Job evaluation policy
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The College is committed to ensuring that all jobs are correctly evaluated, and this policy has been developed to ensure that the process is both equitable and transparent, irrespective of the size or level of job. The aim of job evaluation is to provide a systematic and consistent approach to defining the relative worth of jobs within an organisation. It is a process whereby jobs are placed in a rank order according to overall demands placed upon the jobholder. It therefore provides a basis for a fair and orderly grading structure and underpins the College's commitment to equal pay for work of equal value.
Jobs are graded following the submission of a job description and person specification (JD), using the Hay methodology.
It is important to recognise that it is the job that is evaluated, not the performance of the individual fulfilling it.
Job evaluation is a technique of job analysis, assessment and comparison and it is concerned with the demands of the job, such as the skills, qualifications, knowledge and understanding, experience and the responsibility required to carry out the job. It is not concerned with the total volume of work, the number of people required to do it, the scheduling of work or the ability of the job holder.
Job evaluation is a method of comparing different jobs. It is a process that seeks to objectively measure the different elements of a job through scoring for each element and resulting in a total score for each job. The jobs are placed in a rank order according to their size, therefore providing a basis for a fair pay and grading structure.
2.0 PRINCIPLES AND SCOPE
This policy applies to jobs within the Professional and Support staff category. Academic, Research and Teaching and Scholarship staff have generic job Descriptions that should not be changed and therefore are not evaluated using this process.
Each panel will comprise five Hay trained representatives:
- 1 x HR Representative (Chair)
- 1 x College Staff Evaluator
- 1 x College Staff Evaluator
- 1 x College Staff Evaluator
- 1 x College Staff Evaluator.
There will be a quorum of four for the panel to take place, one of which must be the HR Representative (Chair).
Positions may need to be evaluated where:
- the post is newly created
- there has been a significant and permanent change in the work and responsibilities of the position and re-evaluation is sought by the line manager (this applies equally to a reduction as well as increase in the job activity)
- there is an organisational change resulting in a re-structuring or re-organisation of tasks and duties within a team, department, school or faculty.
- internal restructuring of staff within a team, department, school or faculty has an impact on the structure of the job
- there has been an appeal against an evaluation result and re-evaluation is recommended.
Job evaluation will be carried out on the basis of a comprehensive and up-to-date job description, prepared using the College’s standard template by the line manager, in consultation with the job holder, and with guidance from the HR Business Partnering Team. The Executive Dean, Director of Professional Services or Director of Operations will be expected to sign off an agreed job description before submission for evaluation using the additional information form (Word).
Jobs will not normally be re-evaluated within a 12-month period, unless considered as part of a re-organisation.
Panels will meet to evaluate roles on a monthly basis and will be scheduled for the year in advance.
The evaluation panel records will be retained by HR.
3.0 MANAGERS' GUIDANCE
3.1 TYPES OF JOB EVALUATION
3.1.1 New posts
Once the need for a new post has been identified, the line manager should develop the JD template working with HR and complete the additional information form (Word) as soon as possible in order to expedite the recruitment process.
The JD and the additional information form (Word) should be submitted to HR together with the full supporting documentation (e.g. an update to date organisational structure including grades).
The grading outcome will be part of the post authorisation request submitted to the /Director of Operations/Director of Professional Services. If approved, arrangements can be made with HR to commence the advertising of the job.
3.1.2 Re-evaluation of vacant posts
Changes to an existing job - this is where the responsibilities of an existing job have changed significantly since it was last evaluated in order to meet the requirements of the department, faculty or school concerned.
If a need for a significant change is identified in a vacant established post, the line manager should complete the JD. This should be submitted together with the additional information form (Word) and full supporting documentation to HR. If the vacant post is being evaluated but there are other post holders the line manager must follow the process below for occupied posts.
The grading outcome will normally form part of the post authorisation request submitted to the College Secretary/Director of Operations/Director of Professional Services. If approved, arrangements can be made with HR to commence the advertising of the job.
3.1.3 Re-evaluation of existing, occupied posts
It is recognised that jobs develop and change over time and therefore it is good practice, where possible to re-evaluate roles within a professional service department/school at regular intervals. This is to ensure that the job evaluation process continues to be relevant and applied consistently across the College.
Where a line manager significantly changes the duties of an existing occupied post, for instance due to a restructure, they should complete a JD and the additional information form (Word) and these should be submitted, together with the full supporting documentation, to HR prior to the commencement of the new duties. Any such changes or additions should be discussed with the jobholder.
The new duties must form part of the job on a permanent basis. Where the scope or specific responsibilities of the job increase temporarily, line managers should contact their Assistant HR Business Partner to discuss whether an acting-up or higher responsibility allowance or contribution related pay award is more appropriate.
Additional or new duties at the same level of responsibility and/or complexity will not normally result in the job being graded to a higher level. Advice may be sought from HR where required.
3.2 RESPONSIBILITIES
3.2.1 The Director of Human Resources
Has overall responsibility for the application, monitoring and review of this policy and the Deputy Director of HR will be responsible for its operational delivery.
3.2.2 Line managers
Have responsibility for ensuring that job information used in the evaluation process is fair, accurate and in line with guidance provided by Human Resources, which includes the requirement to consult with job holders.
Line managers should seek advice from HR in a timely way to allow for their input and response prior to panel submission.
Line managers must submit the additional information form (Word) and full supporting documentation to HR.
Line managers must be available to attend job evaluation panels when their submissions are reviewed.
View the line manager's guidance to job evaluation (Birkbeck staff only).
4.0 PANEL MEMBERS
Evaluation panels operate on the basis of consensus decision making.
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 or a role that they directly manage or report to.
Panel members are expected to declare any other potential conflict of interest where it may be appropriate not to be involved in an evaluation.
All discussions within panels, and records of these discussions (including scores) will be strictly confidential to HR and the panels.
5.0 EVALUATION
5.1 VACANT JOBS
The outcome of the evaluation will be communicated to the line manager who can then submit the role for recruitment authorisation.
5.2 EXISTING JOBS
The outcome of a re-evaluation will be communicated to the line manager in the first instance. The Assistant HR Business Partner responsible for the area will be available if required to discuss the evaluation and consequences of the outcome. The current job holder will be informed of the outcome by their line manager and this outcome will also be confirmed in writing by the Assistant HR Business Partner.
Where there is an increase in the score but when that scoring means the job still remains within the score boundaries for the current grade, there will be no change in either grade or salary.
A re-evaluation may or may not lead to an increase in score or grade.
5.3 INCREASE IN SCORE LEADING TO HIGHER GRADE
5.3.1 Where the post holder is below the bottom spine point of the new grade
Where the increase in score means the job now falls within the score boundary for a higher grade, the post holder will move to the lowest pay spine point of the new grade for the role with effect from the first day of the month following the panel decision.
Annual incremental progression rules determine that staff moving to a higher graded role after 1 April will have an incremental date of 1 October in the following year.
Therefore, where the job evaluation outcome becomes effective on or before 1 March, an increment will be automatically applied October of the same year, and where the job evaluation outcome is effective on or after 1 April, an increment will not be applied until the October in the following year.
5.3.2 Where the post holder is on or above the bottom spine point of the new grade
Where the established post holder is currently on a pay spine point that overlaps the higher grade, the post holder will move to the same pay spine point in the new grade with effect from the first day of the month following the panel decision.
There will be no increase in pay at that point in time, however, the post holder will receive an increment on 1 October following the date the job evaluation outcome is effective.
There is no opportunity to request a higher spine point following the evaluation and there will be an increment of one pay spine point only in the October following the evaluation outcome. Any requests for accelerated increments need to be made in accordance with the published contribution related pay process and timelines.
Outcomes from job evaluation panels will be communicated by a member of the HR Business Partnering Team to the relevant line manager in the first instance and formal notification will follow to the staff member.
5.4 DECREASE IN SCORE LEADING TO LOWER GRADE
If, following an organisational change, the role has significantly changed, and the job now falls within the score boundary for a lower grade this outcome will be communicated by the Assistant HR Business Partner to the relevant line manager in the first instance.
The line manager will have to follow the guidance for managing organisational change.
If the post holder accepts the new job description and the current pay of the job holder is higher than the maximum point of the new lower grade, the job holder will have their current salary protected (frozen) for 12 months. The salary will then revert to the top (non-discretionary) spine point of the grade of the new job.
6.0 APPEALS
Line managers who wish to appeal will be required to provide written reasons for their appeal, within 10 working days of the date of written notification of the evaluation.
In the case of an existing occupied role, if the post holder wants to appeal the decision, they may only do so with the support of their line manager.
The only grounds for appeal will be on the basis that the evaluation panel failed to follow its stated procedure in a way that was potentially material to the grading decision.
The appeal should be in writing and clearly state how the process was not followed and how this has potentially affected the grading of the job. The appeal should be submitted to the Director of Human Resources, signed by the line manager.
Appeals that are taken forward will involve the re-evaluation of the role by a different panel from the one that originally evaluated the role. At least three of the panel members, including the chair, considering the appeal will have had no involvement in the original evaluation. Appeals should be held within four weeks of receipt. The line manager should be available to attend the panel if requested. The panel's decision will be final, will be notified in writing to the line manager after the panel meeting. There will be no further right of appeal.
Version no: 2.1
Policy Owner: Deputy Director of Human Resources
Approved by: Human Resources Strategy and Policy Committee
Date approved: 24 October 2024