Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
Location: Imperial Rooms Matlock
Date: 16 January 2013
In attendance
Rachel Burton (Chair)
Julie Wilson (Secretary)
Jo Armstrong
Julie Baker
Maxine Cooper (Guest Speaker)
John Cowings (Guest Speaker)
Luan Evans (Guest Speaker)
Chris Jackson (Councillor)
Sarah Jones
Dawn Kelly
Debbie Kirk (Interpreter)
Helen Linacre (HR)
Louise Machin
Jill Marshall (ENT)
Chris Mills (Guest Speaker)
Sue Mitchell
Karl Roper (HR)
Diane Stratulis
Paula Twell
Alison White (ENT)
1.
Apologies
John Beddoes
Prem Chera
Leslie Feller
Pauline Hubble
Sue Kirwan
Paul Pugh
Welcome, apologies and introductions
Rachel welcomed those present and said how pleased she was to see
so many people present.
2.
Matters arising
The minutes of the previous meeting on the 16 October 2012 were
reviewed and approved.
1
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
There were no matters arising that were not to be otherwise
discussed in the meeting. Updates were then provided on various
Corporate initiatives and policies.
3.
(i)
Social Media Policy update – Luan Evans
Luan circulated copies of the Draft Policy. The Policy was developed
by CAYA, Legal and Corporate Resources jointly to look at personal
use of social media where it impacts on people’s duties. This is the
first draft and has been circulated with individuals to comment by
the end of January on potential improvements with a view to
finalising the policy by the end of the financial year.
There has been some feedback already to make things simpler or
clearer in accordance with the best practice guidance from ACAS.
There has been an increase in the number of complaints of
inappropriate comments made on facebook/twitter and in terms of
safeguarding individuals’ identities.
Sarah did comment as to concerns of a need to strike a balance as
some people are too afraid to go to their manager with issues and
alternatives such as social media offer somewhere to get things off
of their chest and a support mechanism. She was concerned that
people would be frightened of saying anything at all.
Rachel said that she had previously attended a meeting and although
it had not yet been decided what was to be used they had been
looking at systems like Yammer (which is a bit like facebook) or
similar which can be confined to the organisation rather than being
generally open to the public. John Cowings confirmed that this sort
of package would offer another way for people to exchange
communication who cannot attend meetings. However the policy is
about controlling what people discuss on facebook to ensure, for
example, that individuals do not breach confidentiality about service
users.
2
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
The policy is designed to provide a checklist for people to ensure
that they are not doing something they shouldn’t. John felt the
current draft was somewhat draconian/harsh and it was important to
set guidelines that would avoid being negative. He felt the policy
needed a somewhat different tone whilst still providing guidance on
using social media wisely.
It was accepted that people should exercise care on the comments
they make but there should not be a blanket prohibition on making
comment at all. Jo agreed with John’s comments.
Jo Armstrong did indicate that a PR team had been involved in
meeting on ideas and Luan said that if anyone had any specific
comment to make they could forward this to her for the end of
January.
Helen pointed out that there had been some discussion on being able
to leave a social media page open on the computer for communication
on “business” matters. This was considered to be acceptable but if
it subsequently transpired that this had been used for personal use
(which can be checked) it would not.
Luan then left the meeting to provide another update at some future
time.
(ii)
Feedback from Health Day – Maxine Cooper/Sue Mitchell
Maxine provided an update on the Health Day on the 7th September
last year. This had been Sue Mitchell’s idea following a previous
health authority initiative. It was generally agreed it had been a
great success there had been a good attendance with over 100
people from across all departments with stands from a number of
external agencies and service providers.
Sue indicated that she and other representatives from the DWG had
attended to steer people in the right direction. There had been a
quiz with a question geared on each of the various stands. This quiz
3
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
sheet had been given out as people arrived to encourage them to go
to each and every stand with various healthy prizes to the winner.
Diane commented that it sounded like an excellent initiative but it
would be nice to have these events other than at County Hall to
enable staff to attend who find it difficult to get to Matlock.
Sue agreed that this has always been a subject for debate and there
is certainly a willingness to hold these events more frequently at
other venues subject to accessibility.
John commented that whilst he accepted the points that had been
made his own experience showed that it was not necessarily any more
effective to hold these events elsewhere and to secure support or
funding from Senior Staff, County Hall tended to tick the right
boxes. In addition, the use of County Hall is free whereas other
venues are not always free. He suggested that perhaps smaller
versions could be run at various satellite centres with the main focus
being at County Hall.
Maxine agreed that County Hall is certainly a much more convenient
venue both in terms of available facilities and the concentrations of
the workforce although events have been held elsewhere for example
in Buxton although previous experience has been that the “take up”
has been somewhat lower than hoped for.
Julie B commented that she had not heard of the Health Day and
felt that her team would have welcomed the opportunity to attend.
Communication was perhaps something that needed to be addressed
for future purposes.
Sue suggested that future sessions on sickness absence around
various venues might be useful. There was a little further discussion
as to how to facilitate sessions elsewhere. Maxine felt that it could
certainly be revisited.
4
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
(iii) CWDW and (iv) the Equality Impact Assessment
These two items were dealt with as a whole and have therefore been
minuted accordingly.
A couple of members commented that the principle of flexible
working was not being supported by managers.
The overview was that it was about closing down big or unused
buildings and being more economical – moving people to other ‘bases’
or having people work more from home on a flexible basis. At least
two members who were classed as flexible workers work largely from
home and attend a “base” as and when required. There is concern
that managers seem to be insisting that with buildings being closed
the workers will have to return to work fixed office base which is
not compatible with their needs. Concerns were expressed regarding
the removal of laptops with no assessment as to the necessary
equipment accessories i.e. software (or other facilities). There is
little or no communication or support which is affecting morale and
stress levels.
Sue queried whether we have the necessary information within the
Group to circulate to members to reassure them and to empower
them to discuss these issues with their managers. She made
reference to some equality assessments which had been sent round
members.
John indicated that the Impact Assessment was carried out by
members of the CWDW Project Management Team. He said he had
made it clear that things are not working out as intended and that
better procedures needed to be put in place for assessment. It was
his understanding that there is a 16 page form that should be
carefully completed by a manager. If this is not being followed then
staff must take this up with a higher manager or with the CWDW
team directly. If a manager is not being supportive the matter
should be referred to HR and then on to Occupational Health or
others. Managers must take account of all relevant issues but this
5
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
does not guarantee the outcome will be specifically as you would wish.
There was comment that managers are not dealing with associated
issues and this is compounding the problem.
Jo indicated that she had taken various issues up with her manager
who had sought advice from HR and Occupational Health only to
report back to her that the advice she had received was that a
reasonable adjustment of working from home could only be made if
you work in an IT department.
Julie B commented that in an earlier Group meeting she had been
reassured that someone would meet with her to discuss her concerns
but this hadn’t happened. She knows that she has to move but is
still not clear whether she can work from home. There are issues
with her driving but she is not being given any support or reassurance
as to her choices. She was not aware that HR could help but feels
she urgently needs help. She felt she was getting very mixed
messages.
Dawn indicated that she had met with Simon West and Jo Hollick
from the CWDW Team having been told to contact them for
assistance and information but was then told that, in fact, there was
no actual information or better guidance for them to provide.
Helen indicated that there should be three feedback sessions
following any move so that individuals can raise any issues of concern
and managers can address what else may need to be done.
John Cowings commented that we need to contact the people working
on the Impact Assessment to ensure that they are aware of the
ongoing problems and that the process is not working so that they
can act upon it.
Sarah commented that her line manager was doing the best she could
but was facing resistance higher up. She felt there should be more
training and better communication between the various levels of line
managers.
6
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
Rachel gave an example of a colleague that was being told that they
would have to move from a building that had been suitably adapted to
their needs to one that was not capable of adaptation. They were
told that they would have to be redeployed because the new office
base didn’t have room for them downstairs despite the fact they
were a wheelchair user and couldn’t get upstairs!
Louise picked up on this from the project that she had worked on
prior to her maternity leave, she had made some recommendations
for improvements as the building in its current state was not suitable
as an office base for a wheelchair user. She was concerned that if
the employee had been left with no choice but to be redeployed on
the basis that the building was inaccessible, it was possible her
recommendations had been overlooked, and so she would check this
with the CWDW team.
Sue and Julie B both expressed their concerns at the stress and
pressure put on employees with this attitude to things. Sue made it
clear that if the Council carried on in this way they would be leaving
themselves wide open to claims for constructive dismissal.
Julie B expressed concern that this situation seems to have been
dragging on for at least the last 2/3 years and it was impacting on
people applying for posts - unless they could be sure that the
building where they might be working was suitable for their needs.
John felt that perhaps HR colleagues could talk to individuals to take
their various concerns forward and perhaps give us some feedback at
a future meeting - so that we could move on.
Sue felt that HR should not be picking up the pieces and that it
should be the part of the bigger plan to avoid the problems - if need
be it should be fed into the Equality Impact Assessment.
4.
(i)
Deaf Charter
7
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
John had circulated details of this in advance but agreed that it is
quite a lot to take on board.
British Sign Language was recognised in 2003 and councils got
together to develop a BSL Charter which has five standards and
pledges to meet the needs of the deaf. A number of Councils have
signed up for it.
Steps are being taken to encourage local councils to think about the
Hearing Impaired amongst its workforce and the public that uses
their services. Derby City Council is already widening the remit of its
Charter to cover those who are hearing impaired.
There was a discussion as to what it would involve for the Council,
the ultimate objectives, what would need to be done in terms of
circulating information and what individuals would need in terms of
training.
John indicated that there was some anticipation of a briefing from
Robin Ash from the RNID followed by a meeting sometime in
February with a view to developing a business case for Senior
Officers and Elected Members to consider.
In general terms, the intention was departmental accessibility rather
than an isolated off-site provider. It was felt that the Council was
not proficient at serving its deaf customers. At the moment deaf
people go the deaf team for help but in the future they may have
contacts within their own teams or departments.
John commented that he was not deaf and had little understanding of
the deaf community or what it is like to attend school etc. He felt
this was the sort of information that was needed from those who had
direct experience so that this could be put into the action plan and
the business case.
Rachel agreed that there many people who needed a basis concept of
deaf awareness. She gave the Call Centre staff as an example and
8
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
expressed her frustration at her dealings with some of the staff
there.
There was a brief further discussion concerning difficulties in
communication especially with the Call Centre and whether there
could be some sort of “secret shopper” Quality Assurance system.
It was felt that if calls were recorded this would be a useful
monitoring and quality analysis.
John one of his colleagues Roz Savage was working on projects for
communication “translation” which would fall within the Charter. It
was felt that it might be useful for her to come and talk to the
Group at a future meeting to explain what is being done.
The consensus was that as a Group we should actively support the
adoption of a Charter. John would like one or two people from the
Group to participate in a working party to provide input into the
needs problems associated with the project. Rachel indicated that
she is quite happy to do so.
Sarah proposed that Rachel be nominated to represent the Group,
Diane seconded.
Rachel suggested that we start by gathering information of those
people who have some signing skills (like the First Aiders across the
County) and that we look at teaching key people basic sign language.
Dawn felt that basic skills may not be adequate.
John indicated that if we could identify specific initiatives we could
then talk to the Learning and Development Team for funding and
longer term budgeting. It may be that we don’t need fully qualified
signers but could look at people with basic skills. He referred to
additional systems - such as relay – which are brilliant to supplement
the signing process.
9
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
Diane commented that this interlinks with the “Dignity and Respect”
Campaign. Sue felt a Charter would at least give us a minimum
standard.
(ii) Rachel reminded people about the e-mail she had sent out a
couple of weeks ago and asked if anyone had signed the petition to
stop budget cuts to the National Deaf Children’s Society. She
encouraged people to do so.
5.
Training
Chris Mills addressed the Group with regard to training.
He
explained there had been no generic Equality and Diversity training
(which had included British Sign Language Levels 1 and 2) since 2009.
There had apparently been some problems in terms of finding suitable
venues, allocating sufficient time and resources.
He was looking forward to working with John to reintroduce a
package of training, learning lessons from the past and to make it
more accessible.
He enquired if there were any specific training issues that members
felt were still unresolved and invited people to contact him with any
specific concerns.
Julie and Sue indicated that Single Status had raised some issues
with Post Qualification Training. Unfortunately people qualified but
then cannot maintain their qualification or complete the required CPD
due to lack of suitable training facilities or adjustments to
accommodate their needs.
Sue said that she had effectively given up and to argue about the
need for suitable facilities, advanced information, issues with
resources, compatibility of equipment and that many trainers did not
have much of a clue. She had effectively abandoned any hope of
career advancement because she was too weary of fighting the
10
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
issues. She said managers needed training as much as the trainers
themselves.
John endorsed Sue’s concerns. He said he was aware of at least one
person who had not been able to access professional development and
felt excluded. He said it seemed to be an ongoing issue and needed
addressing.
Dawn mentioned that those who are dyslexic are being affected due
to the lack of appropriate software to read information and adequate
time to absorb it before participating in meetings or learning and
development opportunities. People were reluctant to pursue training
opportunities as a result.
Julie W shared a recent experience on her management training
course where a trainer had been replaced after issues had been
raised with her line manager, Sally Hunter and the Learning and
Development team.
Chris indicated that although he worked from a generic point of view
perhaps concerns could be raised as a Group and he could then
communicate these through to others. He did indicate that he had a
portable loop system and if anybody felt that this would assist they
should let him know as he would be happy to let them have it.
6.
Proposed dyslexia group
It was not possible to have any feedback in terms of the proposed
dyslexia group given Pauline’s non-attendance.
7.
International Day of the Disabled
There had historically been issues with the stall in the main
reception.
However, the development of the event with other
agencies and departments was hugely successful. There were some 40
agencies and departments involved with various workshops and
11
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
performances. It was a very interactive day with good feed back
from those that had been involved.
John said it had been extremely hard work and there had been some
problems with IT but on the whole it had gone well.
Chris, Di and sue suggested that a vote of thanks be noted for John
for his input into both the Day of the Disabled and the Diversity Day
earlier in the year.
John indicated that there was another upcoming event on the 8th
February for the LGBT Group with a presentation and discussion of
progress which had been made in the last 30 years. A flyer will be
circulated in due course.
8.
Website and International Day of the Disabled
The Group was reminded of the need to consider ideas for this year’s
Day of the Disabled, amendments to the Group’s website to improve
available information and encourage membership.
Ideas to be
presented to the next meeting on the 12th April.
9.
Any Other Business - Adverse Weather Policy
Rachel indicated that her understanding of the official line was that
if you cannot get to the office where you are usually based you
should get to the next nearest office and work there but this
created potential issues as to suitable facilities. Rachel indicated
that one colleague had been told that they should go where they
could but would have to accept that they may be assigned other
tasks if they were unable to do the “day” job. This was very
worrying and stressful.
Sue responded that if there were not
suitable facilities then permission should be given to stay at home as
this was the employers fault not the employees.
Sarah indicated that alternative workplaces could create some CRB
issues – for example if the next nearest work base is a school. She
12
Disabled Worker’s Group Minutes
did wonder whether HR could give any clarification as to whether it
would be possible to use a work base from another Council. Helen
confirmed you would have to use a DCC building.
Sue suggested that we should get together and liaise with Chris.
10. Date of next meeting;
 12 April 2013
 14:00 (2:00 PM)
 Larger Hall Imperial Rooms, Matlock
Rachel thanked everyone for coming and closed the meeting.
13