Agenda and minutes

It was outlined that in the absence of both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman it was necessary to appoint a Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor Horner, seconded by Councillor Coates and agreed unanimously that Councillor Harrison be appointed Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

It was also noted that due to a possible conflicts of interest the advice to the Committee would be provided by Michelle Smith Organisation and Member Development Manager from Ribble Valley Borough Council.

Resolved:-

That Councillor Harrison be appointed Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

Minutes of the meeting held on 16^th November 2004 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 16^th November 2004 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record. 

Resolved:-

That in accordance with S100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that ot may involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Documents are being circulated under separate cover to Members or their substitutes who have indicated they will be attending.

Please pass your copy to your substitute if you are unable to attend.

Upon being appointed, the Chairman requested an adjournment of 15 minutes to allow him to be briefed on the procedure for dealing with these appeals.

(The Committee adjourned at 10.03 a.m.)

(The Committee reconvened at 10.18 a.m.)

The Chairman outlined that based on advice and due to the complexity of the issues in questions he had agreed that the most effective way for the Committee to deal with the issues before them was to consider the grievance appeal followed by the salary grading appeal.

The appellant requested permission to circulate a further document; the Chairman noted that there had been ample opportunity for both sides to submit information, but agreed that the information could be submitted. In order for Councillors and management to consider the information the meeting adjourned for 5 minutes

(The Committee adjourned at 10.25 a.m.)

(The Committee reconvened at 10.30 a.m.)

The appellant presented their case, and questions were invited. The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted the case on behalf of management, and questions were invited. The Corporate Director (Regeneration) made his concluding remarks and the appellant made their concluding remarks.

The Committee retired at 11.21 a.m. to consider the evidence, the Appellant and the Corporate Director (Regeneration) left the meeting.

The Committee reconvened at 12.05 p.m. the Appellant and the Corporate Director (Regeneration) rejoined the meeting.

Resolved:-

1) That as part of the review of Cultural Services the merger of one existing service with the majority part of a separate Service in March 2002, was imposed upon the post holder without consultation, and the Committee up hold the grievance in respect of this. The Committee recommend that consideration be given that in future, consultation should take place with all affected staff in advance of taking decisions on all major service restructures.

2) That after careful consideration the Committee find that there was no 'design' by management to suppress the regrading claim of the post holder and therefore this did not deny them full and fair consideration.

3) That the issue regarding salary grading be considered as part of the grading appeal.

The appellant presented their case, and questions were invited. The Chief Executive submitted the case on behalf of management, and called upon Vic Hewitt (Chief Executive Northwest Employers Organisation) and Councillor Paul Gardner (Chairman of Personnel Committee) as witnesses and questions were invited.

The Chief Executive made his concluding remarks and the appellant made their concluding remarks.

The Committee retired at 2.19 p.m. to consider the evidence, the Appellant and the Chief Executive left the meeting.

The Committee reconvened at 2.45 p.m. the Appellant and the Chief Executive rejoined the meeting.

Resolved:-

The Committee rejects the salary grading appeal and finds no evidence that the job evaluation methodology was unfair.   Furthermore the Committee recognises that there are only two grades for Service Heads FH1 and FH2.