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 document (JDD), 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. Applications by Academic, Research, or Teaching and Scholarship staff should be made to the relevant review panel for the staff group.

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 a re-structuring or re-organisation of tasks and duties within a team/Faculty/school/Professional Services department
internal restructuring 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 to the College standard template by the line manager, in consultation with the job holder, with guidance from the Assistant HR Business Partner. The line manager, job holder and head of department, where appropriate, will be expected to sign off an agreed job description before submission for evaluation. Problems in resolving any dispute over the content of a job description should be referred to the Assistant HR Business Partner. Associated job descriptions must also be submitted (i.e. those in the team immediately above, below or equal to the role submitted for evaluation), together with an up-to-date organisational chart for the team.

Jobs will not normally be re-evaluated within a 12-month period, unless considered under the Appeals Process or for the purposes of 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 JDD template working with HR and complete the job evaluation request form (Word) (Birkbeck staff only) as soon as possible in order to expedite the recruitment process.

The JDD (Job Description and Person Specification) and the application form should be submitted to HR together with the full supporting documentation (i.e. other related job descriptions and an updated organisational structure).

The grading outcome will be part of the post authorisation request submitted to the College Secretary/Director of Operations/Director. If approved, arrangements can be made with HR to commence the advertising of the job.

When the finalised JDD is received in HR, in parallel with submission to the JE Panel, the Learning and Organisational Development team will review and propose any mandatory and desirable training for the role.

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/school concerned. Jobs will not normally be considered for re-evaluation within 12 months of the date of last grading evaluation.

If a need for a significant change is identified in a vacant established post, the line manager should complete the JDD. This should be submitted together with the job evaluation request form (Word) (Birkbeck staff only) and full supporting documentation to HR.

The grading outcome will normally form part of the post authorisation request submitted to the College Secretary/Director of Operations/Director. If approved, arrangements can be made with HR to commence the advertising of the job.

3.1.3 Re-evaluation of existing, occupied posts

Where a line manager significantly changes the duties of an existing occupied post, for instance due to a restructure, s/he should complete a JDD and the job evaluation request form (Word) (Birkbeck staff only) 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.

Re-evaluation applications for existing, occupied posts will not normally be considered for re-evaluation within 12 months of the date of last evaluation.

It is recognised that jobs develop and change over time and therefore it is good practice to re-evaluate all roles within a Professional Services department/Faculty at regular intervals. This is to ensure that the job evaluation process continues to be relevant and applied consistently across the College.

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 manager 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 complete and up to date pack of supporting documentation.

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.

Job descriptions should be discussed, reviewed and updated at the annual Progress Development Review Meeting.

A re-evaluation may or may not lead to an increase in score or grade.

5.3 INCREASE IN SCORE LEADING TO HIGHER GRADE

Where an increase in the score means the job stays within the score boundaries for the current grade, there will be no change in either grade or salary. Where, however, the increase in score means the job now falls within the score boundary for a higher grade this outcome will be communicated by the Assistant HR Business Partner to the relevant line manager in the first instance. For new and established roles this will be a move to the lowest spinal column point of the grade. Where the established post holder is currently on a spinal column point that overlaps the higher grade, the new salary will move to the equivalent spinal column point in the new grade. Normal incremental progress will then apply to the new grade. The job holder's salary will move to the new grade with effect from the first day of the month following the panel.

5.4 DECREASE IN SCORE LEADING TO LOWER GRADE

Where a decrease in the score means the job stays within the score boundaries for the current grade, there will be no change in either grade or salary. Where, however, the decrease in score means 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.

If 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 from the date of re-evaluation.

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 reasons for the appeal should take the form of a written summary submitted to the Director of HR, signed by the line manager. The Director of HR will review the grounds for appeal and decide whether to accept or reject the appeal.

Any decisions to reject an appeal at this stage will be notified to the line manager.

Appeals that are taken forward will involve 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. 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 and there will be no further right of appeal.