Job Evaluation

1
Job Evaluation
Started beginning of 2003 completed mid 2004 RSA
non scheduled jobs
2
Bell Equipment

• Manufactures, distributes and sells yellow metal
  products.
• ADT, FEL, Backhoe Loaders, Tri-wheelers,
  Excavators.
• Family owned business, listed company, R3.2B
  turnover.
• Strategic alliance with John Deere.
• Exports 50 of product, Europe, North America,
  rest of Africa.
• ADT assembly plant in Germany.
• 2,500 employees worldwide.

3
Why Job Evaluation

• Employees rewarded fairly?
• Benchmark salaries with salary surveys/companies
• Company getting return for salaries paid?
• Salary and level of work aligned?
• Responsibility overlap?
• Form foundation for other HR systems
• Recruitment
• Career paths
• Training
• Performance Management

4
Job Evaluation Design
Selected Task Grading System
Five work skill levels

• Strategic
• Tactical
• Skilled
• Discretionary
• Defined

5
Communication

• Embarking on job evaluation exercise
• Explained benefits
• Explained job evaluation process and rules
• Job description writing and job evaluation
  procedure on company intranet
• Job description writing course

6
Communication Contd

• Job evaluation committees
• Functional committees which included at least two
  job experts
• Fixed main committee consisting of main
  functional heads
• Two core members present at every job evaluation
  session one of whom is the chairperson
• Grade communicated face to face from manager
• Appeal process

7
How Your Job Grade was Determined
Job Holder(s)
JOB INFORMATION
Functional Job Evaluation Committee
JOB GRADED
Internal External Benchmarks
GRADE VERIFIED
8
8
Job Information

• Approved job descriptions
• Jobs into job families
• Job families into functional areas
• Evidence from management
• Agreement of job content

9
Job Evaluation Process

• Work skill level determined
• Determined grade within work skill level
• Used computerised grading programme considering
• Complexity, knowledge, influence, and pressure
• Verified grade
• salary survey (external benchmarking)
• cross checked with other internal functional
  areas (internal benchmarking)

10
Rules Range spread Mid point spread Grade
overlap Pay slope
1
18
11
Pay Progression Policy

• Lower Quartile (Min)Salary range is considered
  an equitable rate of pay for promotions or
  employees who only meet the core requirements in
  terms of competence and performance.
• Mid PointMidpoint in the range is the salary
  considered to be a fair and equitable rate of pay
  for an employee who is fully qualified and
  competent whose performance on the job over a
  period of time (usually two to four years) is
  entirely satisfactory in all respects.
• Upper Quartile (Max) The upper quartile is
  considered an equitable rate of pay for an
  employee who has sustained an above average
  performance over a long period of time, and who
  always exceeds requirements of the
  position.Supply and demand factors considered
  as shown by staff turnover levels or reputable
  salary surveys.

12
Internal Data and Pay Scale Comparisons
13
(No Transcript)
14
Cost of Salary Variation

• Under mid point - R1.20M/Month
• Took two years to rectify, although some were
  performance driven
• Over mid point - R0.88M/Month
• Took a few years to rectify, although some were
  market and/or performance driven

15
Appeal procedure
Enormous effort to make grades as accurate as
possible Recognise there will be employees who
disagree.

• Appeals may be made only under two
  circumstances
• job content deviates materially from the content
  of the job description
• perceived irregularity of the job evaluation
  procedure
• Appeal to direct manager then follow appeal
  procedure

16
Employee Perceptions

• Management feedback - employees paid more fairly
  than before grading
• Not all employees accept this, particularly if
  their job was graded below their salary.
• Trend toward grading being less of an issue as
  time goes by
• Exit interview statistics show that of the total
  of reasons for leaving, unhappy with grading
  was rated at
• 2005 6.6
• 2006 YTD 3.6

17
Bell Grading Experiences

• Poorly written job descriptions.
• Employees manipulating their job descriptions.
• Managers manipulating their employees job
  descriptions.
• Required strong grading committee that understood
  the issues.
• Used the grading computer programme initially.
• Now grades established by internal and external
  benchmarking

18
Bell Grading Experiences Contd

• Initially considerable time spent on appeals
• External arbitrator graded a family of jobs
• Very little interference from union
• One salary scale for all employees in RSA
• Graded only non scheduled employees
• Good cooperation from line management
• Presently grading Bell Europe jobs

19
Benefits

• Employees paid more fairly
• Career paths established during grading
• Recruitment/Promotions easier
• Helped establish levels in performance incentive
  programme
• Annual salary increase exercise now much easier

20
Benefits Contd

• Grade salary range to be used in performance
  management programme
• Easier employment equity reporting
• Retention of skills
• No salary over payments
• Employee satisfaction