Pay It
Book It
Find It
Report It
Apply For It
Say It
Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011
Employment monitoring report 2010/2011
- Introduction
- Employees
- Recruitment
- Promotion
- Training
- Disciplinary Action
- Grievances
- Employees leaving the authority
- Performance Assessment
- Conclusions
- Recommendations 09/10
- Recommendations 10/11
- Appendices
1. Introduction
The Public Sector Duty under the Equality Act 2010 requires organisations to have due regard to the need to:
- Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation
- Advance equality of opportunity between different groups
- Foster good relations between different groups
The annual workforce data in relation to Race, Disability, Gender and Age is published in order to comply with the requirements contained within the specific duties of the general public sector equality duty, and in order to consider future equalities priorities for the organisation.
1.1 Range of monitoring required.
Best practice recommends that we monitor employees, promotion and training as well as applicants for jobs. In addition, as an organisation with more than 150 employees the authority is required to monitor:
- Training Received
- Grievances
- Disciplinary Action
- Ending Employment with the authority
- Any benefit or disadvantage from performance assessment.
For each of these areas this report analyses:
- The way in which data is collected
- The results from the data, either as a snapshot at March 31st 2011 or during 2010/2011, as appropriate.
- Analysis of the data by each equality theme.
Sections 9, 10 and 11 of this report detail conclusions, progress made from recommendations in previous reports and recommendations resulting from the analysis of the 2010/2011 data.
2. Employees
2.1 Data collection
The Council's employee information system, Trent, includes information on the ethnicity, age, disability status and gender of employees. Information for ethnicity, disability and gender is collected when an individual commences employment with the Council. Employees are then asked to update this information on a regular basis. For example, an employee survey of all non-schools staff was carried out in March 2006 and was repeated in March 2008.
2.2 Results
Data at March 31st 2010 is shown in Appendix 1a for ethnicity, 1b for gender, 1c for age and 1d for disability. This information covers all permanent and temporary employees.
2.3 Analysis
2.3.1 Ethnicity
Throughout 2010/11 efforts have continued to raise the proportion of staff with ethnic origin data available. The HR Support Team are provided with a monthly list of staff for whom no equality data exists, in order to focus their attention in addressing any gaps. Service areas have data on all of their employees, although at 31st March 2011 there was no ethnicity data available for 4.2% of the workforce.
2.3.2 Gender
At 31st March 2011, 78% of the Council’s workforce, including teachers, was female. The Council is aware that occupational segregation may have an impact on these figures. Work is continuing to take place to promote Apprenticeship’s to all young people through school promotion and a Borough wide Apprenticeship Fair. The Connexions Service in Tameside continues to provide information and support to young people as they make career choices. Such activity is aimed at tackling occupational segregation in the long-term.
2.3.3 Age
Data on the age profile of the workforce in Appendix 1c shows that there is a higher proportion of staff in the higher age bands. It is therefore likely that some service areas will have a significant proportion of their workforce eligible to retire over the next decade. This may be mitigated to some extent by changes to Council policy in line with the requirements of age equality legislation and the impact of national changes to Pension arrangements. These have resulted in considerably more employees working beyond their earliest available retirement date. The Council will ensure that where employee expectations of an ‘earlier’ retirement disappear, that the engagement and motivation of the workforce in this area is continuously addressed.
In order to increase the proportion of younger employees, the Council continues to recruit apprentices. The Council is a member of a recruitment consortium, ‘Your Council Jobs’, together with eleven other Councils in the area and as part of that initiative an element of its web site targets careers advisors and young people. Government legislation on the participation of young people under the age of 18 in training, further and higher education is likely to move the cohort of employees normally recruited at 16 and 18 up to the age of 21. The Council has refreshed it’s recruitment of apprentices in 2010/11 and is also leading an area wide initiative to recruit more apprentices across the public and private sectors.
2.3.4 Disability
2.5% of the Council’s workforce had declared that they are disabled under the definition of the Disability Discrimination Act at 31st March 2011, compared to 2.8% for the same period last year. There were however significant variations between different service areas with the 1.35% figure for schools offsetting higher levels in other service areas, due to the large number of staff in the schools sector. Increasing the proportion of staff who are disabled, within the schools workforce, continues to present a significant challenge, given the level of independence of the schools recruitment process. The Council continues to look for ways to encourage and support schools to improve performance in this area.
Further work will be required to help increase the confidence of people working for the Council to declare their disability status. The Council is currently a ‘two-tick’ Authority, a national accreditation from the Job Centre Plus that recognises employees with positive employment practices towards disabled people.
3. Recruitment
3.1 Data Collection
The job application form on the e-recruitment portal ‘Your Council Jobs’, includes a section to collect equalities monitoring information from applicants. The recruitment administration aspect of this system makes it possible to analyse the progress made by applicants.
3.2 Results
Details on recruitment activity during 2010/2011 are shown in Appendix 2a for ethnicity, 2b for Gender, 2c for Age and 2d for disability. During the year April 2010 to March 2011, a total of 1664 applicants were received. These are Council vacancies, excluding schools, who administer their own recruitment processes.
3.3 Analysis
3.3.1 Ethnicity
The data shows a spread of outcomes, with 85.6% of white applicants, 13.3% of BME and 1.1% of applicants not disclosing their ethnic origin, succeeding in being appointed through the Council’s recruitment processes.
Further analysis has shown that the percentage of the population in Tameside who are economically active and who declare their ethnicity to be from a BME background in the last census, taken in 2001, was 6.1%. The success rate to Council vacancies from the BME community is 13.3%, which is higher than the proportion of this group in the communities population.
In addition the proportion of applicants who have chosen not to disclose their ethnic origin has reduced considerably from 67% in 2009/10 compared to 1.1% in 2010/11. This outcome has coincided with a period when the proportion of applicants applying online continues to grow and where measures have been introduced via the introduction of an online recruitment system to limit the possibility of applicants failing to disclose their ethnicity.
3.3.2 Gender
The comparative success rates for female and male applicants are significantly different, at 73.3% and 26.7% respectively. This may be due in part to the culture of local government with its progressive employment policies around flexible working and a profile of roles that are clearly attractive to female candidates. In addition it is likely that fair and transparent recruitment and selection practices enable applicants to succeed on merit which works to breakdown selection to roles where traditional gender segregation was prevalent.
3.3.3 Age
The success rates by age show a broadly similar pattern to 2009/2010, with the highest success rate of 41.1% being achieved in the 20 to 30 age band. A broadly similar success rate of 24.4% and 26.7% exists in the 30 to 40 and 40 to 50 age bands respectively and then tapers off. With the launch of the Tameside Apprentice Programme in 2011/2012 and the commitment to recruit and support apprentices this pattern is likely to change in the future.
3.3.4 Disability
The data shows that 6.2% of applicants declared that they had a disability on their monitoring form which is an improvement on the previous two years where no applicants had declared themselves disabled on the application monitoring form. 5.6% of successful applicants declared themselves as disabled, 93.3% non disabled and 1.1% chose not disclose this on the monitoring form. The Council continues to be accredited by Job Centre Plus to display the two tick symbol and states that it will guarantee an interview to applicants with a disability who meet the essential criteria for a job.
4. Promotion
There have been ongoing issues nationally with identifying the definition of promotion with different public authorities adopting different definitions. For 2010/11, Tameside Council has analysed current employees applying for jobs and examined success rates for, ethnic origin, gender and disability.
4.1 Data Collection
Data is available from the Recruitment monitoring system, which is able to identify applications from current employees.
4.2 Results
Details on employees promoted during 2010/11 are shown in Appendix 2a for ethnicity, 2b for gender, 2c for disability and 2d for age.
4.3 Analysis
4.3.1 Ethnicity
Analysis of the promotion data reveals that the success rates for BME applicants is 3% and 94% for white applicants, with 3% choosing not to disclose their ethnic origin. Whilst it would appear on first inspection that white employees achieve a higher success rate through promotion compared to their BME colleagues, statistically the pool of BME employees in the workforce is proportionally smaller i.e. 4% of the total workforce.
4.3.2 Gender
The success rates for the promotion of female employees is 73% in 2010/11, compared to 27% for male employees, demonstrating that female employees continue to do well in promotional terms. This presents some evidence that female candidates out perform male candidates throughout the recruitment and selection process, which if continued, will further erode traditional perceptions of gender segregation.
4.3.3 Age
The analysis of promotion data reveals that employees aged between 30 and 40 (26%), and 40 – 50 (33%) continue to do well in securing promotion and this is representative of the workforce distribution within these age bands. Reduced success rates within the under 20 age band (0.38%) and 20 to under 30 (21.98%) could indicate employees developing in their career.
4.3.4 Disability
The data for promotion demonstrates that success rates for disabled applicants is 1.13% and 98.87% for non disabled applicants. Whilst it would appear on first inspection that non disabled employees achieve a higher success rate through promotion compared to their disabled colleagues, however statistically the pool of disabled employees in the workforce is proportionally smaller i.e. 2.5% of the total workforce.
5. Training
5.1 Data Collection
Monitoring data for those attending training is obtained from the Organisational Development Team who analyse data from complete feedback forms from course participants. The data covers courses run across Council service areas.
5.2 Results
Data for training delivered during 2010/11 is available at Appendix 3a for ethnicity, 3b for Gender, 3c for age and 3d for disability.
5.3 Analysis
5.3.1 Ethnicity
The data shows that the proportion of people attending training from a BME background is slightly higher than the proportion of BME staff in the workforce as a whole (5.3%, compared to 4.04%). This difference is not likely to be statistically significant because of the small number of people involved.
5.3.2 Gender
The data shows a slightly higher proportion of male employees (24%) attending training than the numbers of males in the workforce as a whole (21.95). The proportion of female’s attending training is 76% as opposed to 78.05% in the workforce. This difference is relatively small, given the number of employees trained as a proportion of the workforce and therefore is unlikely to be statistically significant.
5.3.3 Age
There is a tendency for those in the age brackets 40 through to under 60 to be higher attendees of training. This could link to the training activities undertaken and should be addressed with the focus on promoting young talent in the 2011/12 Organisational Development Plan.
5.3.4 Disability
The data shows that a higher number of disabled employees are accessing training 3.9%, in 2010/11, compared to the proportion of disabled staff in the overall workforce 2.5%.
6. Disciplinary Action
6.1 Data collection
Data on employees who have gone through the formal disciplinary process is monitored within the operational Human Resources workload monitoring system. This system gives data on cases that have been through the formal disciplinary system and as a result information is not available on employees whose disciplinary issues have been dealt with informally through the procedure.
6.2 Results
2010/11 data is available at Appendix 4a for ethnicity, 4b for gender, 4c for age and 4d for disability.
6.3 Analysis
The number of employees going through the formal disciplinary procedure during the course of a single year is relatively small and as a result analysis by equality groups is not statistically robust. It can be used however to identify areas upon which to focus future work.
6.3.1 Ethnicity
The 2010/11 data demonstrates that of the percentage of those who were subject to formal disciplinary action 89% were white and 8% were from a BME background. This shows that the number of people subject to disciplinary action from a BME background is higher than the BME profile of the workforce (4.04), however as stated before the numbers involved are relatively small so this is not statistically significant.
6.3.2 Gender
The 2010/2011 data demonstrates that of the percentage of those who were subject to formal disciplinary action 55% were male and 45% female, although this is not broadly representative of the gender profile of the workforce the figures involved in disciplinary data are low so this is not statistically robust.
6.3.3 Age
The 2010/11 data demonstrates that of the percentage of those who were subject to formal disciplinary action, the spread across the age bands was relatively uniformed and is broadly representative of the age profile of the workforce.
6.3.4 Disability
The 2010/11 data demonstrates that of the percentage of those who were subject to formal disciplinary action, 65% indicated that they did not consider themselves to be disabled, 5% did and 33% chose not to, or failed to disclose their disability status.
7. Grievances
7.1 Data Collection
Data on employees who have submitted a grievance through the formal grievance process is recorded through the operational Human Resources workload monitoring system. The data does not cover employees whose grievances are dealt with informally.
7.2 Results
Data for 2010/11 is available at Appendix 5a for ethnicity, 5b for gender, 5c for age and 5d for disability. The numbers of employees during the course of a single year who have cause to have recourse to the formal grievance procedure are relatively small and as a result analysis by equality groups is not statistically robust. It can be used however to identify areas upon which to focus future work.
7.3 Analysis
7.3.1 Ethnicity
The 2010/11 data demonstrates that of the percentage of those who had cause to have recourse to the formal grievance procedure, 86% were white and 11% were from a BME background and 3% were unknown, which is broadly representative of the ethnicity profile of the workforce.
7.3.2 Gender
The 2010/11 data demonstrates that of the percentage of those who had cause to have recourse to the formal grievance procedure, 62% were women and 38% were men, which is broadly representative of the gender profile of the workforce.
7.3.3 Age
The 2010/11 data demonstrates that of the percentage of those who had cause to have recourse to the formal grievance procedure, is broadly representative of the age profile of the workforce.
7.3.4 Disability
The 2010/11 data demonstrates that of the percentage of those who had cause to have recourse to the formal grievance procedure, 54% considered themselves not to be disabled, whilst 11% were disabled and 35% chose not to, or failed to disclose their disability status.
8. Employees leaving the authority
8.1 Data Collection
The TRENT system contains data on employees’ reasons for leaving that are supplied by employees prior to leaving the Council. Where changes are caused by the authorities actions, for instance in the case of dismissal, the Council provides information concerning the employees reason for leaving.
8.2 Results
2010/11 data on employees’ reason for leaving the authority is available at Appendix 7a for ethnicity, 7b for gender, 7c for disability and 7d for age.
8.3 Analysis
8.3.1 Ethnicity
The data in Appendix 7a shows a broadly similar pattern when analysed by ethnicity and reason for leaving, broadly reflecting the proportion of that group within the workforce. The reason for leaving the Council that had the highest proportion of BME employees in 2010/11 was dismissed, 8.8%, although this was not significantly high with compromise agreement 7.14%, voluntary resignation 6.93%, expiry of fixed term contract 6.38% and unknown being at a similar level.
8.3.2 Gender
The data in Appendix 7b shows a broadly similar pattern when analysed by gender and reason for leaving, broadly reflecting the proportion of that group within the workforce. The highest single reason for leaving the Council in 2010/11 was voluntary resignation for women at 78.8%
8.3.3 Disability
Due to the relatively low number of disabled people who are employed by the authority, any differences between reasons for leaving the authority are unlikely to be statistically significant. Where this is the case further information will be examined to determine the reasons for any differences.
The highest two reasons for leaving the Council in 2010/11 for disabled employees, as a proportion of none disabled colleagues, was early retirement at 8.88% and normal retirement at 6.98%.
8.3.4 Age
There was uniformity across the age bands in terms of reason for leaving, none of which appeared to have a disproportionate impact on any particular age band. Voluntary resignation featured consistently across all of the age bands and it is likely that this reflects the desire of employees to continue to develop and seek fresh employment opportunities. Some reasons such as normal, ill health and early retirements are linked either directly or indirectly to age.
9. Performance Assessment
Tameside Council has in place a comprehensive Employee Development Review process. This ensures that every employee has a one-to-one review with their manager on an annual basis at a minimum. The review gives an assessment based around core competencies for different job roles. The process focuses on work targets from the previous year, targets for the current year, evaluation of training received in the previous year and future training needs. The assessment focuses purely on performance within the job role and does not influence decisions on promotion or pay issues. It therefore does not require inclusion within this report.
10. Conclusions
The annual workforce monitoring report has been produced by the Council in response to the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, since 2002/03 and now reflects all of the equality duties. The report covers a wide range of employment equalities monitoring issues and provides an opportunity to review progress against a cross-section of these. The 2010/2011 report builds on previous work and gives a further opportunity to monitor trends over time.
11. Recommendations from 2009/2010 report
A number of detailed recommendations were made in the 2009/2010 monitoring report. Progress against those recommendations is outlined below.
11.1 Employees
- Work has continued to further reduce the number of employees for whom no ethnicity data is held.
- Partnership working has been ongoing through the Connexions Service in Tameside in order to provide information and support to young people as they make career choices. Such activity is aimed at tackling occupational segregation in the long-term.
- The Council continues to work closely with the schools sector to increase the proportion of disabled employees applying for jobs and declaring their disability.
- Work to increase the confidence of people working for the Council to declare their disability status has continued.
11.2 Recruitment
- Work has continued to increase the confidence of disabled people to apply for jobs with the authority and to declare their disability at the application stage.
- Continued participation at the Tameside Jobs Fair event and through ongoing participation in the Local Employment Partnership Agreement with Job Centre Plus, to raise the profile of employment with the Council amongst resident of the borough, who are both long term unemployed and have long term health conditions which might affect their employability.
12. Recommendations from 2010/11 report
A number of detailed recommendations arising from the 2010/2011 monitoring report are outlined below:
12.1 Employees
- Continue to further reduce the number of employees for whom no ethnicity data is held.
- Work to increase the confidence of people working for the Council to declare their disability status.
- Work to encourage young people within the workforce to take up training and development opportunities through the 2011/12 Organisational Development Plan.
Appendices
- Appendix 1a - Workforce by ethnic origin 31/03/11
- Appendix 1b - Workforce by gender 31/03/11
- Appendix 1c - Workforce by age 31/03/11
- Appendix 1d - Workforce by disability 31/03/11
- Appendix 2a - Recruitment during 2010/11 by ethnicity
- Appendix 2b - Recruitment during 2010/11 by gender
- Appendix 2c - Recruitment during 2010/11 by age
- Appendix 2d - Recruitment during 2010/11 by disability
- Appendix 3a - Employees promoted during 2010/11 by ethnicity
- Appendix 3b - Employees promoted during 2010/11 by gender
- Appendix 3c - Employees promoted during 2010/11 by disability
- Appendix 3d - Employees promoted during 2010/11 by age
- Appendix 4a - Training delivered during 2010/11 by ethnicity
- Appendix 4b - Training delivered during 2010/11 by gender
- Appendix 4c - Training delivered during 2010/11 by age
- Appendix 4d - Training delivered during 2010/11 by disability
- Appendix 5a - Employees disciplined during 2010/11 by ethnicity
- Appendix 5b - Employees disciplined during 2010/11 by gender
- Appendix 5c - Employees disciplined during 2010/11 by age
- Appendix 5d - Employees disciplined during 2010/11 by disability
- Appendix 6a - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2010/11 by ethnicity
- Appendix 6b - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2010/11 by gender
- Appendix 6c - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2010/11 by age
- Appendix 6d - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2010/11 by disability
- Appendix 7a - Leavers during 2010/11 by ethnicity
- Appendix 7b - Leavers during 2010/11 by gender
- Appendix 7c - Leavers during 2010/11 by disability
- Appendix 7d - Leavers during 2010/11 by age
Appendix 1a - Workforce by ethnic origin 31/03/11
| Directorate | White % | BME % | Unknown % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Borough Treasurer | 94.79 | 4.66 | 0.55 |
| Chief Executive | 100.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Community Services | 91.12 | 6.68 | 2.20 |
| Economy And Environment | 92.00 | 2.45 | 5.55 |
| Executive Support | 97.20 | 1.40 | 1.40 |
| Governance | 91.30 | 8.70 | 0.00 |
| Pensions | 95.38 | 3.85 | 0.77 |
| Schools | 91.57 | 3.14 | 3.46 |
| Services For Children & Young People | 90.59 | 5.95 | 3.75 |
| Authority | 91.69 | 4.04 | 4.27 |
Appendix 1b - Workforce by gender 31/03/11
| Directorate | Female % | Male % |
|---|---|---|
| Borough Treasurer | 64.11 | 35.89 |
| Chief Executive | 50.0 | 50.0 |
| Community Services | 78.72 | 21.28 |
| Economy And Environment | 33.19 | 66.81 |
| Executive Support | 75.52 | 24.48 |
| Governance | 72.46 | 27.54 |
| Pensions | 62.31 | 37.69 |
| Schools | 86.75 | 13.25 |
| Services For Children & Young People | 84.64 | 15.36 |
| Authority | 78.05 | 21.95 |
Appendix 1c - Workforce by age 31/03/11
| Directorate | Under 20 % |
20 - Under 30 % |
30 - Under 40 % |
40 - Under 50 % |
50 - Under 60 % |
60 - Under 65 % |
65 and over % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borough Treasurer | 1.64 | 22.47 | 28.22 | 28.49 | 16.99 | 2.19 | 0.00 |
| Chief Executive | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Community Services | 0.35 | 8.71 | 17.41 | 33.51 | 33.60 | 5.80 | 0.62 |
| Economy And Environment | 1.17 | 11.63 | 14.30 | 32.44 | 31.70 | 7.04 | 1.71 |
| Executive Support | 0.70 | 16.08 | 27.27 | 30.07 | 18.88 | 6.29 | 0.70 |
| Governance | 0.00 | 10.14 | 20.29 | 36.23 | 30.43 | 2.90 | 0.00 |
| Pensions | 0.00 | 10.00 | 22.31 | 31.54 | 28.46 | 6.92 | 0.77 |
| Schools | 0.37 | 11.96 | 25.10 | 32.39 | 23.42 | 5.61 | 1.16 |
| Services For Children & Young People | 0.38 | 12.20 | 21.08 | 31.17 | 28.61 | 5.80 | 0.75 |
| Authority | 0.50 | 12.00 | 22.42 | 32.18 | 26.21 | 5.68 | 1.02 |
Appendix 1d - Workforce by disability 31/03/11
| Directorate | Disabled % | Not Disabled % | Unknown/Undisclosed % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Borough Treasurer | 3.84 | 83.84 | 12.33 |
| Chief Executive | 0.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 |
| Community Services | 5.45 | 67.45 | 27.09 |
| Economy And Environment | 2.77 | 68.09 | 29.14 |
| Executive Support | 4.90 | 80.42 | 14.69 |
| Governance | 1.45 | 85.51 | 13.04 |
| Pensions | 3.85 | 89.23 | 6.92 |
| Schools | 1.35 | 69.68 | 28.97 |
| Services For Children & Young People | 3.09 | 73.49 | 23.42 |
| Authority | 2.50 | 70.97 | 26.53 |
Appendix 2a - Recruitment during 2010/2011 by ethnic origin
| Status | White % | BME % | Unknown % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 78.5 | 20.7 | 0.8 |
| Shortlisted | 83.2 | 14.8 | 2.0 |
| Interviewed | 84 | 14.1 | 1.9 |
| Appointed | 85.6 | 13.3 | 1.1 |
Appendix 2b - Recruitment during 2010/2011 by gender
| Status | Female % | Male % |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 73.6 | 26.4 |
| Shortlisted | 74.0 | 26.0 |
| Interviewed | 74.8 | 25.2 |
| Appointed | 73.3 | 26.7 |
Appendix 2c - Recruitment during 2010/2011 by age
| Status | Under 20 % |
20 - under 30 % |
30- under 40 % |
40 - under 50 % |
50 - under 60 % |
60 - under 65 % |
65+ % |
Unknown % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 2.6 | 38.9 | 27.5 | 21.7 | 7.8 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| Shortlisted | 0.3 | 37.8 | 27.3 | 25.0 | 8.6 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Interviewed | 0.4 | 38.2 | 26.3 | 24.8 | 9.2 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Appointed | 1.1 | 41.1 | 24.4 | 26.7 | 5.6 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Appendix 2d - Recruitment during 2010/2011 by disability
| Status | No Disability % | Disability % | Unknown % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applied | 93.7 | 6.2 | 0.1 |
| Shortlisted | 94.1 | 5.3 | 0.7 |
| Interviewed | 93.5 | 5.7 | 0.8 |
| Appointed | 93.3 | 5.6 | 1.1 |
Appendix 3a - Employees promoted during 2010/2011 by ethnic origin
During 2010/11 9.09% employees were promoted.
| Category | % of those promoted |
|---|---|
| White | 94.0 |
| BME | 3.0 |
| Unknown | 3.0 |
Appendix 3b - Employees promoted during 2010/2011 by gender
| Category | % of those promoted |
|---|---|
| Female | 73.0 |
| Male | 27.0 |
Appendix 3c - Employees promoted during 2010/2011 by disability
| Category | % of those promoted |
|---|---|
| Not Disabled | 98.87 |
| Disabled | 1.13 |
Appendix 3d - Employees promoted during 2010/2011 by age
| Age Band | % of those promoted |
|---|---|
| Under 20 | 0.38 |
| 20-under 30 | 21.98 |
| 30-under 40 | 26.13 |
| 40-under 50 | 33.04 |
| 50-under 60 | 16.83 |
| Unknown | 1.51 |
Appendix 4a - Training delivered during 2010/2011 by ethnicity
| Ethnicity | % of those trained |
|---|---|
| White | 91.0 |
| BME | 5.0 |
| Unknown | 4.0 |
Appendix 4b - Training delivered during 2010/2011 by gender
| Gender | % of those trained |
|---|---|
| Male | 24.0 |
| Female | 76.0 |
Appendix 4c - Training delivered during 2010/2011 by age
| Age | % of those trained |
|---|---|
| Under 20 | 0.0 |
| 20 - under 30 | 6.5 |
| 30 - under 40 | 15.7 |
| 40 - under 50 | 39.7 |
| 50 - under 60 | 33 |
| 60 - under 65 | 4.5 |
| Over 65 | 0.06 |
Appendix 4d - Training delivered during 2010/2011 by disability
| Disability | % of those trained |
|---|---|
| No Disability | 96.1 |
| Disability | 3.9 |
| Not known | 0.0 |
Appendix 5a - Disciplinaries during 2010/2011 by ethnic origin
| Ethnicity | % subject to formal action |
|---|---|
| White | 89.0 |
| BME | 8.0 |
| Unknown | 3.0 |
Appendix 5b - Disciplinaries during 2010/20110 by gender
| Gender | % subject to formal action |
|---|---|
| Male | 55.0 |
| Female | 45.0 |
Appendix 5c - Disciplinaries during 2010/2011 by age
| Age | % subject to formal action |
|---|---|
| Under 20 | 0.0 |
| 20 - under 30 | 16.0 |
| 30 - under 40 | 23.0 |
| 40 - under 50 | 27.0 |
| 50 - under 60 | 30.0 |
| 60 - under 65 | 4.0 |
| Over 65 | 0.0 |
Appendix 5d - Disciplinaries during 2010/2011 by disability
| Disability | % subject to formal action |
|---|---|
| Disabled | 2.0 |
| Not disabled | 65.0 |
| Unknown | 33.0 |
Appendix 6a - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2010/2011 by ethnic origin
| Ethnicity | % of those raising a grievance |
|---|---|
| Unknown | 3.0 |
| White | 86.0 |
| BME | 11.0 |
Appendix 6b - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2010/2011 by gender
| Gender | % of those raising a grievance |
|---|---|
| Male | 38.0 |
| Female | 62.0 |
Appendix 6c - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2010/2011 by age
| Age | % of those raising a grievance |
|---|---|
| Under 20 | 0.0 |
| 20 - under 30 | 11.0 |
| 30 - under 40 | 38.0 |
| 40 - under 50 | 21.0 |
| 50 - under 60 | 30.0 |
| 60 - under 65 | 0.0 |
| Over 65 | 0.0 |
Appendix 6d - Employees submitting a grievance resolved during 2010/2011 by disability
| Disability | % of those raising a grievance |
|---|---|
| Disabled | 11.0 |
| Not Disabled | 54.0 |
| Unknown | 35.0 |
Appendix 7a - Employees leaving the Council during 2010/2011 by ethnic origin
| Reason | White % | BME % | Unknown % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 86.90 | 7.14 | 5.95 |
| Deceased | 75.00 | 0.0 | 25.00 |
| Dismissed | 79.41 | 8.82 | 11.76 |
| Early Retirement | 95.13 | 1.72 | 3.15 |
| Expiry of Fixed Term Contract | 86.17 | 6.38 | 7.45 |
| Ill Health Retirement | 92.31 | 0.00 | 7.69 |
| Normal Retirement | 95.35 | 2.33 | 2.33 |
| Unknown | 92.31 | 6.15 | 1.54 |
| Voluntary Resignation | 90.41 | 6.93 | 2.69 |
Appendix 7b - Employees leaving the Council during 2010/2011 by gender
| Reason | Women % | Men % |
|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 61.90 | 38.10 |
| Deceased | 75.00 | 25.00 |
| Dismissed | 44.12 | 55.18 |
| Early Retirement | 62.18 | 37.82 |
| Expiry of Fixed Term Contract | 73.40 | 26.60 |
| Ill Health Retirement | 61.54 | 38.46 |
| Normal Retirement | 72.09 | 27.91 |
| Unknown | 75.38 | 24.92 |
| Voluntary Resignation | 78.89 | 21.11 |
Appendix 7c - Employees leaving the Council during 2010/2011 by disability
| Reason | Disabled % | Not Disabled % | Not Known/ Undisclosed % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 5.95 | 55.95 | 38.10 |
| Deceased | 0.0 | 50.00 | 50.00 |
| Dismissed | 5.88 | 67.65 | 26.47 |
| Early Retirement | 8.88 | 62.75 | 28.37 |
| Expiry of Fixed Term Contract | 2.66 | 85.64 | 11.70 |
| Ill Health Retirement | 0.00 | 61.54 | 38.46 |
| Normal Retirement | 6.98 | 51.16 | 41.86 |
| Unknown | 1.54 | 73.85 | 24.62 |
| Voluntary Resignation | 2.24 | 76.97 | 20.79 |
Appendix 7d - Employees leaving the Council during 2010/2011 by age
| Reason | Under 20 % |
20 - Under 30 % |
30 - Under 40 % |
40 - Under 50 % |
50 - Under 60 % |
60 - Under 65 % |
65 and Over % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compromise Agreement | 1.19 | 2.38 | 14.29 | 19.05 | 44.05 | 19.05 | 0.00 |
| Deceased | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 75.00 | 25.00 | 0.00 |
| Dismissed | 0.00 | 11.76 | 32.35 | 35.29 | 17.65 | 2.94 | 0.00 |
| Early Retirement | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 60.17 | 38.97 | 0.86 |
| Expiry of Fixed Term Contract | 4.26 | 39.89 | 19.15 | 18.09 | 10.64 | 5.85 | 2.13 |
| Ill Health Retirement | 0.00 | 0.00 | 7.69 | 7.69 | 61.54 | 23.08 | 0.00 |
| Normal Retirement | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2.33 | 60.47 | 37.21 |
| Unknown | 0.00 | 13.85 | 21.54 | 40.00 | 12.31 | 4.62 | 7.69 |
| Voluntary Resignation | 1.07 | 19.62 | 28.36 | 30.06 | 16.52 | 3.20 | 1.17 |
Twitter
Facebook
