Issue - meetings

RECOMMENDED:     1)         That:

a)    An increase of £1925 or 5% (whichever is the greater) be applied to all salary points.

b)    A flat rate non-consolidated cost-of-living payment of £750pa (pro rata for part time employees) to be paid to all permanent employees and temporary staff (with a contract specifying a duration of 12 months or more) who were in post on 1^st April 2023.  This payment to be paid in 12 monthly instalments with effect from April 2023.

c)    The top points of all grades (not individual salaries) are increased by the maximum applicable percentage increase (10.38%) with effect from 1^st October 2023.  This will not have an immediate financial impact but will assist with future recruitment and retention. 

2)         That changes to annual leave and working hours are not implemented as part of the local Pay Award as any changes to terms and conditions that are negotiated nationally would continue to apply to our employees.

Reason for Decision

To implement an annual pay increase for employees that balances the requirement to make financial savings with the need to recruit and retain good quality employees.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

Cabinet received a report which reminded Members that the Council’s annual pay increase for all employees was locally determined, having regard to national pay and labour market information.  This paper recommended the pay increase for 2023/24 and outlined the budget implications. The report set out background information on inflation figures, public sector pay offers and pay settlements and the current positions with national negotiations.

The need to balance financial probity and transparency with the need to recruit staff so as to be able to deliver the financial objectives was stressed.  Attention was drawn to the difficulty recruiting staff to senior and professional jobs despite recruiting to higher in the grade and offering training, progress schemes, hybrid working and flexi scheme.

Comments from Unison were included in the paper.

Councillor Parish asked the following questions around the points raised at the Panel meeting:

·        Why did the proposal retain the same figures for all staff this year when the previous year higher paid staff received less.  Executive Director – D Gates responded that the reason was that the proposal equated to a 22% rise for lower paid staff compared to 9 % for higher paid staff.  Inflation over the 2 years from April 21 to April 23 totalled 17.7% (CPI) and 22.5% (RPI).  To propose less than 5% for all staff would be de motivating for staff given budget provision made.

·        Could a response be given on the comment raised about the increase to the top of all pay scales being a ‘ticking time bomb’.  The Executive Director explained that without the increase staff on the tops of grades did not receive an increase on pay and only a one off payment in line with the prp scheme.  It previously had meant that savings on budget provision had been made because staff were on the top of the grade and given no increase.  It was anticipated that potential increase in prp payments would equate to less than £20,000 pa which would be within budget provision.

·        Why was the proposal to increase the top of all pay grades not just those where there were recruitment difficulties.  It was explained that particular difficulties were experienced recruiting to grades PG9 and above. The lower grades would be increased by smaller amounts as the staff were getting a larger pay increase.  The proposals retained the differentials between grades.

·        Why was the £750 not only being paid to lower paid staff.  The Executive Director explained that it was being done to reflect the gap that all employees had experienced over the last 2 years in the cost of living verses pay awards.  It reflected a higher percentage for lower paid staff.

·        What would be the impact of only paying the £750 to those employees receiving the £1925 payment.  It was noted that the impact on staff morale would be as previously outlined and that staff immediately above any ‘cut off’ point would be less favourably  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26