EPPING FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
COMMITTEE MINUTES

Committee: Staff Appeals Panel Date: 13 November 1998

Place: Committee Room 2, Civic Offices Time: 2.00 - 7.50 p.m.
High Street, Epping

Members
Present: Councillors S Barnes (Chairman), Mrs D Paddon (Vice-Chairman), D
Jacobs (Substitute), J Pledge

Other
Councillors: -

Apologies: Councillor A O'Brien

Appearing for
the Council: I Le Gallais, B Land (Planning Services)

Officers
Present: S G Hill (Policy Unit)

External
Adviser: Mrs L Sewell

1. MINUTES

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 1996 be taken as read and
signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

2. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

RESOLVED:

That in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the
public and press be excluded from the meeting for the item of business set out
below on the grounds that it will involve the likely disclosure of exempt
information as defined in the paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act
indicated:
Agenda Exempt Information
Item No Subject Paragraph Number

4 Grievance Appeal - 1/98 1

3. STAFF APPEALS PROCEDURE

The Panel noted the procedure for the conduct of appeals set out in the
Appendix circulated with the agenda.

4. GRIEVANCE APPEAL - MR J HARRISON, PLANNING SERVICES

The Panel were advised that this was an appeal by Mr J Harrison against
alleged faults in the staff appraisal process in previous years which had
adversely affected subsequent applications for senior posts during Senior
Management Review exercise. The Council's case was presented by Mr I Le
Gallais who called Mr B Land as a witness. The appellant was present together
with a nominated colleague Mr N Jackson.
Following submissions by both sides and cross-examination the Panel considered
the appeal in private session, following which, the Chairman recalled
officers, the appellant and representatives and informed them of the Panel's
decisions and the reasons for that decision.

RESOLVED:

From the evidence received this afternoon the Panel does not uphold this
grievance:
(1) The managerial approach to the appraisal process and the way in which it
was applied was, in the Panel's view, less than satisfactory. However the
appellant has not given due to consideration to comments made verbally and in
writing about weaknesses. Neither party appears to have fully addressed these
perceived weaknesses during the appraisal process. This did not amount to
significantly unfair treatment in the appointment process;
(2) That the proposal to create a supernumerary post of Senior Planning
Officer is not the appropriate response because it is not justified either in
terms of the needs of the Planning Service or warranted by the evidence
presented; and
(3) That the Council make available appropriate professional career
guidance/counselling if required by the appellant.