Job Evaluation

1

• Job Evaluation
• Nick Aves Director of Resources

2

• Rules of Engagement
• Personal views
• Based on implementation in Burnley
• I am not going to tell you how to do JE!
• It may be a lot easier for you!

3
(No Transcript)
4

5
Background

• Strong trade union presence
• Sympathetic councillors
• Pressure to complete JE sooner rather than later
• Unions insistent on the NJC scheme
• Burnley is a small District Council with limited
  HR capacity

6
Why did we do it?

• Single Status Agreement 1997
• Equal Pay legislation
• Advice from the Local Government Pay Commission
• The 2004 Implementation Agreement

7
Desired Outcomes

• Removal of any discrimination in pay and
  conditions of service
• Fair transparent pay structure
• Provide equal pay for work of equal value

8
When it all started

• Implementation began in 2003
• One dedicated HR Officer to work full time on the
  project
• NJC scheme chosen
• Results to be paid from April 2005
• Union agreement not to submit claims for back pay

9
How did we do it?

• Detailed interviews with quarter of the staff
  using gauge software
• Remainder of staff evaluated by questionnaire and
  factor comparison
• Process managed by a Quality Assurance Panel
• Applies to all staff on NJC grades

10
Local Conventions

• Must be fixed before you start
• Covering
• money, supervision, people, working conditions
  etc.
• Many were set too low
• Once set, cant be altered

11
Progress

• Originally due to complete evaluations by
  December 2004
• Difficult to get engagement, particularly with
  the questionnaires
• Decided to combine the two exercises ie the JE
  scores and resultant pay structure into one

12
April 2005

• Evaluations completed
• Results still being refined by Quality Assurance
  panel
• Pay modelling began

13
Pay Modelling

• Objectives
• as few winners and losers as possible
• as little extra cost as possible
• Choices
• spot salaries or incremental grades
• how many grades

14
Pay Modelling

• Fewer grades provides a more robust structure,
  but
• Leads to a greater cost
• Creative with the line of best fit
• We found it impossible to identify a structure
  where more than 40 of staff stayed the same

15
JE Outcomes

• Former manual workers do well (Greenspaces
  Leisure)
• Technical staff do badly (Regeneration
  Housing)
• Senior professionals do reasonably well

16
Protections

• Full cash protection for 2 years
• Salaries reduced by 500 pa thereafter until JE
  salary reached
• Phased withdrawal of other enhancements, weekend
  working etc.

17
August 2005

• Pay structure agreed with the unions
• 317 gainers 178 losers
• Briefing sessions held for heads of service and
  councillors
• All agreed and implemented by October 2005

18
September 2005

• Individual letters sent to members of staff
• Gave details of their new JE salary
• Explained the new pay policy
• Did not give the JE score or the scores for the
  13 individual elements

19
What happened?

• All hell broke loose
• Losers very keen to tell their story
• Winners kept quiet
• Councillors denied that they had been briefed
• Union leaders held their nerve

20
Outcome

• Postponed the date for final agreement
• Tweaked the grading structure
• More generous protection arrangements
• Hired one of the authors of the NJC scheme to
  advise the Council
• Agreed that a Markets Supplements policy would be
  adopted quickly

21
October 2005

• Further letter to staff to advise them of their
  JE score and element breakdown
• Published details for all jobs on the intranet
• Roadshows for staff
• Unison coup fails, narrowly!

22
February 2006

• Number of losers reduced to fewer than 100
• Proposals signed off by trade unions nationally
• Councillors pacified
• Lots of disruption and discontent within the
  organisation
• Council approved the final scheme

23
Trade Union Ballot

• Agreed that it would be a joint ballot
  (Unison/GMB)
• Unions decided the question to be posed!
• Usual collective agreement rules apply
• Non-union members notified and asked for their
  views

24
March 2006

• Ballot result
• For 229
• Against 201
• Collective agreement signed

25
What did it cost?

• By 2011 salary bill will have gone up by 6
• Further 650k to meet short-term costs of
  protection etc.
• but no claims for backpay and risk of claims is
  low

26
April 2006

• Results appear in employees pay packets
  backdated to April 2005
• Some fall-out, particularly re clawback of bonus
• Appeals process begins

27
Appeals

• Over 200 logged (covering 250 jobs)
• Joint management/union panels (3 from each side)
• No permanent members
• No involvement for Councillors
• Very difficult to get management reps

28
Appeals Experience

• Still ongoing
• 108 determined, 90 to do
• Approx 60 success rate (budget assumed 25)
• Inconsistent application of scheme
• The role of the management rep

29
Learning Points

• Be careful with the local conventions
• Complete appeals before fixing the pay line
• Ensure Councillors are briefed and bought in
• Risk assess the union position
• Plan the appeals process thoroughly

30
(No Transcript)