Charnwood Borough Council
JOB EVALUATION
The following is the detail of the Charnwood Borough Council job evaluation scheme. At all stages consultation has taken place between management and the local and regional trade union officials and trade union representatives have been involved at all stages of the job evaluation process. This document is for formal agreement of the scheme with the trade unions party to the Single Status
Agreement.
Scheme
The scheme selected is the Hay Job Evaluation Scheme following an evaluation of schemes in 2005.
Evaluation Panels
Seven evaluation panels with four members in each were formed to undertake job evaluation. Panels consisted of four members, two nominated by the trade unions and two by management. The membership of the panels was intended to be generally consistent for the duration of the exercise, although practical considerations dictated that some changes were necessary. Panels met with four members present but could meet with three in the event of sickness or other unforeseen event, the level of attendance was monitored throughout the evaluation process.
Moderation Panels
In addition a moderation panel was formed to look at all the jobs that were evaluated by the Panels. This was to ensure consistency across the panels and to undertake any ‘sore-thumbing’ required. The Panel comprised of the Monitoring
Officer, the Director of Change Management, the Head of Human Resources and two nominees from the trade unions. Subsequently, the Panel met without the
Monitoring Officer.
Training
It was considered important that all Evaluators are adequately trained and supported.
This training consisted of two days training with a Hay consultant for those who had not received training on Hay and a one day refresher training for those who undertook training in November 2004 as part of project to select a job evaluation scheme. Panel members could, if they so wished choose to attend both days even if they had been previously trained. A Hay consultant worked with the panels during the early evaluations and was a resource for the moderation panel.

Evaluation Paperwork
Evaluators used existing Council information to undertake evaluations. These were job descriptions, person specifications, organisation charts and budget information.
Managers and employees were asked to review all job descriptions and person specifications to ensure these were up to date. The verification of job descriptions was also a requirement under the Council’s annual appraisal scheme. All documentation was communicated to staff and placed on the intranet and employees invited to check these.
Communications
Both the trade unions and management agreed that there should be regular and open communications with employees. This included information in the Bulletin, briefing sessions on job evaluation and a job evaluation intranet page including messages, information on Hay, links to job descriptions and person specifications and frequently asked questions. The full results will be placed on the intranet when evaluations have been completed so that employees can see how their job has been scored, factor by factor, and how this compares with other employees.
Appeals Procedure
The appeals process enables employees to appeal against the outcome of the job evaluation process. It is not intended to cover a situation where the job role of the post holder has expanded since the job description was written.
This procedure covers the appeal process against the initial job evaluation exercise only. An on-going appeals process will still need to be agreed.
Following the evaluation process all results will be published and employees given the opportunity to appeal against the grade of the post they currently occupy on the date of publication (and/or their substantive post where this is different) and on the post they occupied on 31 August 2005 if this has subsequently changed as a result of re-organisation. Information will be published for all posts evaluated and will include for each post the:
• Hay profile
• Hay score
• grade allocated
Appeals may be made on the grounds that the postholder believes:
• the information used to determine the evaluation was inaccurate, incomplete or misleading in some way, or
• the information available has been wrongly interpreted by the evaluation/moderation panel.

The appeals process will be two stages. At both stages the Panels will consider all the factors that make up the total score for each post subject to appeal and scores may go up, stay the same or go down.
Stage 1
Employees will indicate their intention to appeal within 15 working days of the date of publication. Employees will have a further 10 days to state the grounds of their appeal. This will be submitted on the Appeals Registration Form. This form should be submitted, where possible by e-mail to appeals@charnwood.gov.uk
or by post addressed to the Head of Human Resources. Employees may ask their managers or their trade union representatives to assist with the preparation of the document providing that individual is not involved in considering the appeal.
Where the appeal is on the grounds that the information has been wrongly interpreted, an explanation will be given as to why the employee believes this to be the case. The Appeals Registration form will also include s short statement by the manager confirming or otherwise the information provided by the employee.
Where an employee appeals on the grounds that information is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, they will supply a revised job description agreed with their manager and highlight the differences. (Worried this comes first). All employees and managers were required to verify their job descriptions prior to the commencement of job evaluation, so an explanation will be required at to why this situation has occurred.
The appeal will be considered by the Moderation Panel at the first stage. The Panel will receive the documentation for evaluation approximately 5 working days prior to meeting. The employee will have the opportunity to attend to give a short presentation of their appeal and to answer any questions. They may be accompanied by a trade union representative or work colleague who may act in support of the employee. In the case of a group appeal, a representative number of job holders, normally limited to two, will attend.
The Panel will consider any submissions and may wish to meet with the employee’s manager to establish facts. The Panel will make every effort to come to an unanimous decision but in the event that there is disagreement, there will be a majority decision but the disagreement will be recorded. Employees will receive, in writing, the results of the Appeal and the reasons for these including any disagreement by the Panel.
Stage 2
If employees are dissatisfied with the outcome at stage 1, they may appeal directly to the Appeals Panel. The Panel will consist of a representative from the Trades Union and a representative from Management and will be chaired by an elected member, all of whom will be trained on the Hay job evaluation scheme. Employees must submit appeals at stage 2 within 5 working days of receiving the results of their appeal at stage 1. Those appealing will again have the opportunity to present their case to the
Panel in person and to answer questions. They may be accompanied by a union representative or work colleague who may act as an advocate. The Panel will have

the facility to interview the employee’s manager. In the case of a group appeal, a representative number of job holders, normally limited to two, will attend.
The Panel will make every effort to reach an unanimous decision but in the event of disagreement between the Trades Unions and Management Representatives, the final decision will be made by the Chair of the Panel.
The results of all appeals would need to be presented to the Personnel Committee for approval before they could be implemented.
Timetable
Publication of results. Appeals invited.
Deadline for notification of intention to appeal.
Deadline for submission of Appeals
29 June 2006
21 July 2006
04 August 2006
August/September Stage 1 Appeals considered by Moderation Panel
Grading
The existing grading structure will be utilised for all posts graded at senior officer level and below. A revised grading structure will be applied to posts at principal officer level and above. At principal officer level, this is intended to remove the current system of heavily overlapping grades and at JNC level to provide a more logical and coherent salary structure for senior management in the Council. The proposal for grades at JNC level is independent of the introduction of job evaluation although it will aid its introduction.
33 26187 POA
34 26928 POA
35 27492 POA POA/POB
36 28221 POA POA/POB
37 29010 POA POB/POC
38 29859 POA POB/POC
39 30843 POB POC/POD
40 31653 POB POC/POD
41 32315 POB POD/POE
42 33315 POB POD/POE
43 34161 POC POE/POF
44 34986 POC POE/POF
45 35772 POC POF/POG
46 36636 POC POF/POG
47 37476 POD POG
48 38310 POD POG
49 39132 POD
50 41886 JNC-A JNC0
51 42967 JNC-A

52 44033 JNC-A
53 45111 JNC-A
54 46189 JNC-B
55 47257 JNC-B
56 48443 JNC-B
57 49620 JNC-B
58 51578 JNC-C HOS3
59 52745 JNC-C HOS2
60 53919 JNC-C HOS1
61 55089 JNC-C
62 59236 JNC-D
Deputy
Director
63 60715 JNC-D
Director
65 63678 JNC-D
66 65158 JNC-E
67 66658 JNC-E
68 68158 JNC-E
69 69658 JNC-E
Salary Protection Arrangements .
The existing Council protection arrangements for downgraded posts, as a result of an organisational review, give employees salary protection in cash terms for three years or until the new pay reaches the level of the protected pay. Protection includes contractual payments, namely contractual overtime, bonuses and shift allowances. Following the protection period, salary is reduced to the spinal column point at the top of the scale applicable at the time (unless actual salary exceeds this).
Employees under time limited protection arrangements often attempt to secure higher paid posts, either within the organisation or elsewhere. Recognising that this may be more difficult for employees whose salary has been reduced by 10% or more, it is agreed that the three year protection arrangements be extended to four years in these circumstances, subject to the employee’s new salary not exceeding the previous salary.
Where post holders have an element of bonus within their pay, this will be absorbed as part of any regrading applied.

Pension Protection Arrangements
Any employee whose pay is reduced as a result of job evaluation and who is a member of the pension scheme is entitled to a receive a certificate of earnings protection which would provide an element of pension protection. This certificate will be provided automatically to employees affected.
The certificate protects the calculation of the pensionable pay to be either: a) any one of the last five years of membership; or b) the annual average of any tree consecutive years falling within a span of 13 years' membership before the date of leaving.
Where a scheme member's pay is frozen but not reduced, which would be the case during the protection period, an inflationary factor is applied when assessing the best years for the pension calculation.
Implementation Date
The implementation date for new grades will be applied to posts that are not subject to Appeal on 01 April 2006 subject to acceptance of the scheme by the trade unions.
Any upgrading for posts subject to appeal will not be paid until the results of the appeal process are known. Any upgrades given as a result of an appeal will be backdated to the implementation date.
Equal Pay Audit
An equal pay audit will be undertaken following the evaluation process. The audit is designed to ensure that our pay and grading structure gives employees irrespective of gender equal pay for equal work in accordance with the Equal Pay Act. Having a sound job evaluation process goes a long way to ensuring compliance but it does not remove the need for an audit. In addition to gender, it is also planned to consider ethnicity and disability as part of the audit. The process and remedies applied as a result of equal pay resulting from Job Evaluation will be subject of negotiation with trade unions.
Market Increments
It is recognised that some posts will have been downgraded following evaluation because the previous grading system allowed an element of market forces when setting the grade. Market increments will be discussed at the next meeting between management and the trade unions.
Maintenance of the Scheme
It is important to undertake a programme of maintenance following the job evaluation process to avoid grade drift. This will be done as a matter of course for posts that are changed as a result of reorganisations but re-evaluations will need to be undertaken established from time to time on posts that have not been the subject

of change. It is anticipated that approximately TBC% of jobs will be re-evaluated each year. In addition, Hay consultants will be used to provide an external check of results.