Report of the Head of Human Resources

The Committee received a report of the Head of Human Resources (Head of HR) which detailed the profile of Watford Borough Council’s workforce from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013.

Watford Borough Council was committed to equality and diversity across the full spectrum of its services and in its role as an employer. This commitment was articulated in its equality objective and associated action plan which identified key actions the Council would take to ensure equalities for its workforce and that it reflected the community it served.  Watford’s commitment went beyond its statutory obligations and reinforced its corporate priority to ensure equality and diversity was at the heart of everything it did.

Appendix 1 attached to the report detailed the profile of Watford Borough Council’s workforce from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013.

The Head of Human Resources introduced the report. She drew Members’ attention to Section 7  - Analysis by Ethnicity – which demonstrated that the total number of employees from a black or ethnic (BME) background for 2012/13 was 12.2% against a community population of 27.1%. This was the worst performing of the areas covered.

She went on to advise that  the issue of succession planning had been discussed at Leadership Team as the age profile of the Council could result in a significant number of staff electing to retire almost simultaneously. Officers were looking at how to attract younger people. The Council had a good record of maternity leave return and this indicated that the Council was a good employer for people with childcare responsibilities.

Officers were also looking at training as results showed that of the training days delivered only 34% were attended by female employees. This could have something to do with timings which may not be suitable for part time workers and those with child care responsibilities.

A poor response had been received in respect of gender re-assignment and sexual orientation; there tended to be a reluctance to provide this information. Comparisons had been made with other authorities and Watford’s return rate was fairly standard. The Head of HR advised that the Stonewall guidance had been published on the Intranet and circulars sent round to staff.

In terms of corporate targets, the Council was not hitting its target of 5% in respect of the percentage of top 10% of earners who declared a disability. This was mainly due to the small number of staff involved.

The Head of HR summarised the way forward outlined in the report including how to match the change in local demographics in respect of the BME working population. The  current recruitment freeze and cut back of staff did, however, make this quite difficult. She advised that an Employee Disability Forum was being set up facilitated by Human Resources and that further reports would also be put to Leadership Team on issues such as succession planning, apprenticeships and  graduate schemes. 

The Chair referred to the female training statistics and asked whether training could be arranged around different hours. The Head of HR responded that this was an issue she had discussed with the Organisational Development Manager although they did currently offer a broad range of training options and different ways to study. She added that they could possibly do more to advertise what was available.

In response to a further question from the Chair regarding the scope of the Employee Disability Forum, the Head of HR explained that whilst an officer from HR would facilitate the discussion, the idea was for them to lead and run the group themselves. Any employee who regarded themselves as having a disability could join the group and the Group would be required to report back to HR in accordance with the terms of the Disabilities Policy. In response to a question from Councillor Scudder, the Head of HR advised that people with mental health issues would also be included and that the group was not just limited to those whose disability fell with the legal definition under the Disabilities  Discrimination Act.

Councillor Scudder went on to speak about maternity leave and asked whether different options were open to people returning to work. The Head of HR responded that the Council had a very good record of maternity return and she was proud of the flexibility offered to those staff. Councillor Taylor asked about paternity leave and whether this was interchangeable with maternity leave. The Head of HR responded that it was but that this arrangement had not really been taken advantage of.

Councillor Taylor also asked what was being done to encourage uptake from the BME community bearing in mind the change in demographics. The Head of HR explained that the figure had always been low and that it had been the subject of discussion at leadership Team. Consideration had been given to specifically targeting particular groups but on balance it was felt that the issue was more about ensuring the adverts and job descriptions were written appropriately to ensure they were attractive to diverse populations and ensuring that the right policies and strategies were in place, rather than where jobs were advertised.

In response to a question from Councillor Hofman about the four remaining vacant posts, the Head of HR explained that they had not been satisfied with the calibre of the applicants so had decided to review the structure and roles. Feedback had indicated that the original job description had been too wide. 

With regard to advertising posts, this was usually done on the Council’s website. More expensive methods were only used if a post was particularly difficult to fill. The Council did not use agencies. The Chair suggested Monster.com. Other suggestions includedLinkedin, Twitter and Facebook and the Head of HR confirmed that HR were working with the Communications team to ensure that these forums were used to advertise vacancies. Councillor Scudder made the point that using social media might attract younger people. The Head of HR added that all jobs were also advertised at the Job Centre.

Councillor Connal asked when the Employees Disabilities Forum would be set up. The Head of HR advised that it had already started.

Councillor Taylor asked about partnership contractors (e.g. Veolia) and whether they were monitored in the same way as Council staff. The Head of HR advised that the Council did not monitor contracted out staff but that contractors still had to comply with the terms of the Equalities Act. Obviously the figures quoted in the report would change following the transfer of staff to Veolia and would be updated following a six month review.

The Chair made one final comment on the training days statistics and said it would be useful to know the actual number and percentage of staff who undertook training. He also added that it would be helpful to know how e-learning days were accounted for.  

RESOLVED –

that the Workforce Monitoring Report be noted.