1. There was a joint-staff/management committee, which gave staff a say in the running of the Council.Staff representatives had the right to speak, but not to vote.

2. There was a personnel sub-committee, which reported to P&R, met every committee cycle and dealt with all policy matters which concerned staff. Staff representatives had no right to attend this committee, but they could be invited to make verbal or written submissions.  

3. The Chief Executive used to attend both these committees with the Personnel Officer.

4. The Personnel sub-committee required chief officers to produce to them for approval, copies of their establishments, categorising each post as either "to be automatically replaced", "to be replaced only with the agreement of the committee" and "to be deleted when the postholder leaves".  

5. Chief officers had to justify their establishments and these categorisations to the sub-committee chairman before the meeting and to members, at the meeting.

6. The proceedings of both the sub-committee and the joint committee were exempt, confidential and the public and other members were excluded.  

7. The Chief Executive in consultation with the Committee chairman had delegated powers to deal with decisions on staff replacements in an emergency.   

8. The whole system was backed by an unwritten understanding that there would be no compulsory redundancies.

It could be very easy to find fault with this system, particularly because of the staff and union involvement. This is because of the traditional "them and us" attitude which used to pervade British industry.   It is possible, on the other hand, to take a different view, and that is that the best interests of staff and management generally speaking are not opposed to each other, but rather can be seen as two sides of the same coin.   So, in the context of labour relations, it is in the interest of neither management nor of staff to have to go through the pain and cost of organising compulsory redundancies, if these can be avoided.   Staff should not be considered as necessarily likely to be in agreement with chief officers. If they see some of their number being treated as favourites, or as not pulling their weight, they will form their own opinions of the posts and the postholders concerned. This is what you would expect -it is basic human nature.

  One must also bear in mind that, as staff are closer to the ground than chief officers, staff can often know more about what is going on in the workplace than the Chief Officers.

  If staff are not given the opportunity to speak to members, the only view members will get is the one put forward by Chief Officers. If the unions are involved in private meetings, they have a chance of putting forward their own ideas. The old system allowed staff to come up with ideas privately or at the joint staff meeting, which could be tested against the views of Chief Officers at or before the personnel sub-committee meeting and vice-versa. As a result, Ryedale's establishment was kept under continuous review.

If the establishment is kept under continuous review, there should never be any need to make "hard" decisions on compulsory redundancies. Early "voluntary" retirements, and their associated costs, might also be minimised.

Of course, there is always the risk that management and staff might resist every pressure to put posts into the "to be deleted" category. However, with the right amount of tact and diplomacy, the occasional use of polite cross-examination, and the appointment to both committees of competent members who have some experience in staffing matters, this risk should be minimised.