Agenda item

3.1 Andreas Ghosh (Head of Human Resources) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·      The Council’s employee survey was conducted in 2015 by an independent company, and provided staff with an opportunity to anonymously say what they thought about working for Lewisham Council. This survey was conducted every three years

·      The survey asked staff for their perspectives on how they were managed and how budget reductions were managed as well as their suggestions for improvements.

·      Staff strongly identify with Lewisham as a place but identify less strongly with the organisation itself. 

·      Staff were asked what improvements could be made, and the work environment was mentioned most frequently. The two areas that were mentioned most often after the work environment, were better communication with staff, and more resources and a more manageable workload.

·      Staff tended to feel more engaged when they held more senior positions in the Council, when they felt they had been communicated with more, and when they felt good work they’d done had been acknowledged by their managers. Part-time staff tended to feel less engaged.

·      The Council’s Executive Management Team (EMT) had been informed of staff’s suggestions for improvement. 

3.2 Andreas Ghosh answered questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·      The Council did not have a dedicated team that was responsible for internal communications with staff. This function was done by the human resources section. For staff to feel that communications with them were improving, managers across the Council needed to lead this work.

·      The suggestions for improvements had been referred to relevant groups in the Council to progress. The comments around performance management had been referred to the Council’s Strategic Performance Improvement Group. The comments around communication and engagement had been referred to EMT for action. The comments around the work environment and technology had been referred to the two Council services responsible for those areas.

·      The response rates to the survey were lower than in other similar sized local authorities. There were less responses from staff that did not work in Laurence House.

·      The results of the survey had been shared with the trade unions, and they had been asked for suggestions for improvements.

·      The possibility of a link between what staff feel are poor tools and equipment, and poor performance by staff would be investigated.

·      Staff from a black or minority ethnic background feel that their skills are underutilised when compared to staff overall.

·      The Council was planning to reduce the numbers of temporary staff employed by the Council. Sometimes temporary staff were hired to enable reorganisations to take place, so this could create temporary spikes in the numbers of temporary staff employed.

·      There is a process in place for staff to raise any issues, such as not having a performance appraisal. Staff can initially raise concerns with their managers. They can then notify their union. If multiple staff highlight the same issue than unions can raise this at their regular liaison meetings. There is also a formal grievance process that staff can use that has been agreed with the trade unions. 

3.3 The Committee made a number of comments. The following key points were noted:

·      The Committee requested that all Councillors be copied in to emails that were sent to all members of staff.

·      The data in the report and presentation could have been presented in such a way that the Committee could have been able to see whether there had been improvements or deteriorations in staff’s responses compared to the survey done three years ago.

·      The Committee as concerned that only 51% of staff had had an annual review in the last 12 months.

·      The Committee was also concerned that the work environment had been mentioned most by staff as an area for improvement but that none of the actions listed in the presentation referred to this.

·      The Council should make extra effort to engage with staff that work outside of Laurence House, especially as these staff are likely to engage with members of the public frequently.

·      Many staff are also residents of the borough, and the Council should consider how to best make use of this when communicating with residents.

3.4 RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report, and that the following views of the Committee be referred to Mayor and Cabinet:

The Committee was interested in the results of the employee survey, but felt there wasn’t enough information about what actions would be taken as a result. The Committee wanted to see that the comments and suggestions by staff in the employee survey were acted on by the Council’s management.

The Committee therefore requested that a detailed action plan is produced that reflects the range of concerns expressed by staff and sets out in detail how these concerns would be addressed. The plan should indicate a timeline for completion of actions as well as definitions of what would constitute success in each instance.

The Committee was particularly concerned by the number of comments from staff that the working environment could be improved, the fact that only 51% of staff had had an appraisal or Performance Evaluation System (PES) meeting in the last year, and the need to improve communications from senior management with staff.