Monitoring Report on Employment Issues 2006/2007
Race Relations (Amendment) Act:
Monitoring Report on Employment Issues: 2006/2007
- Introduction
- Employees
- Recruitment
- Promotion
- Training
- Performance Assessment
- Disciplinary Action
- Grievances
- Employees Leaving the authority
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- Appendices
1. Introduction
Amongst the duties introduced for public sector organisations by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act was the requirement to monitor specified aspects of their employment practices and to produce an annual monitoring report. Further equalities legislation now requires us to produce similar reports relating to gender and disability. Whilst there is as yet no legislative requirement to do so, as an expression of best practice and recognising the Council’s status as an Age Positive Champion, this report also includes data on age.
1.1 Range of monitoring required.
The legislation requires us to monitor:
- Our employees
- Applicants for jobs, promotion and training
In addition, as we have more than 150 employees we also have to monitor:
- Training received
- Benefit or disadvantage from performance assessment
- Grievances
- Disciplinary action
- Ending employment with the authority
For each requirement of the legislation this report analyses:
- The way in which the data is collected
- The results from the data, either as a snapshot at March 31st 2007 or during 2006/2007 as appropriate.
- The impact of the data analysis.
2. Employees
2.1 Data collection
The Council's Personnel/Payroll system, Trent, includes information on the ethnicity, age, disability status and gender of employees. With the exception of age the category in which the employee wishes to be shown under is collected along with other key information when an employee commences with the Council, and employees are asked to update the data on a regular basis.
2.2 Results
The situation at March 31st 2007 is shown in Appendix 1a for ethnicity, 1b for Gender, 1c for Age and 1d for disability.
This covers all permanent and temporary employees (NB this is not identical to the definition used for the relevant Best Value Performance Indicators as this only includes temporary employees with more than 12months service)
2.3 Analysis
Ethnicity
Efforts have continued to obtain ethnic origin data, using the current classification system adopted by the Council as part of the BVPI regime, on as many employees as possible. Indeed, 4 Service areas now have data on all their employees. The current situation, with data missing for 6.7% of the workforce as at 31/3/07, is a considerable improvement on the 14.3% twelve months ago. Paradoxically, this effort has been marked by a slight reduction, from 3.8% to 3.6%, in the proportion of the workforce from the BME communities.
Gender
75% of the Council’s workforce is female. The relevant Best Value Performance indicator for the % of senior (top 5%) employees who are female is not produced on the same basis (It excludes teachers) but was 47.17% at 31/3/07, an increase from the 44.4% of the year before.
Age
As Appendix 1C shows, the Council’s workforce is distinctly middle aged and some service areas will have a significant proportion of their workforce eligible to retire over the next decade. On the other hand, changes to Council policy and the impact of national changes to Pension arrangements have already brought about a situation in which considerable more employees than previously carry on working beyond their first possible retirement date and in some cases well beyond 65.
At the younger end, the Council continues to recruit modern apprentices. However the impact of Government targets on participation in further and higher education is likely to have moved the cohort of employees historically recruited at the age of 18 up to the age of 21.
Disability
3.5% of the Council’s workforce reported themselves as having a disability as at 31/3/07 but with considerable variations between service areas. As they form such a major part of the workforce the 1.9% figure in Schools has had the effect of offsetting higher levels in some service areas, and any future improvements will have to be lead by the Schools sector. This will be a challenge for the Council given the somewhat arms-length relationship it has with Schools.
3. Recruitment
3.1 Data Collection
The standard application form includes a section to collect equalities monitoring information from applicants. The recruitment administration system makes it possible to analyse the progress made by applicants.
3.2 Results
Details on employees recruited during 2006/2007 are shown in Appendix 2a for ethnicity, 2b for Gender, 2c for Age and 2d for disability.
3.3 Analysis
For all the groupings analysed, the key measure is the Equality ratio – this measures the percentage chance of obtaining a job. Ideally, this should be similar across categories for each area being analysed.
Ethnicity
The success rate for white applicants during 2006/2007 was 9.3% - this does not compare well with the 6.5% success rate for BME employees. Further detailed work is required to investigate this issue, which may be linked to differing volumes of applicants across occupational groups.
Gender
A similar situation is revealed by the analysis by gender, with an 8.3% success rate for Women and a 5.5% rate for men. As with ethnicity, more work is required, and we are aware of occupational segregation issues e.g. the proportion of men working in catering or cleaning roles.
Age
The data shows a steadily rising success rate for each successive age band up to the age of 50. The level then drops for the 50-55 and 55-60 cohorts, only to rise again, and the age group with markedly the highest success rate is in fact the 65+ group. We are not aware of any similar analyses being produced by other Councils so cannot carry out any comparative analysis, so it is purely speculative to suggest that managers appear to give weight to applicants with previous experience up to the age of 50 and then appear to change their views.
Disability
An initial analysis shows that the comparative success rate of applicants who classified themselves as having or not having a disability is relatively similar, with a slight bias in favour of the success rate of those who placed themselves in the disabled category. However, the data does show that only 0.45% of all applicants chose to classify themselves as having a disability, and it seems to be the case that, notwithstanding Council policy and the data in Appendix 2d, that prospective applicants take the view that their chances of success are impaired if they choose to classify themselves as having a disability. Interestingly this perception appears to change when they commence employment, as evidenced by the response rates from our regular employee surveys.
4. Promotion
There are clear issues with this measure, as from published reports different public authorities are adopting different definitions. It would appear that the Government definition relies on the specific way in which the Civil Service handles promotion, with employees coming forward to be selected as eligible for a higher graded job without applying for a specific vacancy. Other Councils carry out analyses based on application for regrade or split recruitment into internal and external. At least one Council advertises all vacancies externally and thus considers that none of its employees are “promoted” as such. Tameside used its previous HR/Payroll system to analyse the “appointment type” for each employee and could isolate and analyse all employees promoted to a higher grade. This is not possible with the newer Trent HR/Payroll system so an analysis of current employees applying for jobs has been carried out. The Commission for Equalities and Human Rights will be approached for further assistance with this definition.
4.1 Data Collection
The recruitment administration system referred to in Section 3.1 makes it possible to extract data on applications from existing Tameside employees – there is an implicit assumption that they perceive themselves as seeking promotion.
4.2 Results
Details on employees promoted during 2006/2007 are shown in Appendix 3a for ethnicity, 3b for Gender, 3c for Age and 3d for disability.
4.3 Analysis
Ethnicity
White employees do seem to have a better success rate than BME employees. Further work is required to ascertain any underlying reasons.
Gender
As with ethnicity, there is a gap between the success rates of the two genders. . Further work is required to ascertain any underlying reasons.
Age
The success rates when analysed by age look very similar to those for all recruitment, presumably for similar reasons.
Disability
There is a small difference between the success rate of disabled and non disabled employees, but that is not likely to be statistically significant.
5. Training
5.1 Data Collection
The data is obtained from evaluation forms completed by delegates and input to the Organisational and Employee Development course booking/training administration system. No data is available for employees participating in training events arranged at Service level.
5.2 Results
The data for training delivered during 2006/7 is in Appendix 4a for ethnicity, 4b for Gender, and 4c for disability: The data collection system operated in 2006/2007 does not include age data.
5.3 Analysis
Ethnicity
There is a small gap between the outcomes for white and BME employees that is not likely to be significant.
Gender
There is a small gap between the outcomes for male and female employees that is not likely to be significant.
Disability
There is a small gap between the outcomes for disabled and non disabled employees that is not likely to be significant.
6. Performance Assessment
The Council's Employee Development review scheme ensures that every employee has a one to one review with their manager on an annual basis. The review focuses on work targets from the previous year, targets for the current year, evaluation of any training received in the previous year and identifying training needs for the current year.
This assessment is not a forum for decisions on promotion/demotion or any pay issues, and as such falls outside the requirement to produce monitoring data.
7. Disciplinary Action
7.1 Data collection
The workload monitoring system within Human Resources gives us data on employees who have gone through the disciplinary process. HR data will not cover employees who have been given an oral warning. The ethnic grouping data is obtained from the employee's record on the Personnel Information system
7.2 Results
The data for 2006/2007 is in Appendix 5a for ethnicity, 5b for Gender, and 5c for disability: The data collection system operated in 2006/2007 does not include age data.
7.3 Analysis
The number of employees formally disciplined in the course of a year is low, so the data in Appendix 5 needs to be interpreted with some caution.
Ethnicity
There would appear to be a considerable difference between BME and White employees, but this needs looking at in the light of the note above. The disparity was not seen in the monitoring reports for previous years and is related to a specific incident that lead to a number of BME employees being disciplined.
Gender
As with ethnicity, there would appear to be a considerable difference between male and female employees, but this needs looking at in the light of the note above. No data is available for previous years.
Disability
As with gender, there would appear to be a considerable difference between non disabled and disabled employees, but this needs looking at in the light of the note above. No data is available for previous years.
8. Grievances
8.1 Data Collection
The workload monitoring system within Human Resources gives us data on employees who have gone through the grievance process. HR data will not cover employees who have been only reached the "informal" stage. Other employee data is obtained from the employee's record on the Personnel Information system.
8.2 Results
The data for 2006/2007 is in Appendix 6a for ethnicity, 6b for Gender, and 6c for disability: The data collection system operated in 2006/2007 does not include age data. The same cautionary comments as for discipline have to be made.
8.3 Analysis
Ethnicity
There is an apparent but small difference between white and BME employees. This disparity was not seen in the monitoring reports for previous years.
Gender
There is another apparent but small difference between genders regarding grievances. No data is available for previous years and the difference is not likely to be statistically significant.
Disability
There is another apparent but small difference between disabled and non disabled employees regarding the incidence of grievances. No data is available for previous years and the difference is not likely to be statistically significant.
9. Employees Leaving the authority
9.1 Data Collection
"Reason for leaving" data is held on the Trent, as supplied by the employee prior to leaving or by the Council if the change was caused by the Council’s own action e.g. dismissal.
9.2 Results
The data for 2006/2007 is in Appendix 7a for ethnicity, 7b for Gender, and 7c for age and 7c for disability.
9.3 Analysis
Ethnicity
The data in Appendix 7a shows a broadly similar pattern when analysed by ethnicity and reason for leaving. There are some variations in employees leaving due to the expiry of fixed term contracts which may be linked to BME employees being more likely to be in positions relying on external funding, and the variation in the percentage of employees retiring will reflect the age composition of the BME and white workforces.
Gender
Disparities in the number of men and women leaving for no recorded reason are a concern, as are the variation between the genders regarding expiry of fixed term contracts. This requires further investigation but may be linked to occupational segregation issues
Age
Some factors: normal, ill health and early retirement and death in service will clearly be inherently linked to age. The variation on the percentage of employees resigning for voluntary reasons presumably reflects changing desires to seek fresh opportunities with age.
Disability
As the absolute number of employees categorising themselves as being disabled is low, there is a need for some caution when analysing the results. However, the variations between the two groups for the “dismissed” and “ill health retirement” categories do give rise to some concern.
10. Conclusions
The 2003/2003 monitoring report was the first to be produced by the Council in response to the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act and at the time it was noted that Tameside was amongst the first public bodies to produce such a report. The Council took the decision to publish at an early stage as it gave the opportunity to review its monitoring arrangements. This report is the first to be produced to cover all employment equalities monitoring issues and has given a similar opportunity to review progress. In a number of areas the data produced gives rise to issues that will only be resolved by further deeper investigations, and there is a need to learn, in due course, from the reports produced by other councils.
11. Recommendations
11.1 Current Workforce: Employees classifying themselves as having a disability
That an action plan be developed
11.2 Recruitment: Gender/ethnicity success rates
That further detailed work is undertaken to investigate the varying success rates between male and female applicants and between BME and White applicants.
11.3 Promotion: definition
That The Commission for Equalities and Human Rights will be approached for further assistance with the interpretation of the definition.
11.4 Promotion Gender/ethnicity success rates
That further detailed work is undertaken to investigate the varying success rates between male and female applicants and between BME and White applicants for promotion.
11.5 Leavers: Gender
That further work is undertaken to investigate the different patterns of exit routes between men and women.
11.6 Training
That the training monitoring system is extended to record the age of employees trained.
11.7 Disciplinaries/Grievances
That the monitoring system is extended to record the age of employees.
Appendices
- Appendix 1a - Workforce by ethnicity 31/03/07
- Appendix 1b - Workforce by gender 31/03/07
- Appendix 1c - Workforce by age 31/03/07
- Appendix 1d - Workforce by disability 31/03/07
- Appendix 2a - Recruitment during 2006/7 by ethnicity
- Appendix 2b - Recruitment during 2006/7 by gender
- Appendix 2c - Recruitment during 2006/7 by age
- Appendix 2d - Recruitment during 2006/7 by disability
- Appendix 3a - Employees promoted during 2006/7 by ethnicity
- Appendix 3b - Employees promoted during 2006/7 by gender
- Appendix 3c - Employees promoted during 2006/7 by disability
- Appendix 3d - Employees promoted during 2006/7 by age
- Appendix 4a - Training delivered during 2006/7 by ethnicity
- Appendix 4b - Training delivered during 2006/7 by gender
- Appendix 4c - Training delivered during 2006/7 by disability
- Appendix 5a - Employees disciplined during 2006/7 by ethnicity
- Appendix 5b - Employees disciplined during 2006/7 by gender
- Appendix 5c - Employees disciplined during 2006/7 by disability
- Appendix 6a - Grievances: Cases Resolved in 2006/7 by ethnicity
- Appendix 6b - Grievances: Cases Resolved in 2006/7 by gender
- Appendix 6c - Grievances: Cases Resolved in 2006/7 by disability
- Appendix 7a - Leavers during 2006/7 by ethnicity
- Appendix 7b - Leavers during 2006/7 by gender
- Appendix 7c - Leavers during 2006/7 by disability
- Appendix 7d - Leavers during 2006/7 by age
Appendix 1a - Workforce by ethnic origin 31/03/07
| Service Area | BME% | White% | Unknown% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Borough Solicitor | 6.8 | 93.2 | 0.0 |
| Borough Treasurer | 7.7 | 92.3 | 0.0 |
| Economy & Environment | 2.4 | 88.5 | 9.1 |
| Executive Support | 2.8 | 97.2 | 0.0 |
| ICT & Transformational Services | 10.1 | 88.2 | 1.8 |
| Pensions | 5.0 | 94.2 | 0.8 |
| People and Performance | 0.0 | 99.0 | 1.0 |
| Policy and Performance | 2.8 | 97.2 | 0.0 |
| Schools | 2.8 | 88.6 | 8.6 |
| Service for Children and Young People | 4.4 | 90.6 | 5.0 |
| Sustainable Communities | 4.8 | 91.0 | 4.2 |
| Grand Total | 3.6 | 89.7 | 6.7 |
Appendix 1b - Workforce by gender 31/03/07
| Service Area | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|
| Borough Solicitor | 77.3 | 22.7 |
| Borough Treasurer | 59.0 | 41.0 |
| Economy & Environment | 39.6 | 60.4 |
| Executive Support | 57.5 | 42.5 |
| ICT & Transformational Services | 46.2 | 53.8 |
| Pensions | 64.2 | 35.8 |
| People and Performance | 74.0 | 26.0 |
| Policy and Performance | 66.7 | 33.3 |
| Schools | 84.3 | 15.7 |
| Service for Children and Young People | 86.6 | 13.4 |
| Sustainable Communities | 68.5 | 31.5 |
| Grand Total | 75.8 | 24.2 |
Appendix 1c - Workforce by age 31/03/07
| Service Area | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30-under 40 | 40-under 50 | 50-under 55 | 55-under 60 | 60-under 65 | 65-under 70 | Over 70 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borough Solicitor | 0.0 | 15.9 | 25.0 | 22.7 | 22.7 | 9.1 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 0.0 |
| Borough Treasurer | 0.0 | 28.2 | 10.3 | 28.2 | 2.6 | 23.1 | 7.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Economy & Environment | 2.6 | 11.5 | 17.2 | 30.2 | 15.8 | 13.6 | 7.3 | 1.2 | 0.6 |
| Executive Support | 11.3 | 11.3 | 24.5 | 25.5 | 14.2 | 11.3 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| ICT & Transformational Services | 2.4 | 16.6 | 24.3 | 27.8 | 17.2 | 8.3 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Pensions | 0.0 | 11.7 | 26.7 | 34.2 | 10.8 | 9.2 | 6.7 | 0.8 | 0.0 |
| People and Performance | 0.0 | 14.6 | 18.8 | 31.3 | 15.6 | 16.7 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Policy and Performance | 0.0 | 30.6 | 33.3 | 11.1 | 19.4 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Schools | 0.3 | 13.6 | 24.8 | 30.5 | 13.0 | 11.8 | 4.7 | 1.0 | 0.2 |
| Service for Children and Young People | 0.7 | 10.9 | 21.9 | 33.6 | 15.8 | 12.8 | 4.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
| Sustainable Communities | 0.4 | 11.9 | 20.8 | 32.0 | 16.5 | 12.2 | 5.8 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| Grand Total | 0.8 | 12.9 | 22.8 | 31.1 | 14.5 | 12.2 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 0.2 |
Appendix 1d - Workforce by disability 31/03/07
| Service Area | Disabled % |
|---|---|
| Borough Solicitor | 4.8 |
| Borough Treasurer | 5.7 |
| Economy & Environment | 4.1 |
| Executive Support | 6.3 |
| ICT & Transformational Services | 3.8 |
| Pensions | 4.4 |
| People and Performance | 12.5 |
| Policy and Performance | 0.0 |
| Schools | 1.9 |
| Service for Children and Young People | 3.6 |
| Sustainable Communities | 6.2 |
| Grand Total | 3.5 |
Appendix 2a - Recruitment during 2006/2007 by ethnic origin
| Status | BME% | White% | Unknown% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 49.5 | 47.4 | 56.4 |
| Shortlisted | 25.4 | 27.0 | 23.8 |
| Interviewed | 18.6 | 16.1 | 13.6 |
| Offered | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 6.5 | 9.3 | 6.1 |
Appendix 2b - Recruitment during 2006/2007 by gender
| Status | Female | Male |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 48.9 | 58.1 |
| Shortlisted | 26.4 | 22.9 |
| Interviewed | 16.3 | 13.4 |
| Offered | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 8.3 | 5.5 |
Appendix 2c - Recruitment during 2006/2007 by age
| Status | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30-under 40 | 40-under 50 | 50-under 55 | 55-under 60 | 60-under 65 | 65+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 53.8 | 56.1 | 51.3 | 47.8 | 43.9 | 50.7 | 50.0 | 28.6 |
| Shortlisted | 30.6 | 23.3 | 25.1 | 26.2 | 28.8 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 14.3 |
| Interviewed | 9.9 | 13.1 | 15.8 | 18.0 | 20.6 | 19.1 | 16.7 | 14.3 |
| Offered | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 5.7 | 7.5 | 7.6 | 8.0 | 6.7 | 4.8 | 8.3 | 42.9 |
Appendix 2d - Recruitment during 2006/2007 by disability
| Status | No disability % | Disability % |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 52.1 | 32.4 |
| Shortlisted | 25.2 | 29.4 |
| Interviewed | 15.2 | 29.4 |
| Offered | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 7.4 | 8.8 |
Appendix 3a - Employees promoted during 2006/2007 by ethnic origin
| Status | BME% | White% | Unknown% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 49.6 | 47.5 | 56.2 |
| Shortlisted | 25.1 | 26.9 | 23.6 |
| Interviewed | 18.6 | 16.2 | 13.6 |
| Offered | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 6.5 | 9.4 | 6.1 |
Appendix 3b - Employees promoted during 2006/2007 by gender
| Status | Female % | Male % |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 48.4 | 58.2 |
| Shortlisted | 26.6 | 22.7 |
| Interviewed | 16.4 | 13.4 |
| Offered | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 8.5 | 5.6 |
Appendix 3c - Employees promoted during 2006/2007 by disability
| Status | Not Disabled % | Disabled % |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 52.2 | 32.4 |
| Shortlisted | 25.0 | 29.4 |
| Interviewed | 15.3 | 29.4 |
| Offered | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 7.4 | 8.8 |
Appendix 3d - Employees promoted during 2006/2007 by age
| Status | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30-under 40 | 40-under 50 | 50-under 60 | 60-under 65 | 65+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 54.2 | 56.2 | 51.8 | 47.2 | 47.3 | 50.8 | 53.8 |
| Shortlisted | 33.7 | 23.2 | 24.9 | 26.7 | 26.4 | 28.8 | 7.7 |
| Interviewed | 6.9 | 13.2 | 15.3 | 18.1 | 19.9 | 15.3 | 7.7 |
| Offered | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed (i.e. success rate) | 5.2 | 7.3 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 6.3 | 5.1 | 30.8 |
Appendix 4a - Training delivered during 2006/2007 by ethnicity
| Ethnicity | Employees trained % | All Employees % |
|---|---|---|
| White | 94.0 | 96.3 |
| Black | 6.0 | 3.6 |
Appendix 4b - Training delivered during 2006/2007 by gender
| Gender | Employees trained % | All Employees % |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 22.0 | 24.2 |
| Female | 78.0 | 76.2 |
Appendix 4c - Training delivered during 2006/2007 by disability
| Disability | Employees trained % | All Employees % |
|---|---|---|
| No disability | 97.5 | 96.5 |
| Disability | 2.5 | 3.5 |
Appendix 5a - Disciplinaries during 2006/2007 by ethnic origin
| Ethnic origin | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| White | 0.86 |
| BME | 2.51 |
| Unknown | 0.17 |
Appendix 5b - Disciplinaries during 2006/2007 by gender
| Gender | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| Male | 2.21 |
| Female | 0.47 |
Appendix 5c - Disciplinaries during 2006/2007 by disability
| Disability | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| Disabled | 0.42 |
| Not disabled | 1.20 |
Appendix 6a - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2006/2007 by ethnic origin
| Disability | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| White | 0.34 |
| BME | 0.00 |
| Unknown | 0.00 |
Appendix 6b - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2006/2007 by gender
| Gender | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| Male | 0.55 |
| Female | 0.25 |
Appendix 6c - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2006/2007 by disability
| Disability | % of workforce |
|---|---|
| Male | 0.00 |
| Female | 0.44 |
Appendix 7a - Employees leaving the Council during 2006/2007 by ethnic origin
| Reason for leaving | White % | BME % | Unknown % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 1.6 | 1.9 | 0.0 |
| Deceased | 0.9 | 1.9 | 0.0 |
| Dismissed | 3.4 | 3.8 | 7.7 |
| Early Retirement | 8.8 | 0.0 | 11.5 |
| Expiry of Fixed term contract | 14.6 | 20.8 | 7.7 |
| Ill health Retirement | 1.8 | 1.9 | 3.8 |
| Normal Retirement | 4.8 | 0.0 | 3.8 |
| Unknown | 11.2 | 11.3 | 14.1 |
| Voluntary | 52.9 | 58.5 | 51.3 |
Appendix 7b - Employees leaving the Council during 2006/2007 by gender
| Reason for leaving | Female % | Male % |
|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 1.7 | 1.2 |
| Deceased | 0.7 | 1.6 |
| Dismissed | 2.6 | 7.5 |
| Early Retirement | 8.4 | 10.2 |
| Expiry of Fixed term contract | 13.2 | 20.1 |
| Ill health Retirement | 2.0 | 2.4 |
| Normal Retirement | 4.7 | 4.3 |
| Unknown | 13.4 | 7.1 |
| Voluntary | 53.4 | 45.6 |
Appendix 7c - Employees leaving the Council during 2006/2007 by disability
| Reason for leaving | No disability % | Disabled % |
|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 1.7 | 3.1 |
| Deceased | 0.9 | 0.0 |
| Dismissed | 1.4 | 12.5 |
| Early Retirement | 8.3 | 15.6 |
| Expiry of Fixed term contract | 14.4 | 9.4 |
| Ill health Retirement | 0.6 | 18.7 |
| Normal Retirement | 5.6 | 3.1 |
| Unknown | 10.9 | 6.3 |
| Voluntary | 56.3 | 31.3 |
Appendix 7d - Employees leaving the Council during 2006/2007 by age
| Reason for leaving | Under 20 | 20-under 30 | 30-under 40 | 40-under 50 | 50-under 55 | 55-under 60 | 60-under 65 | 65-under 70 | Over 70 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 7.6 | 0.8 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Deceased | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Dismissed | 3.8 | 1.8 | 3.4 | 4.0 | 10.1 | 6.1 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 40.0 |
| Early Retirement | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 15.7 | 5.1 | 42.4 | 25.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Expiry of fixed term contract | 57.7 | 18.9 | 13.7 | 1.5 | 10.1 | 11.4 | 4.6 | 14.3 | 0.0 |
| Ill health retirement | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 6.3 | 5.3 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Normal retirement | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 31.5 | 47.6 | 0.0 |
| Unknown | 11.5 | 13.7 | 16.2 | 1.5 | 10.1 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 14.3 | 0.0 |
| Voluntary | 26.9 | 64.3 | 66.2 | 72.2 | 49.4 | 25.8 | 25.0 | 23.8 | 60.0 |