Agenda item

Agenda item

Workforce Equality

Report of the Director of HROD

 

This report outlines the key workplace equality priorities that the Council has identified for specific action in 2018-19 and beyond in support of both the Council's corporate Equality Objectives and the Our People Strategy.

Minutes:

C agenda Can oen of you cover RGSThe Sub Group considered a report of the Director of HROD, which outlined the key workplace equality priorities that the Council had identified for specific action in 2018-19 and beyond in support of both the Council's corporate Equality Objectives and the Our People Strategy.

 

The Head of Workforce Strategy referred to the main points and themes within the report which included:-

 

·                The Council’s workforce representation priorities;

·                Achievement of an ‘Excellent’ re-accreditation against the Equality Framework for Local Government (EFLG) resulting in being one of a very select number of authorities to have retained the award in consecutive terms;

·                The outcomes from the Workforce Equality Review undertaken in early 2018;

·                The proposed response actions to the review which also aligned with the workforce outcomes of the EFLG reassessment process;

·                How the Council would  use its affiliation with the Disability Confident Employer framework to provide impetus to its disability-related activity;

·                A programme of work to address the underrepresentation of BAME employees across the workforce;

·                Apprenticeship opportunities;

·                A refresh of the information and guidance of equality related information available on the Council’s intranet which would provide an opportunity to undertake a gap analysis of areas where information or guidance needed refreshing, was not available or needed to be created; and

·                Gender Pay Gap Reporting

 

Some of the key points that arose from the Committees discussions were:-

 

·                Was any work being undertaken on or around social class as part of workforce equality;

·                Was there any plans to enact upon the comments made in the Council’s Workforce Equality review on how reflective or unbiased a recruitment panel could be if it lacked diversity;

·                Had the council undertaken any form of mapping exercise to identify where employees lived within Manchester communities and the posts they held, with specific reference to those who may live in low super output areas;

·                Did equality training differ dependent on the seniority of staff;

·                It was suggested that Officers should undertake a piece of work looking at class of origin and class of destination within the workforce;

·                How did the Council intend on ensuring that senior leadership opportunities existed for BAME and disabled staff;

·                Had there been any monitoring of the level of protected characteristics across the workforce and those that have accessed voluntary redundancy in the last eight years;

·                How did the Council promote its position as an equitable employer of choice;

·                An explanation was requested on what was meant by reverse mentoring;

·                What was being done to identify employees as disabled following return to work interviews in order for reasonable adjustments to be made;

·                What could be done to address the negative perceptions that the Councils recruitment process was not necessarily fair to all and that promotion opportunities were sometimes biased;

·                Did the Council collect data on those staff who had caring responsibilities;

·                Did the Council monitor satisfaction levels of its staff; and

·                It was suggested that more could be offered to by ways of flexible working/job sharing.

 

The Equalities Team Leader advised that the Council at present did not monitor social class as it wasn’t felt that this was an issue that needed to be monitored.  It was commented that consideration was being given to address the comments made on the make-up of recruitment panels in the workforce equality review.

 

The Head of Workforce Strategy advised that a mapping exercise of where staff lived could be undertaken.  The Deputy Leader commented that identifying someone’s class was a difficult construct and the Executive Member for Finance and Human Resources added that there would need to be some caution in trying to correlate the progression of staff and whether they lived in a low super output area.  There was also a need to ensure that any such exercise did not alienate staff who did not live within the city.

 

The Head of Workforce Strategy advised that the specific online equality training did not differentiate for staff, but there was additional specific training for managers who were on a Grade 10 or above.  He also advised that the Council’s Work and Skills Team had a number of scheme to help with entry to the work place for priority groups, which included a supported internship programme that had had a number of success stories to date, however, it was acknowledged that more proactive work was needed to improve progression opportunities for BAME and disabled people within the Council’s workforce.

 

In terms of monitoring of protected characteristics, it was explained that the Council did undertake this and it was commented by officers that although the Council’s work force had decreased by around 40%, the equality make up remained similar to 2010 levels.  The Head of Workforce Strategy also advised that the Council produced an annual data set on key workforce equality metrics but it was agreed that the Council should do more to demonstrate that it was an equitable employer.

 

In relation to reverse mentoring, it was explained that the idea behind this was that both parties acted in the capacity of a mentor as well as a mentee which would result in both participants gaining something from the process. 

 

The Head of Workforce Strategy explained that Return to Work (RTW) forms already asked whether an employee’s absence had been due to a disability and guidance was available to Managers as to how to manage staff appropriately that returned to work with a form of disability, although, it was suggested that there was work needed to improve the conversations between managers and staff during RTW meetings in order to build a better understanding of expectations on both parties.  The Director of HROD commented that there were toolkits available for Managers to enable them to support staff with protected characteristics.

 

The Group was advised that all Managers were required to undertake Recruitment and Selection training before they took part in form of recruitment and a s comprehensive suite of guidance, toolkits and support would be launched to help address the perceptions of a lack of transparency in the process.

 

The Director of HROD informed the Group that the Council did not collect statistical data on whether staff had caring responsibilities at the present moment, but the BHeard Survey did ask whether an employee had caring responsibilities.  The Executive Member for Finance and HR commented that the Council could approach Best Companies to ascertain whether it could provide satisfaction levels for the Council as a whole, as part of the survey findings, so not to risk identifying any individual member of staff.

 

Officers acknowledged that there was possibly more that could be offered to staff in terms of flexible working and a change in culture across the whole organisation to support new ways of working would be the catalyst for delivering this.

 

Decision

 

The Sub Group:-

 

(1)       Requests that Officers submit a report to the February 2019 meeting that looks at staffs’ social class of origin and destination from commencement with the Council to their final position of employment;

(2)       Requests that within the above report, the Sub Group be provided with a map that illustrates where employees live within Manchester communities and the posts they hold, with specific reference to those who may live in low super output areas;

(3)       Requests a report to a future meeting on the internal and external HR communications in relation to the promotion of the Council being an  equitable employer of choice; and

(4)          Requests that the Sub Group be provided with an update at an appropriate time on the levels of satisfaction across the Council as detailed within the BHeard Survey.

Supporting documents: