Job Evaluation Policy

Transcription

1 Job Evaluation Policy (Revised 1 June 2013) 1. Aims The University uses a single job evaluation system for all categories of job, in order to: - Establish the relative size of all jobs. - Enable all jobs to be allocated to a grade within a common pay structure. - Ensure that pay and benefits are allocated on a fair and consistent basis and that the University meets its legal obligation to provide equal pay for work of equal value. - Comply with the requirements of the National Framework Agreement for the Modernisation of Pay Structures and take account of JNCHES guidance on role analysis and job evaluation. - Strike a balance between the requirement for thorough and effective analysis and evaluation and the need for efficiency and flexibility. 2. Scope This policy will apply to all categories of job which are covered by the National Framework Agreement (ie Grades A-H) and excludes clinical academics, Nurses, Professions Allied to Medicine and Farm Workers. It supersedes all previous arrangements and agreements relating to grading for all other staff categories. This policy applies to all appointments made for a period of three months or more. For appointments of less than three months, other arrangements exist. Further details are available from your Faculty/Service Human Resources Team 3. Responsibilities The Executive Director of Human Resources will have overall responsibility for the application, monitoring and review of this policy. Line managers have responsibility for ensuring that job information used in the grading process is fair, accurate and in line with guidance provided by Human Resources, which includes the requirement to consult with job holders. Managers should work with HR to ensure that appropriate consistency and quality are maintained and appropriate senior manager approval gained. 1

2 Human Resources are responsible for providing high quality training and professional support to line managers, particularly in the area of job analysis and design. HR staff will communicate and liaise with managers and staff, and ensure timely and accurate storage of job grading data. The HR (Policy & Projects) Team will organise all panels and provide the necessary evaluator training and information. They will maintain appropriate job family and role profile information to aid consistent job grading across the University. Additionally the Team will be responsible for checking the quality of job matching decisions made by HR staff and for addressing any issues accordingly. 4. Job Evaluation Process 4.1 Job Matching Matching is the process used to allocate a job to a grade without it needing to go through the full job evaluation process. This process helps to promote consistency in grading across different parts of the University. Where a comparable job description or role profile exists the HR staff member will confirm the grade accordingly and record the rationale centrally in HR. Where this cannot be achieved the job description will be submitted to a job evaluation panel. Employees do not have a right of appeal under this job matching process, however any employee dissatisfied with the grade outcome should contact their HR Manager. The HR Manager will, in turn, discuss this with the HR Manager (Policy and Projects). 4.2 Job Evaluation Process The University will evaluate jobs using the Hay system of job evaluation. This is an analytical, factor-based system. Jobs will be evaluated by a Job Evaluation Panel. Members of the panel will be drawn from a small pool of staff fully trained in the use of the Hay evaluation methodology. Each panel will comprise: 1 x HR Management Rep (Chair) 2 x Management Reps (normally one Faculty and one Professional Support Service) 2 x Trade Union reps There will be a quorum of 4 for the panel to take place. 2

3 Evaluation panels operate on the basis of consensus decision-making. However, where any member of the panel is dissatisfied with an evaluation, a request can be made for a re-evaluation at a subsequent panel. The panel will decide whether this is acceptable. All panel members are expected to contribute to the evaluation process on equal terms. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, panel members will not take part in evaluations of: - their own role - a role that they directly manage or report to. Panel members would also be expected to declare any other potential conflict of interest where it may be appropriate not to be involved in an evaluation (e.g. the job of a family member) All discussions within panels, and records of these discussions (including points scores) will be strictly confidential to HR and the panels. Jobs will not normally be re-graded within a 12 month period, unless considered under the Appeals Process. However in exceptional circumstances, eg a reorganisation, the job may be re-graded if approved by the Faculty Pro Vice Chancellor or Registrar. 5. Job Descriptions Job grading will be carried out on the basis of a good quality and up-to-date job description, prepared to a standard University format by the line manager, in consultation with job holders, with guidance from local HR teams. Both the manager and job holder will be expected to sign off an agreed job description before submission for grading. Problems in resolving any dispute over the content of a job description should be referred to the local HR team. The job holder may, if he/she wishes, also refer any problems to the appropriate Trade Union representative. Changes to job descriptions and job titles need to be viewed in the broader faculty/university context to take account of potential consistency and cost implications. Appropriate approval should therefore be sought before any changes are agreed. In the case of Academic (T&R), Teaching (T&S) and Research (R&I) positions, within the Research, Teaching and Enterprise job family, individual job descriptions are not required to be individually evaluated. Jobs will continue to be allocated to a grade by reference to the generic role profiles. 3

4 6. Notification Individual job-holders and their line managers will be informed of the job grading results in terms of the grade to which their job has been allocated and the pay and terms and conditions which apply to this. Individual job sizes (i.e. points scores) will not be communicated but will be held centrally for reference by Human Resources and future job evaluation panels. 7. APPEALS PROCESS 7.1 Non-RTE Posts For jobs which are not allocated to the Research, Teaching and Enterprise family, any manager or member of staff who is dissatisfied with the result of the job evaluation process will have the opportunity to ask for the result to be reviewed. At this stage the original job description or a revised job description may be resubmitted (the latter of which must be signed by all interested parties). Managers and/or employees who wish to appeal must do so within 4 calendar weeks of the date of the written notification of the evaluation. There will be no further right of appeal. Appeals will take the form of a (re)evaluation of the role. Jobs resubmitted for evaluation will be presented to a panel that has at least 3 of the panel members who have had no involvement in the original grading. 7.2 RTE Posts Because of the different nature of academic, research and teaching positions, the appeals process is not appropriate for considering the level of work in these areas. Rather, individuals in these roles should apply for a review of their position through the existing academic and research promotions processes. 7.3 CRITERIA FOR APPEAL a) Some significant information about the job at the time of its grading was not adequately reflected in the job description. In this case, a revised job description, agreed between the job holder and line manager, will need to be submitted. or b) There has been some irregularity in how the grading was dealt with which was inconsistent with the Job Evaluation Policy and Procedures. In this case, written details of the breach of policy/procedure should be given. 4

5 or c) The manager and/or employee believes that, on the basis of comparison with the job family generic role profiles, their job has been graded at the wrong level. There will normally be only one appeal available to either the line manager or job holder. Following an appeal no further grading of the role will take place within a period of 12 months, unless this has been approved by the Faculty Pro Vice Chancellor or Registrar, and is due to exceptional circumstances eg a reorganisation. 8. Policy Monitoring, Review and Equality Analysis This policy will be monitored by HR (Policy & Projects) and will be reviewed fully every 4 years. The outcome of this review will be reported to Staff Committee for approval. Equality Analysis Non-RTE Posts (Research Teaching and Enterprise Family) The underpinning single job evaluation system in the University is Hay, an analytical system which is capable of meeting equal pay requirements. During the job evaluation process consideration is given only to the job itself and not the incumbent of the role (where one exists). A full evaluation is not done where the job matching process takes place. However the HR (Policy and Projects) Team will monitor the outcomes to ensure objective and fair decisions are made. The Team will: Regularly review matching outcomes; Conduct Equal Pay Audits; Ensure all job evaluation panel members and HR staff are adequately trained at all times. RTE Posts Individual job descriptions are not required due to the generic roles that exist within this Family. New jobs are matched to a grade by reference to the generic Academic Job Summary role profiles, agreed by Council and Senate. Progression between grades is based on merit and decided by the relevant internal pay review body. Review processes are monitored annually. 5

6 Effective Date 1 June 2013 Approval Staff Committee May 2013 Policy/Procedure Richard Boggie, Reward Manager Owner Last Reviewed Updated May 2013 to reflect current practice. Updated November Appeals process added. Approved by Staff Committee. 6