Denise Bertuchi  020 7551 1323
d.bertuchi@unison.co.uk
To:
Secretaries of Higher Education Branches
HE/13/2013
September 2013
Dear Colleague
Higher Education Role Analysis and Grade Drift
UNISON has concerns over the issue of “negative grade drift” taking place in some
HEI’s which appear to undermine the gains made during the implementation of
Higher Education Role Analysis (HERA).
Of particular concern are the following issues that are used with growing frequency to
drive down the grades of roles within HEI’s in an attempt to reduce staffing costs:
Evidence of employers using organisational restructures as a means to
modify/redesign job roles. This has led to reductions in the grades of these posts
and is often managed by the employers implementing transitional arrangements
such as pay protection for a number of years.

Concern at reports of some employers refusing to involve UNISON and the other
trade unions in the evaluation of new posts, stating that joint involvement and
grading panels were only for the implementation of HERA and not an enduring
role.

An increase in scepticism about job evaluation and HERA by some higher
education employers.

Complacency by some HR and senior management who perceive that equal pay
and equal grading issues have been dealt with and no longer require attention.
This is not the case, especially if the process is not being followed correctly in its
ongoing implementation.

Some pro-Hay job evaluation universities and independent consultants have
been dismissive of HERA, especially in relation to senior staff pay and reward.
However, there are a number of alternative options for senior managerial roles
that are not part of the JNCHES pay Scale. A number of active HERA users have
applied Hay evaluations for senior roles that currently sit beyond the NJC salary
Scale point 51. Provided there is an assessment on posts that border the top of
HERA scales and the lower end of any Hay evaluated senior management scale
in a particular employer then this should not cause any detriment.
However, there is a concern that some uninformed colleagues opting may be
persuaded by their employers or consultants to adopt for Hay as a perceived
‘simpler’ approach “across the board”. This is not necessary, and in fact the
HERA model is a tailor made specific scheme for higher education established to
meet the different range of roles performed in the sector.

Job families and generic profiles for support roles appear to be circulating
between some of the Russell Group universities. In UNISON’s opinion this leads
to the risk of previous good practice being quietly eroded.
UNISON will be running a workshop on this issue at the branch seminar in
Harrogate in 24 - 26 October 2013 and are developing training materials to
equip branches with the tools to identify where this is happening and the
negotiating advice on how to address this.
We have attached a briefing on issue to this bulletin.
UNISON are keen to establish a national picture and would be grateful if branches
could complete the short survey from this link (other formats are available upon
request):
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/VTQWG8M
If you require any further information on this topic please contact Denise Bertuchi at
d.bertuchi@unison.co.uk.
Yours sincerely
Jon Richards
National Secretary
Education and Children’s Services
Higher Education Role Analysis and Grade Drift
1. RE-EVALUATION.
If you have a member who is seeking re-evaluation ensure that you have discussed
the facts with your regional organiser to ensure that all the appropriate evidence is
collated as soon as possible. Re-evaluation can be dealt with by either asking for a
new interview with a role analyst or by re-submitting an evaluation form and
convening the grading panel but there may need to be a reason put forward for any
re-evaluation such as change to duties and responsibilities that will require evidence
to be obtained.
The implementation guidelines for HERA say that “in the event that a role has been
evaluated by a mechanism other than a one-to-one interview, the appeal mechanism
should require such an interview to take place, and the role to be re-evaluated on the
basis of this.”
Issues to consider when dealing with this type of re-evaluation include:

Establishing that an individual’s work has changed permanently and when that
change occurred; the changed job will then be evaluated.

Issues that may be taken into account include:
-
-
Whether the new additional duties are already covered within the job
description
Whether the additional duties are required by management or have been
undertaken voluntarily by the job holder (in which case management should
specify whether the duties should continue)
Whether the additional work is ‘one off’ or a permanent feature.

There will probably need to be agreed ground rules to deal with situations where
the line manager does not agree that there are additional duties. In the first
instance, the difference should be resolved if possible in discussion with the job
holder, the line manager and the union representative. If the matter is not
resolved and the job holder maintains that their duties have changed or that an
equivalent post is more highly graded and paid, the job should be re-evaluated
through one-to-one interview with a trained role analyst. Where agreement
cannot be reached then consideration of the use of a local grievance procedure
should be considered.

Once the changed job has been evaluated, the job holder should have a right of
appeal against the evaluation, which should be dealt with under the agreed
appeals procedure.
Re-evaluations will also normally be required where jobs are restructured, for
example arising from a departmental review.
2. JOINT APPEAL PROCESS
It is recommended that all branches should agree a joint appeals process before
considering any appeals. The guidance below provides details on what an appeals
process should contain.
a) Constitution of Panels
Normally any formal grading appeal will be considered by a panel. It is essential that
the panel is made up jointly of trade union and management representatives. Ideally
this should have equal numbers on each side although some may choose to adopt
an independent chair of the panel.
The panel representatives must be trained on the job evaluation scheme to be used,
UNISON nominated and accountable. Again there is evidence of existing panel
members that are no longer active UNISON members with no mandate from the
branch to carry out this role. Branches should regularly review their nominated job
evaluation panel representatives and ensure that they provide reports to the Branch
Committee on any significant trends.
Panel members must be trained in job evaluation and equalities although they should
not have been involved either as a manager or trade union representative in the
original grading of the appellant.
There should be a single appeals process to consider all jobs and roles in the
institution to ensure consistency and transparency in handling appeals. It may be
necessary in some cases to bring in ‘expert’ witnesses.
The make up of the panel should be representative of the gender/race mix of the
workforce in the institution.
b) Process and timescale
An agreed procedure should be negotiated for submitting an appeal. It should contain
the need to submit an appeal in writing (a pro-forma could be agreed) and within an
agreed reasonable period of the outcome of the evaluation becoming known. (e.g.
two months).
The timescale will set out the period in which the appeal will be dealt with at each
stage of the appeal. Any timescale should start from the date on which the appeal is
submitted.
c) Informal Stage
In most cases it is helpful to have an informal stage before proceeding to a formal
appeal. This stage will normally involve a discussion between the employee, his/her
trade union representative, management and a representative of the department
responsible for the JE scheme.
The informal stage can be used to clarify why the job scored the number of points
that it did in evaluation and whether a re-evaluation is necessary.
It can also establish whether an appeal is likely to succeed. (i.e. whether it would be
possible to secure sufficient additional points to move to the next grade to make the
appeal worthwhile).
It also may establish if there is any danger of the appellant being downgraded as the
result of the appeal in which case it may be advisable to advise them to withdraw the
appeal.
d) Formal Stage
If the appeal is not settled/withdrawn at the informal stage it will be necessary to
institute a formal panel. The panel will receive evidence from the appellant and/or
their trade union representative and the management representative. The panel
should have the opportunity to ask questions to all concerned. The panel can agree a
new evaluation and grade. There should be no power of veto on the decisions of the
joint panel by the Vice-Chancellor/Principal or any other senior officer.
e) Further Stages of Appeal
It can be useful to have a further stage of appeal available (particularly if the joint
panel cannot reach an agreed outcome or it is considered that there are exceptional
circumstances).
This further stage is good practice in maintaining the integrity of the process and in
enhancing confidence in the process amongst staff. The likelihood is that it should be
rarely reached if the decisions of panels are jointly agreed.
The makeup of this further panel should be agreed locally.
f) Legal Rights
It should be noted that employees retain their legal rights in the event that the
process of evaluations/appeals and grading contravenes equal pay law and antidiscriminatory legislation.