Agenda item

As part of the rolling review of the Constitution, we need to consider whether the Employees Code of Conduct needs any amendments to keep it up to date.

RESOLVED:                                                   

That the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee. 

The Monitoring Officer presented the report and provided background information.  He advised that as part of the rolling review of the Constitution the Committee had to consider whether the Employees’ Code of Conduct needed any amendments to keep it up to date.  He explained that the Code itself was mandatory and prescribed in legislation. The Council had added explanatory text to expand and clarify the requirements under the Code.

The Monitoring Officer explained that Officers were employees of the Council and therefore in a contractual employment relationship with the Council. Unlike the Councillors’ Code, compliance with the Employees’ Code was maintained through the employment relationship by managers. Senior Officers and managers had been consulted on the efficacy of the Code and had suggested updating it to deal more cogently with issues such as expected behaviours towards colleagues and public statements relating to the Council, including on social media and use of IT.  The proposed changes to the Employees’ Code of Conduct were shown in Appendix 1 to the report.  The Committee was asked to consider recommending the proposed changes to Council for approval.

Councillor Andrew Parkhurst asked whether the Employees’ Code of Conduct included all officers up to and including the Chief Executive.  The Monitoring Officer explained that the Employees’ Code of Conduct included all relevant employees with the exclusion of fire-fighters and teachers within the Council.  In response to a further query from Councillor Parkhurst the Monitoring Officer explained that the Constitution was currently being updated and a revised edition would be available on the Council’s website soon. 

Gill Murgatroyd referred to page 58 of the report, paragraph 2.3, and suggested that the reference to ‘disciplinary action’ be changed to read ‘disciplinary proceedings’.   She also referred to page 63, paragraph 8.6, and sought clarification of the reference to ‘DOI system’.  She suggested that the wording ‘The Council created an online system’ be amended to read ‘The Council has an online system’.  The Monitoring Officer responded to the comments and agreed to the suggested changes.

Ian Papworth referred to page 68 of the report and asked whether the final sentence on paragraph 15.2: ‘This is not intended to preclude Trade Unions from pursuing their legitimate industrial relations activities’  should also be included in paragraph 15.4.  The Monitoring Officer agreed to the amendment.

Councillor Andrew Parkhurst expressed concerns around the wording in the second part of paragraph 15.2.  He suggested that the wording required amendment to ensure that it protected the Council against inappropriate comments but also allowed employees to voice legitimate concerns.   He also suggested that a comparison be made with the Code of Conduct used in other councils and organisations.  The Monitoring Officer responded to the comments and said a comparison could be undertaken with other councils and organisations and feedback provided to the next meeting of the Standards Committee on the matter of freedom of expression and criticism from employees.

Councillor Parkhurst referred to paragraph 2.8, page 58, and queried the use of the word ‘recent’.  The Monitoring Officer agreed to remove the word which was an anomaly.  Councillor Parkhurst also sought clarification on  Section 10 – Employees’ Outside Work (page 65 of the report).  The Monitoring Officer explained that Section 10 concerned employees who operated a business in their private life or had a second employment.  Councillor Parkhurst raised further questions around remuneration of employees who were directors of companies or organisations which had a contractual arrangement with Flintshire County Council.  The Monitoring Officer responded to the questions raised and provided examples of circumstances covered by the Code of Conduct.

Councillor Andrew Parkhurst moved that the item be deferred to the next  meeting of the Committee pending further consideration of the wording relating to  employees expression of comments which may be critical of the Council.  This was seconded by David Davies and when put to the vote was carried.

RESOLVED:                                                   

That the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.