POLICY AND PROCEDURE JOB EVALUATION POLICY

Transcription

1 POLICY AND PROCEDURE JOB EVALUATION POLICY Reference Number: Author / Manager Responsible: Peter Eley, HR Manager & AfC Project Manager Deadline for ratification: (Policy must be ratified within 6 months of review date) March 2010 Review Date: September 2009 Ratified by: TCNC and Management Board Date Ratified: March 2007 Related Policies Flexible Working & Leave Policy & Procedure Managing Organisational Change Policy & Procedure Appraisal Policy Page 1 of 23 Review date: September 2009

2 INDEX Section Page Consultation and ratification schedule Policy Introduction Principles Procedure Selecting, training, maintaining and releasing job evaluation (JE) Practitioners Job descriptions and person specifications Evaluation/assessment of banding reviews Consistency checking Appendix 1 Flowchart of procedure Appendix 2 Trust job description format Appendix 3 Assessment sign off sheet Appendix 4 Guidance on dimensions and glossary on terms used In job descriptions Appendix 5 Role profile and person specification for JE Practitioners Consultation Checklist Page 2 of 23 Review date: September 2009

3 CONSULTATION AND RATIFICATION SCHEDULE Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust Name and Title of Individual Date Consulted HR Team November 2006 Name of Committee Date of Committee AfC Job Evaluation (JE) Working Group 4/5/04 AfC JE Working Group 30/6/04 AfC JE Working Group 21/7/04 AfC JE Working Group 13/8/04 AfC JE Working Group 30/9/04 AfC Operational Project Team 1/6/04, 13/7/04, 11/8/04, 21/9/04, & 19/10/04 AfC Project Board 5/4/04, 11/5/04, 25/5/04, 6/7/04, 11/8/04, 7/9/04, & 5/10/04 TCNC Policy Sub-group / AfC T&Cs Group 19/5/04 TCNC 2/6/04 TCNC Policy Sub-group / AfC T&Cs Group 17/6/04 TCNC Policy Sub-group / AfC T&Cs Group 13/8/04 TCNC Policy Sub-group / AfC T&Cs Group 27/8/04 TCNC 14/9/04 TCNC Policy Sub-group / AfC T&Cs Group 15/9/04 TCNC Policy Sub-group / AfC T&Cs Group 7/10/04 TCNC 1/11/04 Management Board 24/11/04 TCNC 1/12/04 TCNC Policy Sub-group 06/12/05 TCNC Policy Sub-group 16/11/06 TCNC Policy Sub-group 04/01/07 TCNC Policy Sub-group 31/01/07 Page 3 of 23 Review date: September 2009

4 POLICY 1 Introduction 1.1 This policy and procedure has been drawn up in partnership in line with the jointly and nationally agreed NHS Job Evaluation Scheme and Agenda for Change Agreement and Terms & Conditions of Service Handbook and should be read in conjunction with these documents. 1.2 The Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust has now completed the implementation of Agenda for Change as part of the national NHS roll-out in line with the timetables set out and has transferred all affected staff from Whitley (or Trust) grades onto Agenda for Change pay bandings based on its evaluation using the NHS Job Evaluation Scheme. 1.3 The purpose of this procedure is to describe the agreed process for evaluating the AfC pay bands for new posts or for posts where there has been a significant change in role and / or responsibilities at a significant time after they were last assessed through the roll-out evaluation and assimilation of staff between October 2004 and October Principles This procedure is based on a number of clear principles. 2.1 Effective partnership working between the Trust and Staff Side will underpin this process. 2.2 The Agenda for Change (AfC) Job Evaluation (JE) Handbook sets out protocols in relation to matching of jobs against national job evaluation profiles, and in relation to local job evaluations using Job Analysis Questionnaires (JAQs). 2.3 The purpose of job evaluation through Agenda for Change (AfC) is to match or evaluate the job or post and not the post-holder who is in the post at any given time. 2.4 In line with the AfC Agreement, Terms & Conditions of Service Handbook and Job Evaluation Handbook, all of the matching, analysis and evaluation of jobs will be carried out by specifically trained Trust staff. The Trust and Staff Side / trade unions will work together to ensure that sufficient numbers of Trust and Trade Union representatives are selected, given release and trained as matchers and analyst/evaluators. The Trust will ensure that trained matchers, analysts and evaluators are released to undertake their Job Evaluation duties. Page 4 of 23 Review date: September 2009

5 2.5 All affected staff of the Trust should have an up to date and agreed job description and person specification in the agreed Trust AfC format (set out in appendix 2), written in line with the principles set out in section 3.2 below, that describes the roles, responsibilities and main tasks required of them in carrying out their jobs. This job description and person specification will be used in the job evaluation and matching process. 2.6 Each post holder affected by Agenda for Change has the right to be advised by an accredited trade union representative or fellow employee at any stage of the process. PROCEDURE 1. Selecting, Training, Maintaining and Releasing Job Evaluation (JE) Practitioners 1.1 The Trust has trained a number of staff as Job Matchers, Analysts & Evaluators (JE Practitioners, who have undertaken the job evaluation work as part of the rollout of AfC across the Trust between October 2004 and October A role description and person specification is attached for the role as Appendix It will be necessary to retain a critical mass of trained JE Practitioners within the Trust who are able to carry out AfC job matching, analysis and evaluation for new posts or posts where there has been significant change. Of these roughly half will be Staff Side representatives and roughly half Management Side. 1.3 The Human Resources department will be responsible for maintaining a listing of trained JE Practitioners and for scheduling job matching, analysis and evaluation panels. In doing this the HR department will endeavour to use each JE Practitioner on a proportionate basis so that the impact on their respective departments is evened out and minimised. Where necessary further new volunteers will be sought and further job matching, analysis and evaluation training will be provided to those selected so that the critical mass of JE Practitioners is retained. 1.4 The central principle of the Trust and Staff Side approach is that JE Practitioners should be as representative of the Trust as practicably possible and should be spread as evenly as possible across all departments and all levels across the Trust so that the impact of freeing them up is minimised. To achieve this, the Trust will select staff volunteering to be JE Practitioners based on their ability to fulfil the role of JE Practitioner and the ability of the Trust to free them up without a significant negative effect on Trust services. Page 5 of 23 Review date: September 2009

6 1.5 As occurred during the roll-out implementation of AfC, the Divisional Managers (and their equivalents for the areas of the Trust outside of the 3 Divisions) will hold the responsibility for identifying possible new JE Practitioners from their areas where these are required by the Trust in liaison with the relevant Staff Side representatives. In the same way the Divisional Managers (and their equivalents for the areas of the Trust outside of the 3 Divisions) will be responsible for freeing up JE Practitioners from their areas when they are scheduled to attend a panel. 1.6 Following the end of the roll-out implementation of AfC, there is no specific budget for AfC so will be no backfill funding to departments for their staff who act as JE Practitioners. However as the numbers of JE panels running should be much less than during the roll-out period the time-out required should be much less. 1.7 The Assistant Director of HR (Employee Relations) and the Trust s Staff Side Lead for AfC will continue to work together to ensure that all Trust JE Practitioners have the required knowledge and skills and demonstrate these in the performance of their JE duties. If there are concerns about their performance, JE Practitioners may be asked to complete further training or to stop (either temporarily or permanently) their JE duties. 2. Job Descriptions and Person Specifications 2.1 Every member of staff within the Trust (with the exception of medical staff and Directors for whom there is a different format) should have and maintain an upto-date job description and person specifications in the standard Trust format set out in Appendix 2 and in line with the principles set out in 5.6 below. 2.2 At each appraisal the post holder and their line manager should ensure that the job description & person specification for the post properly reflects the role that the Trust requires the post-holder to carry out. 2.3 The job description and person specification for every member of staff within the Trust (with the exception of medical staff and Directors) should be in line with the following principles which were agreed in partnership by the Trust AfC Joint Job Evaluation Project Group and again separately by the Trust Consultative & Negotiation Committee: a) Job Descriptions should be written in the attached standard Trust AfC format which includes a separate person specification (Appendix 2). They should be not written in any format based on the 16-factors of the AfC Job Evaluation (JE) System or the Knowledge & Skills Framework (KSF) competencies. b) Job descriptions and person specifications must be written based on the job that is required to be done and not on the post-holder. Page 6 of 23 Review date: September 2009

7 c) Job descriptions and person specifications must be written based on a competent replacement post-holder, who has just completed their induction into the role and specifically the person specification, must not be based on an experienced post-holder. d) When writing Job descriptions and person specifications particular attention should be paid to the person specification to make sure that it reflects all of the essential knowledge, skills and other criteria that are required of the job. e) When writing job descriptions and person specifications, staff and managers must do this independently based on the requirements of the post and not refer to any national job profiles. f) Job descriptions should be written in as straight-forward language as possible and should where possible explain any specific technical terms. g) Job descriptions and person specifications should use terms consistently and reflect the Trust guidance on specific common language e.g. to reflect the level of budgetary responsibility or responsibility for staff, which is attached as Appendix 4. h) Where possible generic job descriptions should be used for groups of staff carrying out basically the same role (e.g. D grade Ward Nurses) at least to reflect the core of the job. This is to improve consistency. Where using a generic job description to reflect the core duties, it is vital that variations and duties additional to the core description are included. i) All staff doing the same job must have a common job description and person specification. This is vital to ensure consistency of grading. j) All job descriptions and person specifications should be agreed between the post-holder(s) and line manager. Where they have changed significantly and are being referred for assessment they should be signed off by the postholder(s) and line manager using the form attached as Appendix 3. k) Any disputes around agreeing job descriptions should be referred to the appropriate HR Advisor / Manager. l) Before submitting a job description for assessment, the manager (and postholder) with HR support and advice should ensure that they are internally consistent (e.g. between the job description and person specification so a requirement in the person specification reflects a responsibility within the job description) and that they are consistent with other job descriptions within the department, Division and Trust. Page 7 of 23 Review date: September 2009

8 3. Evaluation / Assessment of Banding Reviews Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust 3.1 Following the implementation of Agenda for Change across the Trust in October 2006, the Trust will use the NHS AfC Job Evaluation Scheme to evaluate the banding (grade) of any new post or of a post that has changed significantly. 3.2 With all job matching, analysis, evaluation and consistency panels, all JE Practitioners must ensure that they keep all information discussed confidential and that they identify any conflict of interest in relation to any post that they may be requested to match / analyse / evaluate. Where a conflict of interest is confirmed an appropriate alternative JE Practitioner will replace the practitioner concerned. All JE Practitioners are required to sign a confidentiality and conflict of interest agreement to confirm that they will abide by these requirements. 3.3 An assessment of the AfC banding of a post will normally take place in one of three situations: a) New Post - For a completely new post b) Organisational Change - Where a line manager is planning an organisational change (or there has been a change) which would result in a significant change to the role, function and / or responsibilities of a post c) Request for Banding Re-assessment - Where either the line manager or post holder(s) or normally both believe that there has over time been a significant change to the role, function and / or responsibilities of a post. This may be raised for example at an appraisal meeting. In this situation 18 months must passed since the post was last evaluated through Agenda for Change. 3.4 In all three situations described in 3.2 above, the line manager should take advice from the HR department before submitting the job description & person specification to the AfC Co-ordinator. The process to follow for each of the situations in 3.2 is set out below: a) New post: i). The finalised proposed job description & person specification for the new post will be passed via the HR Manager to AfC Co-ordinator. The AfC Co-ordinator will schedule the new post to go to a desktop matching panel which will assess the AfC banding to be assessed in line with the national AfC Job Evaluation Handbook. ii). The banding outcome of the assessment will be confirmed to the line manager, who will ensure that they have the necessary budget to fund the post before going through the recruitment and selection for the new post in line with the Trust Recruitment & Selection Policy. Page 8 of 23 Review date: September 2009

9 b) Where Organisational Change is Proposed Which Would Result In A Significant Change To The Role, Function And / Or Responsibilities Of A Post: i). The manager with HR advice will produce a finalised proposed job description & person specification for the revised post. This will be passed via the HR Manager to the AfC Co-ordinator. The AfC Co-ordinator will schedule the revised post to go to a desktop matching panel which will assess the AfC banding to be assessed in line with the national AfC Job Evaluation Handbook. ii). The banding outcome of the assessment will be confirmed to the line manager. Where the line manager is considering a change to a role / post it is strongly advised under this policy that they carry out all of the necessary preliminary work on this change before discussing it with the post-holder(s). This is so that expectations of post-holders are not inappropriately raised and only to be dropped later. The preliminary work and management of changes must include the following: The line manager must check and ensure that they have enough money within their budget to cover the full costs of a higher banding, before proposing changes. This will normally involve advice from the relevant Management or Divisional Accountant and should take place before the job description is revised and submitted for AfC desktop assessment. Where the AfC desktop assessment confirms a change in banding, the line manager should re-check that the costs of this higher banding fit within their budget before discussing the proposed changes with the member of staff. The implementation of the proposed changes should be managed in line with the Trust Managing Organisational Change Policy. This includes agreeing the changes by mutual consent. c). Request for Banding Re-assessment: i). Where either the line manager or post holder(s) or normally both believe that there has over time been a significant change to the role, function and / or responsibilities of a post and 18 months have passed since the post was last evaluated through Agenda for Change the line manager and post holder(s) should do the following: Consider the likely impact of the changes on the current banding using the national AfC Job Evaluation Handbook and taking advice from their HR Manager / Advisor. Page 9 of 23 Review date: September 2009

10 Where line manager and post holder(s) believe the changes to the role may have resulted in a change to AfC banding they should agree and sign off a revised job description and person specification which reflects the required role, function and responsibilities of the post at the current time and an application form for an AfC Banding Reassessment (Appendix 3). The line manager and post holder(s) may agree for the job to be carried out in line with its existing job description (and banding) as an alternative to the banding re-assessment process. ii). The agreed revised job description & person specification for the new post will be passed via the HR Manager to AfC Co-ordinator. The AfC Coordinator will schedule the new post to go to a desktop matching panel which will assess the AfC banding to be assessed in line with the national AfC Job Evaluation Handbook. 3.5 The AfC desktop assessment process will be followed in line with the NHS AfC Job Evaluation Handbook paragraphs on New Jobs in last section of Section 10 (page 79) of the NHS Job Evaluation Handbook (2nd Edition) and with 3.6 below for desktop assessments. 3.6 The desktop process will be carried out by appropriately trained JE Practitioners or Trainers. There will be one management side and one staff side representative on a desktop panel. 3.7 The desktop panel will use the job description and appropriate supporting information on the new (or revised) post. Where there are any gaps in information they will contact the line manager identified in the job description for the new post for clarification. 3.8 The desktop panel will attempt to match the new post to a national profile. If it does not match they will carry out a desktop job evaluation. 3.9 The outcome from the desktop panel will be checked through the Consistency Check panel in the normal way in line with the national AfC Job Evaluation Handbook and section 4 below The banding outcome from the desktop assessment will be confirmed in writing to line manager of the post so that they can recruit to the new post (provided that the manager has funding within his / her budget to cover the post at the assessed outcome) or if it is a revision to the role and there is a change in banding, they can confirm the new banding for the post-holder from the date that new role / job description commenced. Page 10 of 23 Review date: September 2009

11 3.11 The HR department will maintain a confidential record of the assessed bandings of all Trust posts. As part of this the details of desktop bandings of new or revised roles (posts) will be maintained. Where the assessment is due to the revision of the role / responsibilities of an existing post (3.2b & c above), a copy of the banding outcome of the desktop assessment will also be recorded on the personnel file of the post-holders of the assessed post After a reasonable period of the post-holder being in post (normally 6 to 12 months) the desk topped post will be matched (or evaluated if it cannot be matched) in line with the standard procedure for matching (or evaluating) existing or changed jobs. If this results in a change in banding (whether up or down) the salary will be revised with effect from the date that the new revised role has been agreed to commence. 4. Consistency Checking 4.1 The outcomes of all job matching and local job evaluation (including desktop ) panels will be consistency checked by a specific consistency panel. 4.2 There will be a Consistency Check Panel (CCP) which will meet on a scheduled basis to consider the outcomes from the Job Matching / Evaluation Panels (including all desktop panels) that week. This CCP will be made up of at least one management side representative and one staff side representative who are either JE Trainers or are members of the Job Evaluation (JE) Working Group who have been trained in JE. They will not be involved in consistency checking any Job Matching / Evaluation panel on which they were a member. 4.3 The CCP and the Trust will follow the processes set out in section 11 of the national AfC JE Handbook to consistency check the outcomes of its matching and local panels. 4.4 The CCP will consider and review the rationale documented by a Job Matching or Evaluation Panel for any posts where it has concerns about the consistency of the score and outcome. 4.5 Following 4.4, where the CCP identifies concerns around the outcome of an assessment of a post by a Job Matching or Evaluation Panel it will refer the post back to the next available panel for re-assessment, with specific comments agreed. Page 11 of 23 Review date: September 2009

12 . Appendix 1 Flowchart of the Evaluation, Consistency-checking & Assimilation Procedure Changes either actual or proposed- to the role / responsibilities of a post. HR advice where appropriate Desktop Assessment required? No No change to banding Yes Desktop Matching / Evaluation panel Job Matching Panels Job Analysis Job Evaluation Panel Scores & Rationales entered into computer system. Job weight & pay band determined Concerns identified 5. Consistency Check Panel (CCP) Concerns identified Assessments approved Change of banding Change of Conditions (CoC) form is completed by line manager & post-holder and given to HR No Change of banding Banding remains the same Following confirmation of promotion salary & HR signoff, CoC form passed to payroll to action change of banding Page 12 of 23 Review date: September 2009

13 APPENDIX 2 TRUST JOB DESCRIPTION FORMAT JOB TITLE: GRADE: DEPARTMENT: SPECIALITY / DIVISION: RESPONSIBLE TO: JOB SUMMARY: Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust ROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL BATH NHS TRUST JOB DESCRIPTION MAIN DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 3 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES The postholder is required to familiarise themselves with all Trust policies and procedures and to be comply with these at all times. 4 CONFIDENTIALITY & DATA PROTECTION The postholder must maintain the confidentially of information about patients, staff and other health service business and meet the requirements the Data Protection Act (1998) at all times. The postholder must comply with all Trust Information and Data Protection policies at all times. The work of an NHS acute Trust is of a confidential nature and any information gained by the postholder in their role must not be communicated to other persons except where required in the recognised course of duty. 5 HEALTH AND SAFETY Employees must be aware of the responsibilities placed on them under the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) and must follow these in full at all times including ensuring that they act in line with all agreed procedures at all times in order to maintain a safe environment for patients, visitors and staff. Page 13 of 23 Review date: September 2009

14 6 EQUALITY & DIVERSITY Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust The Trust has adopted a Managing Staff Diversity Strategy & Policy covering its entire staff and it is the responsibility of all staff to comply with this at all times. The key responsibilities for staff under this Strategy and Policy are set out in the Trust Code of Expectations for Employees, 6. FLEXIBILITY This role profile is intended to provide a broad outline of the main responsibilities only. The postholder is required to be flexible in developing their role in agreement with their designated manager and may be required to carry out any other duty commensurate with their banding and expertise. 7. DIMENSIONS [Put in here information about the size / number of staff and / or finance / budgets that the post has direct responsibility for managing. With budgets this should indicate the level of budget-holder (Executive-level, Division / Business Unit-level, Specialitylevel, Cost-centre-level). ] STRUCTURE CHART [LINE MANAGER S MANAGER] [LINE MANAGER OF POST-HOLDER] [POST] [STAFF MANAGED / SUPERVISED BY POST-HOLDER] JOB TITLE: GRADE: SALARY: HOURS: TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 14 of 23 Review date: September 2009

15 ANNUAL LEAVE: NOTICE PERIOD: TYPE OF CONTRACT: days per annual leave, plus bank holidays weeks Permanent / Temporary / Fixed Term Contract to [date] Page 15 of 23 Review date: September 2009

16 PERSON SPECIFICATION Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust JOB TITLE: GRADE: DEPARTMENT: SPECIALITY / DIVISION: CRITERIA REQUIRED ESSENTIAL DESIRABLE Qualifications & Training Knowledge & Experience Specific Skills Physical Skills & Effort Emotional Effort Physical Skills - [e.g. manual dexterity to take blood, cannulate etc. Physical effort to push trolleys. To include weights, frequency & duration Emotional effort to deal with conflict or handling of patient death etc. To include frequency / regularity of emotional effort Requirements due to [E.g. requirement of the Working Environment job to deal with hazards e.g. x-rays, sputum, Page 16 of 23 Review date: September 2009

17 blood, faeces etc]. To include frequency. Last updated: Page 17 of 23 Review date: September 2009

18 APPENDIX 3 ASSESSMENT SIGN-OFF SHEET Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust ROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL BATH NHS TRUST AGENDA FOR CHANGE REQUEST FOR BANDING RE-ASSESSMENT & AGREEMENT OF REVISED JOB DESCRIPTION POST. CURRENT BANDING.. DEPARTMENT DIVISION / DIRECTORATE DECLARATION: POST-HOLDER: Request for Assessment of Banding Due to Change in Role I confirm my agreement with this revised job description and person specification which is a proper reflection of my job. I confirm that this is a significant change from my previous job description and person specification and that my post has not been assessed in the last 18 months. I am happy for this job description to go forward to the Agenda for Change Desktop Job Evaluation Process. Signed Date. Name Ext / Bleep No LINE MANAGER: I confirm my agreement that this revised job description and person specification is a proper reflection of the job of the postholder for whom I am the line manager and that I am happy for this job description to go forward to the Agenda for Change Job Evaluation Process. Signed Date. Name. Job Title.. Ext / Bleep No.. Page 18 of 23 Review date: September 2009

19 APPENDIX 4 GUIDANCE ON DIMENSIONS AND GLOSSARY ON TERMS USED IN JOB DESCRIPTIONS Dimensions Section A post s responsibility for Finance / money and staff should be identified in this section. Finance / Money This should be only where the post has a specific budget holding responsibility. Job descriptions should identify the amount of money in the budget that the post directly manages and the level of budget-holder responsibility for the post Executive-level, Division / Business Unit-level, Speciality-level, Cost-centrelevel. Staff - This should only be identified where the post has a specific responsibility for staff reporting to them. Job descriptions should identify the number of staff reporting to them directly and the total for whom they hold responsibility. Job descriptions should identify the level of manager: Supervisor / Team Leader has day-to-day responsibility for performance of staff (but refers ongoing issues to line manager) Line Manager holds ongoing and direct responsibility for the performance of staff reporting directly to them. This includes taking forward Trust processes around conduct / disciplinary, performance and sickness where there are problems. Overall Manager - holds responsibility and carries the can not just for individual staff but for a service, area, ward department etc. Manages staff not just reporting directly to them but those reporting to the staff that they manage. Will act as disciplining or dismissing manager in conduct situations. Glossary of meanings for other standard terms to be used in Job Descriptions Advises Where a post-holder provides specific advice based on their professional expertise or knowledge often to staff at the same or a more senior level in the organisation. Facilitates Where a post-holder influences staff, often at the same or a more senior level in the organisation, who they do not have managerial responsibility for to behave or act in certain ways. Ensures that This is used to identify where a post-holder not only does a task themselves but is responsible for making sure that other staff carry it out to an acceptable standard. Page 19 of 23 Review date: September 2009

20 APPENDIX 5 ROLE PROFILE AND PERSON SPECIFICATION FOR JE PRACTITIONERS ROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL BATH NHS TRUST AGENDA FOR CHANGE PROJECT ROLE PROFILE ROLE: GRADE: Agenda for Change Job Evaluation Practitioner Not applicable (Current pay will be protected) ROLE SUMMARY: This role is for existing staff to volunteer for. All staff selected for these roles will be paid on their existing pay including allowances for the period when they are carrying out this role. Any protected payment of unsocial hours payments made to staff working as a JE Practitioners will be counted when averaging their payments for future unsocial hours payments under Agenda for Change. This is to ensure that these staff are not disadvantaged. There are three distinct roles for trained JE practitioners within the Trust: Job Matching Panellists, who will sit on panels which match posts to existing profiles Job Analysts, who will undertake interviews with staff in posts to ensure that their Job Analysis Questionnaires (JAQs) are accurate and appropriate to their required job / post prior to the JAQs going forward for local evaluation Local Job Evaluation Panellists, who will sit on panels which evaluate posts locally. All of these practitioner roles are quite specific and technical in nature. They are concerned with the objective application of an agreed process, rather than with negotiation. Half of all panellists and half of the analyst group should be staff side representatives. 7 CONFIDENTIALITY & CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Confidentiality and impartiality are vital to ensuring a fair job evaluation process. All selected JE Practitioners must maintain complete confidentiality for all of the discussions, decisions etc that they under within their JE Practitioner role. All JE Practitioners will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement as part of their acceptance to undertake this role. Similarly all JE Practitioners are required to identify any conflict of interest in relation to any post that they may be requested to match / analyse / evaluate. Page 20 of 23 Review date: September 2009

21 8 EQUALITY & DIVERSITY: The Trust has adopted an Equality & Diversity Strategy & Policy covering its entire staff and it is the responsibility of all JE Practitioners to comply with the policy. PERSON SPECIFICATION ROLE: GRADE: Agenda for Change Job Evaluation Practitioner Not applicable CRITERIA REQUIRED ESSENTIAL DESIRABLE Qualifications & Training Knowledge & Experience Specific Skills Effective listening skills Able to work well within a team. Non-judgemental, impartial & objective Able to look at the factors in a job role objectively and to be able to weigh that information consistently to make appropriate decisions. Able to handle conflict effectively and differences of opinions maturely Able to keep all any previous experience of Job Evaluation Basic computer literacy to be able to use computerised JE system with training (highly desirable) Page 21 of 23 Review date: September 2009

22 confidential information confidential and to declare any conflicts of interest Effective communication skills confident and assertive Able to be freed up for a sufficient amount of time for JE work Able to be freed up for JE role without significant negative impact on Trust services Appropriately representative of the Trust it is expected that JE Practitioners will be evenly & widely divided across the Trust so that no one area or role is disproportionately represented. Physical Skills & Effort Emotional Effort Able to cope with conflict Able to concentrate for sustained periods of time Requirements due to Working Environment Last updated: June 2006 Page 22 of 23 Review date: September 2009

23 CONSULTATION CHECKLIST Author; please attach this to each copy of the policy being sent to a meeting for comments. Dear Chairman, please would you review this policy at your committee and return any amendments / comments to by. Title of meeting Date of meeting Name of policy Name of author Are there any elements of this policy which present operational issues that require further discussion? If yes, please provide a contact name for the author. Yes No N/A Is the policy referenced? Does the policy include a training plan? If you are the appropriate forum, have the necessary resources been agreed to implement this policy? Is there a plan for policy implementation? Does your meeting recommend further consultation with groups or staff other than listed at the front of the policy? Other comments from meeting. Policy accepted without further comment. (Please circle) Policy needs further amendment. (Please circle) Chair of Staff-side, TCNC: Name of Chair Yes / No Yes / No Signature Chair of Management side, TCNC: Name of Chair Signature Date Date Page 23 of 23 Review date: September 2009