success and queried if staff felt pressured to work extra hours.

Members stressed the need for a leaver’s interview to understand the reason staff leave MCC.

A Member commented although People Services Officers had spoken of data collection and analysis, it was not visible in the report. In respect to interventions taking place, clarity was sought on the type invention and the subsequent results of intervention.

A Member raised the point that a member of staff who may be struggling with their mental health can only obtain help via their line manager which may not always be appropriate if the manager is the source of stress. People Services advised that staff can go to HR direct with a cost code. The Member pointed out that in requesting a cost code the line manager would become aware and the help sought would no longer be anonymous.  

Upon being told of an external counselling service the Chair asked if staff were aware of this service.

It was asked how much was staff absence was costing the authority.

A Member of the Committee advised that they had given the report to members of their ward for feedback. The feedback was not positive with comments including;

·         A lot of information presented in one way

·         Heavy going

·         A lot of clever language

·         no one is going to read it

·         Initially good, then went off

·         how much does it cost to produce this report?

·         How many man hours went into it?

·         How much does this report cost me as a tax payer?

It was asked if return to work interviews carried out in every instance of sickness and when advised no by officers, the Member stressed that this needed to be followed up as the impact of a member of staff being  off ill was great, not only on the individual, but on the team.

The Chair also raised concerns regarding mangers not recording sickness correctly as it goes not create a true reflection of issues within a department.

A Member was greatly concerned that People Services could only advise the committee that a manager should know how to treat and manage their staff and to be able recognise patterns of behaviour as outlined. It was asked how we are ensuring that every manager are aware of staff movements, behaviour and health. It was felt that ‘hoping’ was not ‘ensuring’ and the Member asked for reassurance that all managers would receive training so that there was continuity across the authority.

A Member commented that they felt that regular steps and regular checks are essential for managers to ensure every manger, not just being reactive when something goes wrong. This needs to be updated and in certain cases a manager with good practice could mentor a less able manager. In answer the Head of People Services said that they did not have the capacity to do that as there are only six HR officers.

In response, Members said that they appreciate the capacity of staff and managers and had no wish to increase workloads, but this is fundamental to what is being discussed and maybe there is a software package that could support managers.

In regard to College Gwent health MOTs, it was asked if a mental wellbeing assessment was part of the scheme and what percentage of staff were taking up the opportunity and how where staff were encouraged.

Members noted the low response to the staff survey and questioned what officers were doing to encourage participation.

Concerns were raised regarding the level of sickness, especially the cost to the Council. The fact that so few staff responded to the staff survey is a red flag and that perhaps staff did not answer it as they felt their opinions would not be valued.