HR company - council decision or clerks

Question

The council are considering employing a company to deal with HR and H+S. we have has three suitable quotes and the councillor are meeting with one company. However the clerk disagrees with the councils choice of company. One of the companies we decided not to go with has just contacted me saying he has spoken with the clerk and went on to basically challenge our decision.  ( this is the company the clerk preferred.) I asked why he spoke to the clerk rather than the councillors who had requested the quotations. His reply was the clerk is the head of health and safety and HR and should be the one consulted, not the councillors.
Is this correct?

Answer 1

Let's pick the bones out of this. The council decided to employ a company to deal with HR and H&S. I presume you mean advise on, rather than deal with. So did the council and clerk produce an agreed specification for the contract? This is an essential element of tendering for any contract, to ensure that all potential contractors are quoting on the same basis. Why are the councillors meeting with one company? If interview is the agreed method for the appointment, meet with all three companies. Was the council's choice of company made during a formal meeting? Are clear and legitimate reasons for the appointment recorded in the minutes of that meeting?

When one of the companies contacted you, you should have advised them that you have no authority to speak to them and then advised the chairman and clerk that you had been contacted. The contractor should have spoken to the clerk because the clerk should have issued the tendering documents on behalf of the council. Clarification is acceptable, but only via the clerk.

Finally, health & safety and HR are shared responsibilities, but the council should have policies and procedures to define how this works for you.

Comments

The council had three quotes to look at, this was at a full council meeting, the quotations were appendices to the agenda. Having considered all three the council decided we were best served by one company and it was agreed and minuted that we would meet with that company to ensure they are the correct company to employ. The whole reason we are trying to get things in order is because there is very little in way of documentation for anything.
I did advise the clerk that the company had contacted me today. The company contacted the clerk after a decision had been made at a full council meeting to speak with one of the other companies. My question now in light of your reply is, ‘ why do we bother having councillors’. In this instance the councillors decided to contact three companies regarding our requirements. The reason the councillors obtained the quotes is that the clerk is set against the council employing an outside body to advise on HR and H+S. The councillors are very aware that the council needs a complete overhaul and update to bring it into line with current practices outlined by NALC.  If we had left it to the clerk to obtain quotes we would still be here in a years time waiting for them. This has proved to be the case with some urgent work that needs doing and despite it being noted at meetings that 3 suitable quotes should be obtained to do the work, the clerk has still not obtained them. This is four months down the line despite reminders from council members about the need to obtain the quotes. By your comments you infer the council have acted out of order, however what choice have we when the clerk will not do the job.

---

Why do we bother having councillors? To make all of the decisions. Why do we bother having clerks? To act upon those decisions and all other legitimate instructions issued by the council.

If your clerk is not performing the role agreed by the council, the council must act, however difficult that may be. Does the clerk have a contract of employment including a job description for the role? Has the council adopted model grievance and disciplinary policies? If the answer to both of the above is yes, your staffing committee, if you have one, or a duly authorised small group of councillors (but not an individual), must meet with the clerk to explain the council's concerns and clarify the cause of the delays. There may be valid reasons that you will need to take on board as a responsible employer. Aim to set a reasonable list of targets for each of the key tasks and agree how these will be monitored. It is absolutely vital that you follow your own policies and procedures to the letter in addressing this situation, as that will be the subject of any employment tribunal.

If you haven't adopted the model documents, you don't need an HR consultant. They're available on the NALC website (members' section) so you can download them, fill in the blanks and approve them at your next meeting. A word of caution about the use of consultants. The world of local government is a mysterious place unlike anything you will find in the real world, so a consultant without significant local government experience might land you in a whole heap of bother.

---

As far as I can see there are no grievance and disciplinary policies in place, I have searched the website. We have recently adopted quite a few policies off the Nalc site. We do not have a staffing committee.
There is an ongoing situation that has been handled badly in the past.  If it was a straightforward situation your solution of adopting the model policies would work. This situation is complicated and we don’t want to be in the position of having to give pay offs as a previous council did to avoid a tribunal situation.
You have certainly given me food for thought re taking on a consultant firm but at this stage we need expert advice quickly and this did seem a way out without paying either for a tribunal or a pay off.

---

No council should ever go down the route of pay-offs to avoid a tribunal. I'm not sure it's legal to do so. You have an insurance policy that should include some degree of HR support. It's part of most standard packages. Talk to your insurers and explain the issue and seek their advice. If the situation has arisen due to poor management by the council, the insurance company may exercise its right to increase the premium to reflect the additional risks involved, but this would be marginal compared to the cost of paying off a clerk. If your council gets a reputation for paying off clerks, you're just encouraging future clerks to pursue this option.

Answer 2

I have been watching this topic unfold and, OK, you might have failed to follow the correct procedures/protocols but I think your council should be commended for at least a) wanting to get things right, and b) acknowledging that you lack the skills do so and therefore need a bit of outside help.
Regarding "the world of local government being a mysterious place".  I'm not quite sure what point is being made, but local government is in my experience no more or no less 'mysterious' than other organisations eg. private sector, charities etc. As with most things, there are good consultants and bad consultants.  The trick is identify which is which.

I hope it all works out for you.

Comments

In a small company of equivalent size to a local council, the boss would often have unregulated hiring and firing powers, including elements such as golden handshakes, severance packages, NDAs etc. Where this culture has crossed over into local government, it causes mayhem. A council just up the road from where you and I live paid a clerk who breached the terms of his employment £27k to go quietly, without taking any professional advice, simply because he threatened a tribunal. He'd only been with them for two years!

I've worked with dozens of charities of all sizes over more than thirty years and very few of them have any of the policies and procedures we expect from a well-run local council.