Agenda item

Cabinet Portfolio: Corporate Services and Finance

Strategic Directorate: Assistant Chief Executive

Consideration was given to a report which detailed Gender Pay Gap information that the Council is statutorily obliged to publish. The gender pay gap shows the difference in the average pay between all men and women in a workforce. The smaller the value of the gap, the more equal the pay gap is between genders. If a workforce has a particularly high gender pay gap, this can indicate there may a number of issues to deal with, and the individual calculations may help to identify what those issues are.

It was reported that the median gender pay gap for the Council at the end of March 2019 was almost the same as the previous year, increasing from 13.3% to 13.4%.  The mean pay gap also increased from 9.9% to 10.6% after falling from 11.5% the previous year. Officers reported that analysis of the underlying data did not identify any specific cause that could explain the changes.

Whilst there was no legislative requirement to publish information on other protected characteristics, analysis for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) employees showed the Council had a negative 8.2% median pay gap and negative 4.3% mean pay gap. For disabled employees there was a negative 6.6% median and a negative 2.6% mean.  The negative pay gap indicated that both BME and disabled employees were paid more than non-BME/disabled employees.

As a large employer, the proportions of male and female employees in the different quartiles in terms of salary did fluctuate over the year.  Since 2013  significant reductions had occurred in both the median and the mean gender pay gap from around 20% down to current figures of around 10%.  Numbers of female staff in the top five percent of earners had increased to 65% over this period and half the strategic leadership team were female, which was positive in terms of representation in senior posts.  Initiatives were in place to bring the gender pay gap down, including regularly reviewing HR policies, particularly where they linked to recruitment, to ensure no unconscious or conscious barriers to recruiting females existed.  Attention was drawn to staff development work, the new apprenticeships and Rotherham leader programme.

Members asked about data tracking the career progression of part-time employees.  Officers confirmed that as part of the wider workforce data reported on data was available on the number of promotions and from tracking the outcomes of  internal and external recruitment adverts.  This data all fed into the reviews of HR policies and processes,  together with feedback from colleagues.  The employee opinion survey outcomes had recently discussed by Scrutiny and the survey was another means of getting feedback, in addition to focus groups on specific issues. Further data would be provided by officers.

There was a view that further progress would depend on breaking down gender stereotypes around job roles and on addressing the impact of career breaks for caring responsibilities that still impacted more on female staff members. As per the legislation, anything around carers responsibilities was open to females and males, with no assumptions made about who would assume those roles within a family, although it was often the female in the family that did, similarly with shared parental leave and paternity/maternity leave.  It would take a while for that cultural shift at societal level not just within the organisation but would feature as part of the wider reviews. The vast majority of staff were female and the lowest paid roles, such as catering and cleaning, were where more flexibility in contract type was available to individuals to work around other outside interests but until more males were in those types of role it would continue to be a struggle.

Members inquired about opportunities at senior management level and if for example job sharing would be feasible.  This would probably have to be looked at on a case by case basis, depending on the role, the grade and the expectations of the role. A number of team managers across the council, especially in social care roles, worked on a job share or part-time basis.  Less so higher up in the organisation but a number of service managers worked part time or used some of the other flexible working options available such as compressed hours, but not necessarily job share.

Assurance was sought that the pay structure and job evaluation scheme were fit for purpose and not open to challenge.  Officers confirmed the Council used the national scheme in terms of job evaluation, which was reviewed regularly and any changes made nationally would be adopted locally to reflect best practice.  HR were confident that it was a fair and  transparent system.

The Chair asked about breaking down barriers and encouraging black and minority ethnic employees to go for senior posts.  Although the Council was not obliged to report on this it had elected to do so as it was recognised as an important issue.  Data showed that minority ethnic staff were paid on average more than non-minority ethnic staff and that disabled staff were also paid on average more than non-disabled staff.  It was always an issue about representativeness of the borough and across the workforce, so this could be looked at through targeted recruitment, such as within specific communities, and how jobs were advertised to make sure people were aware of available opportunities.  Looking at processes and policies in terms of recruitment would ensure nothing was intrinsically built into the system that might cause disadvantage to people with a protected equality protected characteristic as part of the wider policy review.

In terms of specific directorates requiring more attention due to the composition of the workforce, in Regeneration and Environment the position was clear regarding roles and numbers of cooks and cleaners, with something to be done in terms of advertising jobs and attracting men into those types of role and conversely for front line staff in waste management and grounds maintenance.  Roles in Adult Care needed examination in terms of carers in lower paid roles where gender imbalance existed. 

The officers were thanked for their attendance.

Resolved: That the Council’s position and actions being taken to reduce the Gender Pay Gap be noted.