Role Evaluation and Review Policy & Procedure for Professional Support Staff 1.0 Policy 1.1 Role Evaluation and Review is the ongoing process of evaluating new roles and reviewing roles that change over time. Requests for role evaluation and review are made by management and should be in line with the requirements and budget of the Faculty/Department/Division/Service Area. 1.2 This policy will be applied in a non-discriminatory way, in line with the School s Equality and Diversity policies. 2.0 Purpose 2.1 The purpose of the Role Evaluation and Review Policy & Procedure is to ensure that all roles are appropriately graded and that substantive changes to a role are considered in a timely way and reflected in the grade for the role using the Higher Education Role Analysis (HERA) methodology of role evaluation. Role evaluation measures each element of the job, including skills, experience, responsibilities and working conditions and then provides a total score. 3.0 Principles This policy will be implemented against the following set of principles: Role evaluation supports the principles of Equal Pay for work of Equal Value Roles will be evaluated and reviewed equitably in accordance with the School s policy on Equal Opportunities. HERA is the chosen method for Role Evaluation. Roles cannot be fully evaluated without clear and concise evidence of the responsibilities of the role. As such, HR reserves the right to request additional evidence or clarification of the requirements of the role before grading the role. HR will review the outcomes of the role evaluation for new and/or changed roles against existing roles across the School and will continue to consistency check element scores against those of similar roles. A grading review request must be based on significant and permanent changes in the levels of responsibility and accountability of a role. For temporary changes to roles (e.g. to cover maternity leave, long-term sickness absence) contact the relevant HR contact. Where existing, occupied roles are being reviewed, the request should be based on changes that are already in place and not be based on how the responsibilities or activities might or will change in the future. An increase in volume of work will not necessarily result in an increase in role score sufficient enough to merit a change in grade. Evidence would need to be provided that this increase in volume has resulted in a significant increase in responsibility/accountability. It is not normally expected that any role would be changed or reviewed more than once in any 12 month period. 1
4.0 Organisational Scope 4.1 The Role Evaluation and Review policy applies to all categories of jobs which are covered by the National Framework Agreement, excluding Clinical Academics covered by Honorary Clinical Consultant arrangements. 4.2 All job roles are evaluated using the HERA methodology. Academic roles at the School are based on generic role profiles that have already been evaluated using HERA. It is therefore only in exceptional circumstances that academic roles need to be specifically evaluated. 5.0 Role and Responsibilities The following roles and responsibilities have been identified for the purposes of managing the role evaluation & review policy: Role Line Manager (LM) in conjunction with Head of Department/Head of Service area where necessary. Accountable for Ensuring that role information used in the evaluation process is fair, accurate and in line with guidance provided by Human Resources, which includes a requirement to consult with role holders. Ensuring appropriate funding is in place and that role evaluation/review request is in line with Faculty/Department/Divisional plans. Initiating the role review or role evaluation request and completing the Role Review Request form (RRRF) Defining the new or changed role by means of a Job Description, Person Specification and revised Organisation Chart. In the case of role review, setting out the reasons for the changes. Considering the impact (both within and outside the department) of creating new and/or changing existing roles. Forwarding all documentation to the HR Division Communicating (verbally) the outcomes of the Role Evaluation & Review to individuals in post. Role Holder (RH) Agreeing any changes to responsibilities of current role Providing additional evidence of requirements of the role should this be needed In Academic Faculties the Dean of Faculty/FOO, in EDU the Dean of Education and in Central Services Chief Operating Offer or Secretary & Director of Resources and Planning. Approving the new role (including funding implications) or approving any substantive changes to an existing role. Human Resources Director The Director of Human Resources will have overall responsibility for the application, monitoring and review of this policy. 2
Human Resources Division Logging the Role Evaluation or Role Review Request Acknowledging receipt of the request. Checking that the Job Description/Person Specification match the requirements of the agreed role. Allocating role evaluations or role review to the Grading Panels and Chairing the Grading Panels Formally communicating the outcome of the evaluation to the person who submitted the request (normally the line manager or individual responsible for the recruitment exercise). Seeking further evidence or clarity on the requirements of roles where necessary. Triggering the appropriate letter/change of contract for the individual. Consistency checking of scores against other roles within the School. Retaining definitive copy of the job description. HERA Grading Panels To score roles in accordance with the HERA guidelines and ensure consistent decisions are made, with reference to the scoring of other posts within the institution. To score the roles in advance of the panel meeting and then agree final score with other panel members. Make notes of panel discussions. Take responsibility for communicating feedback to individuals who have been unsuccessful in the role review process. 6.0 PROCEDURE 6.1 Job Matching Job matching is the process used to allocate a job to a grade without it needing to go through a full evaluation process and is a process which helps to promote consistency in grading across the School. Where a comparable job description 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 for evaluation. There is no right of appeal under the job matching process. 6.2 Role Evaluation and Review Process The School will evaluate roles using the HERA system of role evaluation. Jobs will be evaluated by a HERA Grading Panel. Members of the panel will be drawn from a small pool of staff fully trained in the use of HERA evaluation methodology. Roles will not normally be re-evaluated within a 12 month period, unless considered under the Appeals process. 3
6.3 When does a role need evaluating? Over time new roles are created and existing roles change as the business needs of the department develop. Common reasons for new or changed roles are: A need for new work to be done Significant changes to the demands of the role Restructuring in a department/team. When this happens it is the Faculty/Department/Division/Section Heads responsibility to initiate the role evaluation process. This may be the first step in the recruitment process http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/humanresources/recruitment/recruitment.pdf 6.4 Types of Role Evaluation 6.4.1 New Role This is a role that has not previously existed within the Faculty/Department/Division/Service Area, nor been evaluated. New roles must be evaluated by a Role Evaluation panel and a grade determined prior to advertising. 6.4.2 Role Review of Occupied Posts This is an existing role that has changed significantly since it was last evaluated and normally is an occupied post. Changes, in terms of the responsibilities and activities of the role have been made in order to meet the requirements of the Faculty/Department/Division/Service Area. A grading review will be undertaken where a role has changed significantly in terms of duties and responsibilities involved. Support is available from Human Resources if you are in doubt about whether a role has changed significantly as to warrant it being reviewed through the role review process. 6.4.3 Restructuring Where a Faculty/Department/Division/Service Area is undergoing or planning a restructure, it is not necessary to define the type of role evaluation request at the outset of the process. The proposed restructuring should be discussed with the HR Partner and the impact on roles will be discussed and advice will be given on the documentation needed and the timescales required to evaluate all new or changed roles. 6.5 Responsibility for initiating Role Evaluation or Review The Faculty/Department/Division/Service Area is responsible for initiating the role evaluation and review process by identifying the new role or the changes to an existing role, and is responsible for ensuring that the appropriate funding is in place. Role evaluation will be carried out on the basis of a comprehensive and up to date job description, prepared to a standard School format by the line manager, in consultation with job holder, with guidance from HR. 4
6.6 Timeline Grading review requests for new roles and for occupied posts with significant changes in duties will be considered by a HERA Grading panel which will meet every six weeks. Please see the HR website for the grading panel timetable and deadlines for submission of paperwork for the panel. Requests will be considered in order of receipt. In the event of a panel having insufficient time to evaluate all the grading requests, any outstanding ones will be referred to the next grading panel. Grading requests for new posts will be given priority by the Panel in order that this does not delay recruitment activity. 6.7 Grading Panels Roles will be evaluated by a HERA Grading Panel. Members of the panel will be drawn from a small pool of staff fully trained in the use of the HERA evaluation methodology. Each panel will comprise: 1 X HR Management Representative (Chair) 1 X Management Representative 1 X Trade Union Representative HERA grading panels operate on the basis of consensus decision making. Where the panel is unable to reach a consensus, the post will be deferred to the HR Department and two independent evaluators will review the post to determine the final score. 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 evaluation 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 discussion (including points scores) will be strictly confidential to HR and the panels. Please see Appendix A for the Terms of Reference for the Grading Panels 6.8 Procedure for the review of new roles For new roles, the line manager/recruiting manager should provide Human Resources with the following documentation:- New role evaluation request Job description Person specification Organisation chart 5
Academic and Research positions will not need to be HERA evaluated and will continue to be allocated to a grade by reference to the generic role profiles. Only in exceptional circumstances will there be a need to evaluate an Academic Role. HR will allocate the paperwork relating to the new role to the next available HERA grading panel. HR will notify the line manager/recruiting manager of the grade of the role following a decision by the HERA grading panel. There is no right of appeal under this procedure. However, should the line manager/recruiting manager realise that significant information about the job at the time of the grading was not adequately reflected in the job description, they can revise documentation and request that the role be resubmitted for evaluation to the next HERA grading panel six weeks later. 6.9 Procedure for role review of occupied posts 6.9.1 Scope of role review process The HERA role review process of occupied posts applies to Professional Support Staff roles graded 1-8. The HERA role review process does not apply to academic roles. Academic role holders can apply for promotion via the following procedures: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/humanresources/promotions/index.html A grading review of an occupied post will only be undertaken where a role has changed significantly in terms of duties and responsibilities involved. 6.9.2 Documentation In cases of role review, the line manager should provide the following documentation:- Updated job description (changes to responsibilities and activities should be clearly visible in track changes) Person specification Organisation chart Completed Role Review request form. Please note that a role will not be accepted for review without the above documentation completed and signed off by the relevant staff For role review, both the manager and job holder will be expected to sign off an agreed job description before submission for evaluation. Both the employee and the line manager should sign and date the job description before it is submitted. 6
Any disagreement over the content of a job description should, in the first instance, be referred to the next most senior manager in your area. If this is not possible or appropriate, this should be discussed with the HR Partner supporting your area and the job holder may, if he/she wishes also refer any problems to the appropriate Trade Union representative. These parties will work with individuals to find a route to informally resolve the issue. Changes to job descriptions need to be viewed in the broader Faculty/School context to take account of potential consistency and cost implications. Appropriate Faculty/Service Area/Division approval should therefore be sought before any changes are agreed. For role reviews or changed roles, where appropriate, the department is asked to identify any similar roles that exist either within the Faculty/department/service area or elsewhere in the School (if known). The department is also asked to consider the potential impact of the role or organisation structure change both within own department or on other areas of the School. These should have already been discussed with and the HR Partner. HR will support this process, particularly where there is a need to identify similar roles outside the Faculty/Department/Service Area. Please note that requests for a grading review of an existing role must be signed off by the Faculty Operating Officer, Dean of Education or in the case of Central Services by the Chief Operating Officer or Secretary & Director of Resources and Planning before they are submitted to Human Resources. All documentation should be forwarded to hr@lshtm.ac.uk. HR will log the request and acknowledge receipt. They will then forward the documentation to the HERA Grading Panel which will meet every six weeks. 6.9.3 Notification In cases of role review of an existing role, line managers will be informed of the job evaluation results in terms of the level to which the job has been allocated and the pay and terms and conditions which apply to this. Line managers can then informally discuss the outcome with the member of staff. HR will formally communicate the outcome of the role review process in writing to the individual. Individual role sizes (i.e. point scores) will not be communicated but will be held centrally for reference by Human Resources and future job evaluation panels. Where feedback is requested, a member of the HERA grading panel, agreed by the panel, will provide this. 6.9.4 Effective date of role review of existing post The effective date of a changed role is the date on which the Role Evaluation Request is received by Human Resources. 7
6.9.5 Role Review Outcomes A role review may or may not lead to an increase in points or grade. The following outcomes are possible:- 1. Increase in HERA points but still within the same grade. No change in grade or salary. Increment date does not change. 2. Increase in HERA points leading to a higher grade where current salary is below new grade minimum salary point. The role holder s salary will move to the first increment point in the new grade from the effective date of the role review (see point 3.9.4 above). If the increase in salary takes effect on or before 1 st March, the date of the next increment will be October of the same year. If the increase in salary takes effect after 1 March, the date of the next increment will be in October the following year. 3. Increase in HERA points leading to a higher grade current salary at or above new grade minimum salary point. The role holder s salary will move up to the next increment point above current salary from the effective date of the role review (see point 3.9.4 above). If the increase in salary takes effect on or before 1 st March, the date of the next increment will be October of the same year. If the increase in salary takes effect after 1 March, the date of the next increment will be in October the following year. 4. Where a role review results in a role being downgraded, HR will work with the individual and their line manager to develop the role so that duties and responsibilities are commensurate to the original grade of the post. 6.10 Criteria and Process for Appeal against Role Review Decisions The criteria for an Appeal against the decision made by a grading panel, in relation to a role review, is as follows:- 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 Role Evaluation Policy and Procedure. In this case, written details of the breach of policy/procedure should be given. If an individual wishes to appeal the outcome of a role review process, they can do so by submitting their grounds of appeal to the Director of HR within seven working days of the decision of the role review being communicated to them in writing. 8
A HERA panel of three trained analysts will review the grade, none of whom would have been involved in the original evaluation of the post. The outcome of the appeal will be confirmed in writing within seven working days of the role being re-evaluated. The decision of the grading appeal panel is final. Following an appeal no further grading of the role will take place within a period of 12 months. 9
Annex A Terms of reference for the HERA Grading Panel 1. Meetings The HERA Grading Panel will meet every six weeks to consider grading requests for new roles and re-grading requests made by members of Professional Support Staff. The dates for the meetings will be published at the beginning of each academic year and can be found on the HR Website. 2. Membership The membership of the HERA Grading Panel will be: 1 x HR Management Representative (Chair) 1 x Management Representative 1 x Trade Union Representative All members of the panel will be trained HERA analysts. Where a member of the panel is unexpectedly unable to attend the HERA grading panel, the panel will proceed providing that there are at least 2 panel members available. HR will always need to be in attendance for the panel to go ahead. 3. Conflict of Interest 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 evaluation 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 is may be appropriate not to be involved in an evaluation (e.g. the job of a family member). 4. Confidentiality All discussions within panels, and records of these discussion (including points scores) will be strictly confidential to Human Resources and the panels. 5. Role and remit The role of the grading panel will be to score roles in accordance with the HERA guidelines and ensure that consistent decisions are made, with reference to the scoring of other posts within the institution. 10
6. Decisions All members of the panel are full trained in the HERA job evaluation methodology. The panel will be provided with the HERA documentation upon which grading and regrading applications are based. They will score the roles in advance of meeting and then meet as a panel to agree the final score of the role. HERA grading panels operate on the basis of consensus decision making. Where the panel is unable to reach a consensus, the post will be deferred to the HR Department and two independent evaluators will review the post to determine the final score. Notes will be made of the panel discussions, by the HR Management Representative, to ensure the rationale behind decisions are documented. Where a role review has not resulted in a change in grade and feedback is requested from an individual staff member panel members will be expected to provide feedback. It will be agreed by the panel who will provide feedback to the individual. 7. Communication of decisions The Human Resources department will communicate the outcome of the grading panel to managers. It is the responsibility of managers to discuss the outcome with role holders. In the cases where a role review is unsuccessful and feedback is requested, a member of the panel will provide feedback to the post-holder. If you require any document in an alternative format, for example, in larger print, please contact Human Resources DOCUMENT CONTROL Title: Role Evaluation and Review Policy for Professional Support Staff. Applicable to: Professional Support Staff Date last reviewed: 23 September 2014 Date Equality Impact Assessment Took Place: 2/10/2014 Date discussed and approved by Trade Unions: 16 September 2014 Date document approved by AAC: 14/10/2014 Date that document will be reviewed: November 2015 Procedure Owner: HUMAN RESOURCES 11