Cab.1 51.2014/7.

4
BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
This matter is a Key Decision within the Councils definition and has been included in
the relevant Forward Plan
Report of the Assistant Chief Executive
Human Resources, Performance & Partnerships
and Communications

SENIOR MANAGER PAY REVIEW

1.

Purpose of Report

1.1

The purpose of this report is to seek approval to extend the existing 11 grade pay
and grading structure following a review of Senior Manager pay undertaken during
2012/13.

2.

Recommendations

2.1

That Members approve the extension to the existing 11 Grade pay and grading
structure (Appendix B) to integrate former Hay graded posts with effect from 1
April 2014 (Appendix D).

2.2

That Members approve the transfer of the employees affected from Joint
Negotiating Committee (JNC) for Chief Officer terms and conditions to NJC
terms and conditions with effect from 1 April 2014 and that all future
appointments to these posts are on NJC terms and conditions.

2.3

It is recommended that Members approve the revisions to the NJC Job

Evaluation Appeals Procedure (Appendix E) with effect from 1 April 2014.

3.

Introduction

3.1

In 1997 the Single Status agreement which was negotiated nationally led to the
implementation of the new NJC Terms and Conditions of Employment (Green Book).
The agreement was applicable to former Administrative, Professional, Technical &
Clerical (APT&C) and Manual employees of the Council.

3.2

The Council has fully implemented the Single Status agreement which was in effect
the harmonisation of terms and conditions for former APT&C and former Manual
employees. This culminated with the implementation of the NJC Job Evaluation
Scheme and eleven grade pay structure (Appendix B) which was implemented on the
1 April 2008 (Cab.13.2.2008/8.1).

3.3

The final stage in the pay review process within the council is to review all senior
manager posts which are currently evaluated under the Hay job evaluation scheme.
On completion this will ensure that the vast majority of posts has been reviewed other
than a limited group which are covered by separate nationally negotiated pay
structures eg Education Advisors and Inspectors and Youth Service employees.

3.4

The number of Hay graded and Chief Officer posts has diminished in the past three
years. On 1 April 2010, the council had eight Executive Director level posts and 134
Hay graded posts. On 31 July 2013, this stood at five Executive Director (including
one vacancy) and 85 Hay graded posts paid on the 7 band Hay pay and grading
structure (see Appendix C). Included in this group are Assistant Directors, Heads of
Service and a number of senior professional posts.

3.5

This reduction is a result of the Chief Executives focused approach to reducing

management costs including dissolving the Chief Executives department,
streamlining the Senior Management Team, and reducing the number of Assistant
Director posts per Directorate to a maximum of three.

4.

Consideration Of Alternative Approaches

4.1

Use an alternative Job Evaluation Scheme

4.1.1

There are other analytical job evaluation schemes available and these are
summarised below.

4.1.2

Hay Job Evaluation Scheme

4.1 .3

When the Hay Group job evaluation scheme was introduced in 1999, it covered a
small number of jobs which included Assistant Directors and the next tier down which
in most areas were the Heads of Service. However, posts being submitted for Hay
evaluation have increased significantly over the years since it was implemented.

4.1.4

A report was submitted to Cabinet (Cab.1 5.4.2009/1 3) to seek approval to undertake

the Senior Manager Pay review using the Hay Group to independently undertake the
review and undertake all future job evaluations using the scheme.

4.1.5

However, there was increasing concern within the organisation about whether the
Hay job evaluation scheme had the capacity to deal with local authority
modernisation and the changes to job roles, raising the question of whether it is still
fit for this Councils purposes.

4.1.6

The Trade Unions refused to undertake joint job evaluations using the Hay scheme
as they no longer had confidence in the integrity of the scheme.

4.1.7

The evaluations have been completed by Human Resources Managers in isolation.

This may open the evaluation results up to challenge from the Trade Unions and
employees.

4.1.8

There are currently only a handful of trained Hay scheme evaluators within the
Council. Therefore to undertake a review utilising this scheme would have required
the involvement of Hay consultants at a significant and ongoing cost to the Council.

4.1.9

Continuing with the use of the Hay scheme and pay and grading structure would
have resulted in the continuation of a two tier workforce in regards to pay and
grading. This can create a risk of equal pay litigation either side of the boundary of
each pay structure which means that each senior manager post would have to go
through NJC scheme first to ensure that it is scored higher than the points boundary
for Hay which is currently 687. This is resource intensive and inefficient as the posts
are being evaluated twice using two separate schemes.

4.1.10 Further investigation into the costs of using the Hay group, the current financial
climate and the minimum Council efficiency agenda, resulted in this no longer being a
viable option.

-2-

4.1.11 Local Government Employers Chief Officers Scheme

4.1.12 The LGE has developed a job evaluation scheme which is designed to cover Chief
Officer posts. The scheme consists of four factors which are knowledge, creative
thinking, impact on people and financial responsibility. The content of the factor
levels is very broad and each Local Authority who adopts this will be expected to
agree local conventions to wrap around the standard descriptors.
4.1.13 The LGE scheme is ready for use by Local Authorities but it is not currently a jointly
agreed scheme as the GMB and UNISON Trade Unions have not signed up to it.
4.1.14 The fact that this scheme is currently not a joint scheme would mean that it would be
very difficult to convince the Trade Unions to work jointly at a local level to develop
conventions and to ultimately implement the scheme.
4.1.15 The LGE scheme would have required the commissioning of a minimum of 16 days
consultancy from the LGE at a cost of 850 per day which is a total cost of 13,600
plus costs associated with staff time to develop the scheme before any evaluations
can take place.
4.2

Pay Structure Alternatives

4.2.1

19 pay structure options were modelled during the paymodelling phase.

o

6 proposals based on utilising the existing 7 hay grades pay structure in terms
of number of spinal column points (with overlaps removed).

2 proposals based on adding an additional 8 grades, 5 grades with 4 spinal

column points and 3 grades with 3 spinal column points.

11 proposals based on adding an additional 6 grades, 5 grades with 5 spinal

column points and 1 grade with 4 spinal column points.

4.2.2

The proposals modelled using the existing 7 Hay grades and the proposal to add an
additional 8 grades as the basis for extending the 11 grade pay structure caused too
much disturbance and would have had a detrimental effect on employee relations.

4.2.3

The points boundaries between grades are also tight using these models which in
terms of future proofing could result in volatility in grades.

5.

PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION

5.1

It is important to reiterate that using an analytical job evaluation scheme ensures that
all jobs are graded in accordance with a fair and non-discriminatory grading structure.
It also provides a proper defence to gender based equal value claims where two jobs
are paid different salaries if the difference has been determined following the
implementation of a recognised job evaluation scheme.

5.2

The NJC Job Evaluation Scheme used to undertake this review is a nationally agreed
scheme and is currently used for all NJC jobs within the council on the grade 1 to 11
grading structure. The scheme is designed to evaluate all jobs up to and including
Chief Officer level. All jobs up to and including Assistant Directors have been
included in this review.

-3-

5.3

A separate review of remuneration of the senior management team (Executive

Directors and Assistant Chief Executives) was undertaken as part of the cabinet
report Review of Senior Management Capacity (Cab.7.1.2012.6). These posts are
not covered by this proposal, a further report detailing the arrangements for these
posts will be submitted in due course.

5.4

The NJC scheme consists of 13 factors and they are as follows:

4 Knowledge and Skills factors Knowledge, Mental Skills, Interpersonal Skills

and Physical Skills
4 Effort Demands Initiative & Independence, Physical Demands, Mental
Demands and Emotional Demands
4 Responsibilities People, Supervision, Financial Resources and Physical
Resources
1 Environmental Demands Working Conditions

5.5

Each factor has a number of levels ranging from 1 to a maximum of 8 and each
factor level is weighted. A scoring matrix is attached at Appendix F.

5.6

The use of one job evaluation scheme and pay structure will help to protect the
Council from future equal value litigation claims, as using one scheme for all is much
more defensible than having two separate schemes.

5.7

The utilisation of one scheme will also be more efficient to operate, as currently posts
have to progress through the NJC scheme before being evaluated under the Hay
scheme. So in effect they are currently being evaluated twice, but this is the best
practice approach when two schemes are in operation.

5.8

There will no longer be a two tier approach to job evaluation and pay and this is
important for effective ongoing employee relations.

5.9

The use of the NJC scheme and extension of the 11 grade pay structure will result in
further harmonisation of pay and conditions for employees within the Council, South
Yorkshire Joint Secretariat and Schools non teaching staff.

5.10

The Trade Unions support the NJC scheme and jointly evaluate all NJC jobs.

5.11

The Senior Manager Pay Review Job Evaluation Process

Benchmark Exercise

5.11.1 A benchmark sample of evaluations is recommended by national guidance in order to

test the conventions within the scheme, to provide a framework against which all
subsequent evaluations can be checked for consistency, and to allow for initial work
to commence on developing the pay and grading structure
5.11.2 At the outset of the review there were 104 employees employed in 96 distinct jobs.
13 jobs were selected to be part of the benchmark sample which equated to a 13.5%
sample. There are no fixed rules on the size of the sample but what is important is
that the sample is genuinely representative of the group.
5.11 .3 The roles selected covered a broad range of different job types to reflect a
representative sample of roles from across the Council. Jobs in the sample were
chosen to test the application of the higher end factor levels that would achieve high
scores, some that it was anticipated would be middle scorers and some where factor
levels and scores would result in scores towards the lower end of the potential score
range.
5.11.4 The point scores from the benchmark sample ranged from 612 to 817 points.
-4-

5.11.5 The benchmark exercise identified that the NJC scheme and the scoring within it
does have the breadth to deal with senior manager posts with a sensible spread of
points from the lowest to highest levels. The maximum score under the NJC scheme
is theoretically 1000 points. However, NJC Guidance on using the NJC Job
Evaluation Scheme suggests that when taking into account that managerial roles are
likely to be assessed at lower levels on factors such as Physical Demands and
Working Conditions the maximum realistic score is around 850 points.
5.11.6 All 13 benchmark roles were evaluated using the same process as highlighted in
paragraph 5.12.
5.12

The Evaluation Process

5.12.1 All jobs have been through an extensive evaluation process as described below.
5.12.2 Several briefing sessions have been held for employees affected by the review to
explain the process being followed and to explain the NJC Job Evaluation Scheme in
more detail.
5.12.3 All employees affected have been given the opportunity to review their job description
and employee specification with their line manager prior to the job evaluation
process.
5.12.4 Each job has been evaluated using the computerised Gauge job evaluation system
and process. An HR analyst, Trade Union analyst, the line manager and employee
have attended the evaluation where the jobholder with support from their manager
have answered a series of multiple choice questions about their job.
5.12.5 The decision to use the Gauge system for every individual job was taken as the
scheme and the factors within it are totally different to the ones assessed against
previously under the Hay scheme. Also if each employee has the opportunity to be
part of a computerised evaluation either at an individual or group level, then it will
mean that Stage 2 of the current Job Evaluation Appeals Procedure will not be
required. Stage 2 of the procedure is where a computerised evaluation takes place
using the Gauge system. Please refer to paragraph 5.15 for further details on the
appeals process.
5.12.6 All individual evaluations undertaken on Gauge have been independently moderated
by a joint panel consisting of a HR Analyst and a Trade Union Analyst. The purpose
of the moderation process is to ensure that any inconsistencies around question
routes are highlighted and dealt with. It also acts as a quality check to ensure that
the scheme is being applied consistently and protects the integrity of the results.
This is exactly the same process as was applied for jobs at grade 1 to 11.
5.12.7 The NJC Job Evaluation Technical Working Group recommends that once a full set
of results are available a further moderation exercise known as sore thumbing
should be undertaken to check for any issues in relation to consistency and
application of the scheme.
5.12.8 As part of the sore thumbing process the NJC Job Evaluation Technical Working
Group recommends a 5 step process be followed when checking results. This
checks individual factor levels, distributions, total scores and hierarchical checks.
Again this is exactly the same process as was applied for roles at grade 1 to 11.
5.12.9 Extensive checks have been undertaken on the results as a result of the 5 step
process to ensure they are consistent and that the NJC Job Evaluation Scheme has
been consistently applied. The scores have then been used to create pay structure
options.
-5-

5.13

Pay Structure

5.13.1 The responsibility for determining a new pay structure rests with the Council and the
Human Resources,
review has been led by the Assistant Chief Executive
Performance & Partnerships and Communications in consultation with the Councils
Senior Management Team.
-

5.13.2 A scenario modeller has been built to allow pay modelling to be undertaken.
then possible to model any pay structure using employee data from SAP.

It is

5.13.3 Using the scenario modeller it is possible to choose the number of bands you require
and the way in which the Job Evaluation scores are split. The Senior Manager Pay
Review score range is from 612 points to 817 points. It is possible to choose how
many spinal column points are in each salary band. The modelling has utilised the
existing 7 Hay grade spinal column point range minus overlaps and minus spinal
column points that had small incremental differences.
5.13.4 Once a pay structure has been inputted, the system automatically assimilates each
job to a pay band based on the Job Evaluation score. Each employee then
assimilates on to a spinal column point as follows:
-

If the band that the job has been assimilated into contains the employees current
spinal column point, the employee is assimilated across on their current spinal
column point. This is known as Black Circling, employees who have been
black circled will receive no change in pay.
If the band that the job has been assimilated into contains a higher starting spinal
column point than the employees current spinal column point, the employee is
assimilated onto the starting spinal column point of the band. This is known as
Green Circling, employees who have been green circled will receive an
increase in pay.
If the band that the job has been assimilated into contains a lower starting spinal
column point than the employees current spinal column point; the employee is
assimilated onto the top spinal column point of the band. This is known as Red
Circling; employees who have been red circled will receive a reduction in
pay but will receive pay protection under the pay protection policy for 2
years.

5.13.5 Employees who have received the same job evaluation score will be assimilated onto
the same grade but they may be assimilated onto different spinal column points
within the grade. Assimilation is based on what spinal column point the employee is
on currently which can differ within grades. This happens within the Council on both
the NJC job evaluation scheme and the Hay evaluation scheme and is legally
permissible.
5.13.6 When developing a new pay structure there are a number of key factors to take into
consideration such as:
-

Alignment with organisational objectives

Future proofing
Ensuring that the pay structure is fair and transparent
The effect it will have on employee relations
The amount of disruption it may cause
The overall cost of the new pay structure
Ensuring the pay structure is gender and age bias free and therefore equal pay
compliant
-6-

All of the above were taken into consideration when developing the proposed pay
structure.
5.13.7 The proposed pay structure (Appendix D) extends the existing NJC 11 grade
structure and has a further six grades. Grades 13 to 16 contain 5 spinal column
points the same as the existing Grades 1 and 2 with the possibility of 4 increments.
Grade 12 and 17 contains 4 spinal column points the same as the existing grades 3
to 11 with the possibility of 3 increments. This proposal gives balance to the overall
17 grade scheme and follows the principles already set for grades 1 to 11.
5.13.8 The current maximum score of 817 points also allows some headroom for further
development of an additional grade should the need arise to act as a bridge between
senior manager and executive pay. The proposed grade is a fixed point of 85k
which is based on the top of the proposed grade 17 at 79,075 plus 6k (the
difference between the top and bottom of grade 17). This will provide an element of
future proofing to the pay structure in terms of additional capacity to support the
councils ongoing modernisation agenda.
5.13.9 The implementation of this pay structure will result in 28 employees, which is 37.84%
of former Hay graded officers receiving an increase in salary. These are classed as
Green Circle employees.
5.13.10 The implementation of this pay structure will result in 22 employees, which is 29.73%
of former Hay graded officers receiving no change to salary. These are classed as
Black Circle employees.
5.13.11 The implementation of this pay structure will result in 24 employees, which is 32.43%
of former Hay graded officers receiving a decrease in salary. These are red circled
employees.
5.13.12 Occupations where the main increases in salaries occurred in grades 1 to 11 were for
posts in key frontline areas such as Social Care, Regulatory Services, Cooks,
Engineers, and Neighbourhood Pride Operatives.
5.13.13 Occupations which suffered a detriment as a result of the grade 1 to 11 pay structure
were in back office roles such as business support roles.
5.13.14 This trend is replicated in the senior manager pay review with management roles in
Social Care and other management roles of front line services seeing an increase in
salary whilst in comparison back office roles suffer a detriment.
5.13.15 This trend would indicate that the application of the conventions within the NJC
Scheme in terms of the former Hay graded posts have been consistently applied.
5.13.16 There are 14 jobs that are currently on grade 11 that need to be reviewed as
previous evaluations indicate that these have now scored in excess of the new grade
11 points boundary. It is proposed that the same evaluation process will be followed
for these jobs as outlined in paragraph 5.12 and they will be assimilated into the
extended pay structure according to their points score.
5.14

Implementation Process

5.14.1 Once a pay structure has been agreed each employee affected will receive a
Variation to Contract letter which will inform them of the changes to their contract of
employment. The letter will ask the employees to voluntarily accept the changes to
their contract with effect from the 1 April 2014. This is exactly the same process as
was followed when the 11 grade pay structure was implemented.
-7-

5.15

t: view will result in 28 employees affected either receiving an increase in salary

yen circles), 24 employees receiving a decrease in salary (red circles) and 22
employees who will stay on the same salary (black circles). Any employee who
receives a decrease in salary will receive a salary protection as set out in the existing
Redeployment & Protection of Earnings Policy which is the whole difference between
current contractual earnings and new contractual earnings for 2 years from 1st April
2014 until 31st March 2016.

Job Evaluation Appeals Procedure

5.15.1 The NJCI for Local Government Services Agreement on Pay and Conditions of
Service part 4.3, provides guidance on an employees right of appeal in regards to
grading and what an appeals procedure should include.
5.15.2 The existing NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure has been developed
based on guidance provided by the National Joint Council and the procedure applies
to all employees including those in locally managed schools, except Chief Officers,
Teachers, Soulbury, Youth Workers and Adult Education employees.
5.15.3 The existing appeals procedure provides a two stage appeals process. Stage 1 is a
desktop assessment of the jobholders appeal undertaken by a joint panel consisting
of a HR Analyst and a Trade Union Analyst. Stage 1 is invoked if the jobholder
disputes 3 or less job evaluation scheme factors.
5.15.4 Stage 2 of the process is invoked where the jobholder disputes more than 3 job
evaluation scheme factors or where following receipt of a stage 1 the jobholder does
not agree with the panels recommendations. Stage 2 involves undertaking a full
evaluation of the job using the Gauge job evaluation software.
5.15.5 As outlined in paragraph 5.12.5 posts included in the senior manager pay review
have already been through the Gauge evaluation process which forms part of stage 2
of the appeals procedure.
5.15.6 This has meant that the existing appeals procedure has been revised and is enclosed
at appendix E. Any appeal will focus on the jobholder determining which factor levels
have been wrongly applied. Jobholders would then need to provide clear evidence
as to why the factor level has been incorrectly applied. Where sufficient evidence is
provided then the disputed factor(s) only would be re-assessed via Gauge.
5.15.7 The revisions to the appeals procedure will come into effect when the new pay
structure is implemented on 1 April 2014 and will apply to all jobs evaluated under the
NJC Job Evaluation Scheme. The proposed appeals procedure is currently being
discussed with the Trade Unions.
6.

Implications for local people I service users

6.1

None arising from this report

7.

Financial Implications

7.1

The financial implications are detailed in the attached Appendix A.

7.2

Under the proposals outlined above, the implementation of this scheme results in
an overall full year effect saving of 40,230 relating to employee costs. However,
with the loss of grant funding of 23,100 the revised overall net saving is 17,130.
This saving will be used to contribute towards the Medium Term Financial Strategy
-8-

of the Council and its current budget gap.

7.3

Following the implementation of this scheme, budgets across the Council will be
realigned to reflect changes in employee costs for each service to smooth out the
impact of the increases and decreases.

7.4

In the first 2 years of the scheme, employees who are worse off as a consequence
of these changes will receive pay protection. The cost of this protection is
estimated to be 191,050 per annum. This cost will be funded from the corporate
budget for Future Council re-organ isation costs.

7.5

The figures may be subject to change, should there be any successful appeals
against the outcome of some of the grades.

7.6

It should also be noted that since April 2010 there has been a reduction in the
number of Hay graded posts across the Council down from 134 to 84 (74 currently
in post and 10 vacancies). Whilst these savings are not accounted for as part of
the appendix A in this report it is important to note that there has been an overall
reduction in management costs.

8.

Employee Implications

8.1

The Senior Manager Pay review will affect 74 employees who are currently paid on
the Hay pay and grading structure.

8.2

All job evaluations have been completed using the process outlined in paragraph
5.12 and employees were involved in this process.

8.3

When the pay structure has been approved by full Council, each employee affected
will receive a Variation to Contract letter which will inform them of the changes to
their contract of employment. The letter will ask the employees to voluntarily accept
the changes to their contract. This is exactly the same process as was followed
when the 11 grade pay structure was implemented.

Legal Implications

9.1

Legal Counsel advice was sought when the Grade 1 to 11 pay structure was
implemented and the proposal was fully endorsed. The Assistant Chief Executive
Legal and Governance has been consulted on this proposal and is content that as
the same principles and methodology has been used under this review the legal
advice received previously still stands.

10.

Communications Implications

10.1

Regular communications with employees have taken place throughout the review
process via briefing sessions and e-mail.

10.2

Once the pay structure has been approved by Council, Human Resources will issue
Variation to Contract letters to all employees affected as outlined in paragraph 8.3.

11.

Consultations

11 .1

The Trade Unions have been consulted and are fully supportive of the process
undertaken to date.

11 .2

The Senior Management Team has been consulted and support the
iecommendations contained within this report.

12.

Promoting Equality and Diversity and Social Inclusion

12.1

All the appendices in this report have been Equality Impact Assessed using the
Councils agreed templates.

12.2

Under the Equality Act 2010 the Council has regard to the elimination of unlawful
discrimination and harassment and the promotion of equality.

12.3

Pay which has been determined by reference to an analytical job evaluation

scheme is an important factor of the council meeting its responsibility under equal
pay legislation.

13.

Risk Management Issues

13.1

The pay structure may cause some disruption with 24 employees suffering a loss
(although not until April 2016) and 28 receiving an increase in salary.

13.2

The Council will be one of the first MBCs to implement the NJC Job Evaluation
Scheme fully, although there are indications that the whole approach to national
pay and grading issues may change in the near future.

13.3

There is a perception that the NJC Job Evaluation Scheme cannot adequately
reflect the roles and responsibilities of senior jobs within the Council. However, this
is a national scheme designed to evaluate all jobs up to and including the most
senior posts.

13.4

Research undertaken into other schemes prior to adopting the NJC scheme and
the research done recently also suggests that no job evaluation scheme is flawless
and some posts will be detrimentally affected in any of the schemes available.

13.5

The job holders in the posts detrimentally affected may feel devalued by the
organisation which could have detrimental effect on morale. This will need to be
managed sensitively but these issues are exactly the same as those that arose
with the former review.

13.6

The implementation could lead to recruitment and retention problems in areas

where jobs will receive a reduction in salary. The council currently has a Market
Supplements procedure to address these issues however, as employees will
receive salary protection for 2 years it is proposed that no market supplement
payments will be awarded. This will be re-assessed in 201 5/16 before the 2 year
protection period expires to coincide with the 2016/17 budget considerations.

13.7

Continuing with the use of the Hay scheme and pay and grading structure would
result in the continuation of a two tier workforce in regards to pay and grading. This
would increase the risk of equal pay litigation either side of the boundary of each
pay structure. Given the cumulative cost of equal pay litigation to date, this must
be avoided.

13.8

The Council proposes to implement the changes via voluntary variation to contract.
However, where employees choose not to accept the changes they will be served
notice and terminated and re-engaged on the new terms. Using this process there
s a risk that where an employee may be dismissed after refusal of the new
remuneration terms this could result in claims for unfair dismissal. This risk is likely
only to arise where the salary for a job reduces and again ih Uus I ot impact until
2016.

1:3.9

The Councils pay protection scheme will assist in reducing the impact of any down
.radinq and subsequent risk of employment tribunal claims. This is the same
10-

process as applied with the rest of the councils workforce who are paid on Grades
1 to 11.
14.

List of Appendices
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

15.
15.1

Background Papers

15.2

A Financial Implications
B Current Pay Structure
C Hay Pay Structure
D Proposed Pay Structure
E Revised NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure
F NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Scoring Matrix

The EqualityAct2olo
Equal Pay Statutory Code of Practice available from Commission for
Equality and Human Rights website www.egualityhumanricihts.com
Equal Pay in Practice Checklists available from Commission for Equality
and Human Rights website www.ecwalityhumanriQhts.com
Joint Guidance On Pay & Grading Reviews NJC for Local Government
Services June 2005
NJC Job Evaluation Scheme technical notes
Part 4 of NJC for Local Government Services National Agreement on Pay
and Conditions of Service (Green Book)
National Pay Agreement 2004

All background and working papers are available for inspection in the Human
Resources Division.

Officer Contact: Julia Bell

Tel: 773304

-11

Date: 28 November 2013

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive Human Resources, Performance, Partnerships and Communications
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Senior Manager Pay Review

i) Capital Expenditure

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

Total

0
0

0
0

0
0

To be financed from:

ii) Revenue Effects

2014/15

2015/16

(ft)

()

2016/17
()

Later Years

(;g)

Expenditure
Increased Cost of Chief Officer Employee Costs
Reduced Cost of Chief Officer Employee Costs
Reduced Employee Costs of Vacant Chief Officer Posts
Cost of Protection
TOTAL

To be financed from:
Loss of Grant Income
Existing Budget Provision for Future Council Re
organisation Costs

173,840

173,840

-191,050

-191,050

173,840
-191,050

173,840
-191,050

-23,020

-23,020

-23,020

-23,020

191,050

191,050

150,820

150,820

-40,230

-40,230

23,100

23,100

23,100

23,100

-191,050

-191,050

-167,950

-167,950

23,100

23,100

-17,130

-17,130

-17,130

-17,130

The saving identified above will be used to contribute towards the 20 14/15 Medium
Term Financial Strategy
budget gap of the Council.

Aeed by:

...

On behalf of the Director of Finance

HUMAN RESOURCES

Appendix B

RN5LEY

Grades 1 to 11 Pay Structure

Grade
Grade 1
(220-299)

Grade 2
(300-349)

Grade 3
(350-379)

Grade 4
(380-399)

Grade 5
(400-419)

Grade 6
(420-449)

Grade 7
(450-489)

Grade 8
(490-519)

Grade 9
(520-559)

Grade 10
(560-609)

Grade 11
(610+)

Last Revised October 2013 Barnsley MBC

Job Evaluation Grades 1 to 11 Pay Structure

Scale Point
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Salary 1 Oct 13
12,435
12,614
12,915
13,321
13,725
14,013
14,880
15,189
15,598
15,882
16,215
16,604
16,998
17,333
17,980
18,638
19,317
19,817
20,400
21,067
21,734
22,443
23,188
23,945
24,892
25,727
26,539
27,323
28,127
28,922
29,528
30,311
31,160
32,072
33,128
33,998
34,894
35,784
36,676
37,578
38,422
39,351
40,254
41,148
42,032

HUMAN RESOURCES

r
I
I

Appendix C

Grading/Salary Structure
From 1 April 2013
aes subject to Senior Management Pay Review)

Hay Grade
Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Last Revised November 2013 Barnsley MBC

Senior Management Grading/Salary Structure From 1 April 2013

Point

1 April 2013

5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
5

79,866
78,050
76,232
74,413
72,598
73,185
71,529
69,876
68,217
66,561
66,546
65,030
63,518
62,009
60,497
59,900
58,538
57,179
55,813
54,450
55,453
54,196
52,935
51,679
50,421
51,017
49,860
48,695
47,537
46,378
45,265
44,232
43,201
42,171
41,137

3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1

Senior Manager Pay Review

Proposed Pay Structure (including 1.0% pay increase)
Grade

New SCP

Salary

New Grade 17
(778+ pts)

77
76
75
74

79,866
78,050
76,232
74,413

New Grade 16
(742-777pts)

73
72
71
70
69

73,185
71,529
69,876
68,217
66,546

Grade 15
(726 741 pts)

68
67
66
65
64

65,030
63,518
62,009
59,900
58,538

New Grade 14
(697 725 pts)

63
62
61
60
59

57,179
55,813
55,453
54,196
52,935

New Grade 13
(664 696 pts)

58
57
56
55
54

51,679
51,017
49,860
48,695
47,537

NewGradel2
(648 663 pts)

53
52
51
50

46,378
45,265
44,232
43,201

Existing Grade 11
(610 647 pts)

49
48
47
46

hU!III
-

42,032 1% already applied to Gr 1-11

41,148
40,254
39,351

Appendix D

HUMAN RESOURCES

Appendix E

NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure

Contents
Section 1.0

Introduction

Page 2

Section 2.0

The NJC Job Evaluation Process

Page 2

Section 3.0

Criteria for Appeal

Page 3

Section 4.0

The Appeals Process)Timescales

Page 3

Section 5.0

Preliminary Assessment

Page 4

Section 6.0

Gauge Assessment

Page 4

Section 7.0

Multi Occupancy Jobs

Page 6

Section 8.0

Income Tax and National Insurance

Page 7

Section 9.0

Equality & Diversity

Page 7

Last Revised December 2013 Bamsley MBC

NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure

Page 1

HUMAN RESOURCES

Appendix E

NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure

1.0

Introduction

1.1

This procedure has been developed based on guidance provided by the National Joint
Council (NJC) for Local Government Services.

1 .2

The Trade Unions have been fully consulted and have agreed this procedure jointly with
the Council.

1.3

This procedure applies to all employees on NJC terms and conditions including those in
locally managed schools.

1 .4

This procedure does not apply to employees whose posts are on JNC Chief Officers
terms and conditions, Teachers, Soulbury, Youth Workers and Craft employees.

1 .5

This procedure covers jobs that have been evaluated post Job Evaluation
implementation e.g. as a result of a job change/restructure/reorganisation or as a result
st
1
April 2014 onwards.
of the Senior Manager Pay Review effective from

1.6

This procedure does not apply to posts that were graded as part of the implementation of
Job Evaluation in 2008. Please refer to Sections 3.0 and 4.0 for further information.

2.0

The NJC Job Evaluation Process

2.1

The NJC Job Evaluation Scheme (NJC Scheme) is used to evaluate jobs that are
covered by NJC terms and conditions (this excludes JNC Chief Officers, Teachers,
Soulbury, Youth Service and Craft conditions). The NJC Scheme has been agreed
nationally with the Trade Unions. The NJC scheme can be found in the NJC National
Agreement on Pay & Conditions of Service (Green Book) Part 41

2.2

NJC Job Evaluations are undertaken by a joint panel consisting of a Human Resources
Analyst and a Trade Union Analyst. All Job Evaluation panel members are fully trained
in the use of the NJC Job Evaluation Scheme and are aware of the local conventions
used in the process.

2.3

The job evaluation process involves undertaking a factor by factor assessment using the
NJC Scheme Factor Guidance against the information contained in the job description
and employee specification.

2.4

A lower comparator post and an upper comparator post are chosen by the joint panel to
assist the evaluation panel in making an assessment. The comparator posts are used as
a guide and may be job family posts that have already been evaluated or similar posts
that have been evaluated within other Directorates and Services.

2.5

The job is then awarded a level for each of the thirteen factors based on the comparator
posts and the NJC Scheme Factor Guidance.

Last Revised December 2013 Barnsley MBC

NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure

Page 2

HUMAN RESOURCES

Appendix E

3.0

Criteria For Appeal

3.1

The NJC Job Evaluation process is a jointly determined process therefore the grounds
for appeal against the evaluation outcome are minimised to the following:
-

The scheme has been wrongly applied e.g. factor levels have been wrongly
allocated
The job description and/or employee specification did not provide complete
information

3.2

Where an employee believes that their job description no longer accurately reflects the
duties and responsibilities of the post this is not considered to be an appeal. For multi
occupancy jobs see paragraph 7.4.

3.3

In this situation, the employee should contact their Manager/Headteacher to review the
job description and if applicable the employee specification. If this results in changes
being made to the job description and/or employee specification these should be agreed
with the employee and the Manager/Headteacher should then submit the job for
evaluation which will be carried out in accordance with the process outlined at paragraph
2.

3.4

Any appeal must be submitted within the timescales outlined at paragraphs 4.3, 4.4 & 4.5
below.

4.0

The Appeals Process!Timescales

4.1

In order for an employee to appeal against their job evaluation result and the resultant
grade of the post, they must complete a Job Evaluation Appeals Form (JEA1) within
the timescale outlined in paragraphs 4.3, 4.4 & 4.5 below.

4.2

The employee must clearly specify what factors they consider require reviewing and why,
supported with evidence. The Manager / Headteacher must also provide comments to
either agree or disagree with the contents of the employees appeal.

4.3

Job Evaluation Appeals should be lodged within six months of receiving contractual
notification of the grading outcome. An appeal will not be considered until the employee
has been contractually appointed to the job and grade they wish to appeal against.

4.4

In the case of a re-organisation/restructure that results in no change to contractual terms

employees wishing to lodge an appeal against the outcome will have six months from
the implementation of the re-organisation/restructure to do so.

4.5

Employees who are on maternity leave or long term sickness absence should submit an
appeal within six months of their return to work.

4.6

The JEA1 form must be signed by the employee and the Manager / Headteacher. Once
signed the Manager / Headteacher must forward the JEA 1 form to the Job Evaluation
Queries Mailbox or send to the address stipulated on the form within 10 working days.

4.7

An employee may, if they choose, withdraw their appeal at any stage until the panel
meets to hear the appeal. It is the responsibility of the employee to inform Human
Resources in writing as soon as possible that they wish to withdraw their appeal. Please

Last Revised December 2013 Bamsley MBC

NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure

Page 3

HUMAN RESOURCES

Appendix E

also see paragraphs 6.4 and 7.10 below.

5.0

Preliminary Assessment

5.1

Once a JEA 1 has been submitted, a preliminary assessment meeting between a Human
Resources Analyst and a Trade Union Representative will be undertaken to establish the
nature of the appeal. The assessment meeting will be scheduled within 28 days of the
receipt of the JEA1.

5.2

This meeting will allow for:

Errors of scoring or job linking to be resolved

Consideration to be given as to whether there is a requirement to agree a new
Job Description and Employee Specification prior to the assessment. If this is the
case then the Line Manager would be required to submit the revision through the
formal job evaluation and approvals process which is outside of the Job
Evaluation Appeals process. Please also refer to paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3.
Checks to ensure the JEA 1 form is signed by the employee who has appealed
and manager and that managers comments are provided.

5.3

A decision will be made at this meeting to decide whether there are grounds for appeal
on the information provided on the JEA 1.

5.4

If the appeal is against a generic job description or there is more than one job holder,
Human Resources will inform all job holders that an appeal has been submitted and
send a copy of the JEA1 form that has been submitted. See Section 7.0 for Multi
Occupancy Jobs.

6.0

Gauge Assessment

6.1

If following the preliminary assessment described at Section 5.0 it is agreed that there
are grounds for appeal and the employee has indicated on their JEA 1 form the specific
job evaluation scheme factors that have been wrongly allocated along with sufficient
supporting evidence then a Gauge assessment will apply.

6.2

The Gauge assessment involves the employee who has appealed attending a Gauge
assessment panel to undertake an evaluation on the specific factors they have appealed
against using the Gauge job evaluation software.

6.3

Gauge assessment panels will consist of a Human Resources Analyst, a Trade Union
representative, the post holder and the Manager / Headteacher.

6.4

All Gauge assessment panel members must be fully trained in the use of the NJC Job
Evaluation Scheme and the Gauge system and be aware of the local conventions used
in the process.

6.5

The Gauge assessment panel will be chaired by the Human Resources Analyst and
Human Resources will be responsible for arranging the panel, providing all the relevant
documentation and recording the outcomes.

6.6

Both Human Resources and Trade Union Analysts selected to undertake the Gauge
assessment must not have been involved in the original evaluation in order to provide an

Last Revised December 2013 Barnsley MEC

NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure

Page 4

HUMAN RESOURCES

Appendix E

objective opinion.
6.7

The job holder will be required to answer a series of multiple choice questions generated
by the Gauge system, with support from their Manager / Headteacher and they will be
required to provide examples to evidence their answers.

6.8

If the post holder wishes to withdraw their appeal for any reason, they must inform the
panel before the Gauge question process begins. Where there is more than one post
holder, please see paragraph 7 below.

6.9

Following completion of a Gauge assessment the factor scores will be moderated by an

independent Job Evaluation Panel to act as a quality check and to ensure consistency of
application of the scheme. The moderation panel will only review the factors appealed
against.

6.10

The moderation panel will review the information contained in the JEA1 form along with
the job description and employee specification and any comments made during the
evaluation process.

6.11

In exceptional cases where there is no consensus within a moderation panel the case
will be referred to a separate panel chaired by the Assistant Chief Executive, Human
Resources, Performance, Partnerships and Communications and a trade union Regional
Officer. The decision of this panel will be final and there will be no further right of appeal.

6.12

The Manager/Headteacher will be issued with the Gauge assessment outcome in writing
within 10 working days of the appeal being concluded. If applicable the
Manager/Headteacher will also be informed of any revisions that may be required to job
descriptions and/or employee specifications as a result of a job evaluation appeal
outcome.

6.13

The Manager is responsible for implementing the appeal outcome and must ensure that
any approvals (Cabinet or Approved Delegation) are sought prior to implementing the
grading outcome and for ensuring that the appropriate documentation is issued to
Business Support Services to effect any contractual grade change.

6.14

In the case of employees employed in locally managed schools Governors determine

pay therefore any change to pay proposed as a result of a Gauge assessment must be
approved by the respective Governing Body. The timescale attached to this will be
dependent on the frequency of Governing Body meetings. It is the responsibility of the
Headteacher to notify Human Resources of the Governing Body decision and to ensure
that the appropriate documentation is completed to implement any contractual grade
change.

6.15

Appellants will receive confirmation of the outcome of their appeal n writing from Human
Resources within 10 days of the appeal being concluded. If the outcome results in a
grade change this is subject to the appropriate approvals as outlined in paragraph 6.13
being sought and this will be confirmed in the letter. If the 10 day timescale cannot be
met the employee will be informed of any delay.

6.16

In the case of employees employed in locally managed schools appellants will receive
confirmation in writing from Human Resources that their appeal has been dealt with
within 10 days of the appeal being concluded. If the outcome results in a grade change
this is subject to approval by the respective Governing Body therefore the grading
outcome will be confirmed in writing by Human Resources upon notification from the
respective Headteacher of the Governing Body decision.

Last Revised December 2013 Barnsley MC

NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure

Page 5

HUMAN RESOURCES

6.17

Appendix E

The outcome following a Gauge assessment is final and the employee has no further
right of appeal.
The outcome following a Gauge assessment may result in an increase in grade, no
change to the grade or decrease in grade.

7.0

Multi Occupancy Jobs

7.1

A multi occupancy job is where there is more than one employee working to the same
job description eg Roadworker, Classroom Assistant, Cook 1, Business Support
Assistant.

7.2

The process and outcomes are essentially the same for appeals from a member of a
multi occupancy post with the foflowing variations.

7.3

An employee who is a member of a multi occupancy post may submit an individual

appeal or work with other employees to produce a group appeal.

7.4

Where a group of employees believe that the generic job description does not accurately
reflect the duties and responsibilities of their role this is not considered to be an appeal.
The employees should contact the manager to review the job description. If this results
in changes being made to the job description and/or the employee specification these
should be agreed with the employees. The manager/H eadteacher should then submit
these for evaluation which will be carried out in accordance with the process outlined in
paragraph 2. Only the employees identified by the manager will be assigned to the new
job description, all other employees will continue to work to the previous generic job
description.

7.5

In order for an appea against the grading of a multi occupancy post to be considered, a
majority of the post holder group must agree that the appeal should proceed. To this
effect, the Council has a Collective Agreement with the relevant Trade Unions based on
a majority (greater than 50%) agreement of the total number of replies received (see
para 9.8). The following procedure will therefore apply.

7.6

When an individual or group appeal is submitted by member(s) of a multi occupancy

post, Human Resources will identify all post holders working to the same job description
and contact them, informing them that an appeal has been submitted and asking whether
they wish the appeal to proceed.

7.7

A copy of the JEA1 form will be sent out to all post holders to add comments or to
discuss with the other post holders. This should be returned to the manager who will
then forward to Human Resources once all comments are received, within a reasonable
timescale.

7.8

A decision will be made by Human Resources based on the majority (greater than 50%)
of replies received. Post holders will have three weeks to reply.

7.9

If the majority (greater than 50%) of post holders indicate that they do not wish to
proceed with the appeal, Human Resources will write to all post holders to notify them of
the majority decision.

7.10

If the majority (greater than 50%) of post holders indicate that they do wish to proceed

Last Revised December 2013 Barnsley MSC

NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure

Page 6

HUMAN RESOURCES

Appendix E

with the appeal, Human Resources will write to all post holders to notify them of the
majority decision. The standard appeals process will then be followed.
7.11

In the event that there is an equal number of those employees who wish to appeal and
those who do not, the appeal will not proceed as there is no majority decision.

7.12

Once the decision of the majority group (greater than 50%) has been established and the
post holders have been notified, that decision will be final.

7.13

In the case of an individual submission, or a group submission, once a decision has been
made by the panel (subject to paragraph 9.15) the outcome will apply to all employees
occupying that job as it is part of the majority (greater than 50%) agreement.

7.14

In the case of an individual submission where the outcome affects a large job group, an
impact assessment will be undertaken to measure the impact of the outcome before it is
implemented. This may result in a delay to the post holders being notified of the outcome
of the appeal although efforts will be made to keep such delays to a minimum.

8.0

Tax & N Implications

There are no Tax & National Insurance implications.

9.0

Equality & Diversity

This procedure has been impact assessed and no adverse implications were identified.

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council.

The right of Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted by it in accordance with
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form, including
photocopying or storing it in any electronic medium without the written permission of the copyright owner except in accordance with
the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Applications for the copyright owners permission to reproduce any
part of this publication must be addressed to the Assistant Chief Executive (Human Resources), Barnsley Metropolitan Borough
Council, P0 Box 680, Barnsley S70 9JF.

Last Revised December 2013 Barnsley MBC

NJC Job Evaluation Scheme Appeals Procedure

Page 7

,-r

Effort Dempnds
-

t-

:c

65

52

65

$0

100

121

142

163

163

1actor%

38.4

78

78

52

39

60

78

78

39

26

26

40

13

I3

65

65

52

39

26

13

10.4

104

104

91

78

65

52

39

26

13

50

50

40

30

20

10

15.0

50

50

40

30

20

10

50

50

40

30

20

10

78

78

65

52

39

26

13

78

78

65

52

39

26

13

31.2

78

78

65

52

39

26

13

78

78

65

52

39

26

13

Knowl Mental Comm. Physical Ink & PhYsical Mental Emodona People Super Fin. R Ph Rca
vision
edge
lodeP

20

Headlng%

SCORING and WEIGHTI I

Knowledge aad Skills

Level

5.0

50

50

40

30

20

10

Wntk.

Conds

-H.-

)-

-n