Human Resources Department - JOB EVALUATION Policy

Human Resources Department

JOB EVALUATION

Policy statement and protocol

Prepared by :

HR Management

Review / development

group composition:

HR and Staff Side

Version number :

V 2.4

Equality Impact

Assessment :

Completed – EIA-JobEval-2009-04

Approved by :

Approved by Area Partnership Forum

Date approved :

October 2009

Review date :

Short Life Working Group Currently

Reviewing Policy, anticipated completion

Summer 2017 (01/17)

Cross reference to:

Grievance Policy; Organisational

Change Policy; NHS Job Evaluation

Handbook; Recruitment and Selection

Policy

Signed :

Chief Executive and Employee Director

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Contents

Section

Page

Policy statement

Introduction 3

Principles 3

Scope 3

Policy statement

1 Re-assessing the pay band of existing posts 5

2 Re-assessing pay bands following planned changes to jobs 6

3 Job evaluation process 6

4 Outcome scenarios of existing / revised jobs 7

5 Review of job matching / evaluation outcomes 7

6 Assessment of the banding of new jobs 8

7 Outcome scenarios of new jobs 10

8 Communication of matching / evaluation outcomes 10

9 Financial costs 11

10 Joint Posts 11

11 Summary of roles and responsibilities 12

Appendix 1

Job description template and guidance notes 14

Appendix 2

Job evaluation authorisation form 20

Appendix 3

Job matching/evaluation process for existing posts 22

Appendix 4

Job Evaluation Process and guidance for completion of

JAQs

Appendix 5

NHS Borders job evaluation review process 27

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Introduction

The Job Evaluation Policy and Procedure has been developed and agreed in partnership

to establish a local mechanism that conforms to the requirements of the NHS Job

Evaluation Handbook and ensures a consistent approach to dealing with requests for the

review and where appropriate amendment of pay bands for individual or collective posts.

Principles

The following are the general principles applicable to the management of job evaluation

reviews:

NHS Borders is required by law to deliver equal pay for work of equal value for all

employees. It is emphasised that the pay banding assessment will be based on

consideration of the post and its requirements, not on the post-holder or any

particular skills, qualifications or experience that they may possess

Job Evaluation review decisions must be recognised to contain potential implications

for other employees or groups within an organisation, and potentially against an even

wider local or national setting. Hence review panel recommendations will be

considered by the Head of Human Resources in order to ensure such implications

are recognised and acted upon

The process of job evaluation reviews requires appropriately skilled and trained

employees in a number of phases. It is the Human Resources Department’s

responsibility to maintain a list of staff with the necessary training and experience to

support the evaluation process being used

The numbers of appropriately trained and experienced personnel required by the

organisation to provide support to employees and participate in evaluation / pay

banding reviews must be reviewed annually and agreed by the Area Partnership

Forum

At every stage of the process the employee has the right to appropriate

representation and advice

Scope

This policy and procedure apply to all staff within the remit of the Agenda for Change

Terms and Conditions of Service. For information on the job evaluation process for those

staff employed within the remit of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body, or the Executive /

Senior Managers Cohort arrangements, please contact the Human Resources

Department.

This procedure applies in the following circumstances:

Where, a post-holder believes that they have evidence that their job has changed

significantly since the effective date of assimilation onto an Agenda for Change pay

band, which would justify re-assessment of the job to reflect the changes

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

As part of an Organisational Change process

Where a manager requires a new role to be established following a review of a

vacancy within their department to meet changing work demands

Chief Executive Employee Director

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Job evaluation protocol

1 Re-assessing the pay band of existing posts

Where a jobholder believes that they have evidence to support the view that their job has

changed significantly since the effective date of assimilation onto an Agenda for Change

pay band, which would justify re-assessment of the job to reflect the changes they should

raise this request with their immediate manager.

There are two possible outcomes to this discussion:

a) The jobholder and manager may agree that some of the jobholder’s current duties

are not requirements of the post. In this case, the manager and jobholder should work

together with HR and the jobholder’s representative (where appropriate) to realign the

duties of the post within the original scope and pay band of the job. In this case, the post

does not need to be considered by a job matching/evaluation panel. If there is any

disagreement around this, the jobholder may choose to raise a grievance in line with NHS

Borders Grievance Policy

b) The jobholder and manager may agree that:

• The jobholder’s current duties are all required for the post; and

• Not all of these duties are reflected in the current job description

In this case, the following should happen before further action is taken: managers

should consider the implications of a re-banding and must ensure that sufficient funding is

available to cover the potential re-banding – this should be discussed with their senior

manager. Managers should also consider if this will have a knock on effect to other roles.

HR advice should be sought if there is any doubt. If funding is not available then the

conversation should revert to 1a.

In the case where funding is available: the post can be progressed for consideration by

a job matching/evaluation panel. This is done by completing the job description template

in Appendix 1 and a Job Evaluation Authorisation Form (Appendix 2).

A revised job description must be agreed and signed off by the jobholder and their

manager. The member of staff may be assisted by their staff side representative in this

process, additionally/alternatively both the manager and/or jobholder can request

assistance from individuals trained in the NHS Job Evaluation Scheme in developing and

agreeing the revised job description through the HR Department. The agreed job

description should then be submitted to the HR Department to enable job matching to be

arranged.

If no agreement can be reached on the job contents, the manager and/or jobholder should

contact their designated HR Manager to discuss the situation. Following this discussion,

where there is still no agreement, the jobholder may choose to raise a grievance in line

with NHS Borders Grievance Policy.

The process for job matching / evaluation for existing posts is detailed in Appendix 3.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

An existing job description may not be re-submitted for evaluation within 12 months of the

previous evaluation unless there has been a significant change to the duties and

responsibilities of the post, and the jobholder, line manager and the Head of Human

Resources agree that an exception can be justified.

2 Re-assessing pay bands following planned changes to jobs

Occasionally a manager may wish to introduce a change or changes to one or more jobs

within a department to meet changing work demands. When changing job content, the

manager should contact their designated HR Manager in order to assess whether the

proposed changes come under NHS Borders Organisational Change Policy.

3 Job matching/evaluation process

NHS Borders has a pool of staff trained in Job Evaluation, and each Matching and/or

Evaluation Panel will consist of two trained managers and two trained staff

representatives. No member of a panel will consider their own job or the job of an

immediate colleague.

A Job Matching Panel will attempt to match job descriptions to a National Profile - these

have been developed to support job evaluation and are based on commonly occurring

healthcare and non-healthcare jobs within the health service. A complete list of the current

national profiles can be found on the Department of Health Website.

To decide on the appropriate banding for the post, the Job Matching Panel will attempt to

match the job description against a national profile by comparing the role and

responsibilities of the job on a factor-by-factor basis. The Job Matching Panel may contact

the jobholder, their representative (where requested) and the manager or head of service

to clarify points within the job description.

The job matching process allows for small variations between the local job description and

the national profile in terms of duties, responsibilities or other demands.

Sometimes, the Job Matching Panel cannot match local jobs to a national profile. In this

case, the jobholder and manager will be informed. More detailed information is then

required to allow the post to be evaluated by a Job Evaluation Panel. This process is

more time consuming than the Job Matching Process, and it is important to be certain that

it is necessary before embarking on this route. The jobholder will be asked to prepare a

Job Analysis Questionnaire (JAQ), this requires significant job information and must be

signed off by the manager. Trained Job Analysts will provide support to the jobholder and

manager in the preparation of the JAQ. The formal Job Evaluation Process and guidance

for completing JAQs is detailed in Appendix 4.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

4 Outcome scenarios of existing / revised jobs

The outcome of a request for job evaluation will be one of the following:

a) Confirmation that the pay band applicable to the revised job description is the same

as the pay band previously applied

In this situation the outcome will be confirmed to the jobholder who will continue on the

existing salary arrangements.

b) Confirmation of a new pay band for the revised job description that is higher than the

previous pay band

In this situation the higher pay band will be applied to the post from the date that the newly

matched/evaluated job description was signed off as accurate. The salary position of the

jobholder will be revised in line with the Agenda for Change terms and conditions on

movement to a higher pay band.

c) Confirmation of a new pay band for the revised job description that is lower than the

previous pay band

It is possible, although unlikely, that the revised job description will be matched/evaluated

to a lower pay band e.g. where the post has reduced responsibilities and job demands

following re-organisation of work within a department. In this situation, the normal

Organisational Change protection arrangements will apply to the job holder from the date

the job description was signed off as accurate - additional responsibilities will be added by

agreement and at appropriate points in order to reflect the pay band of the substantive

band.

5 Review of job matching / evaluation outcomes

Where a job holder is unhappy with a job matching or evaluation outcome, they may

request a review of the outcome in accordance with the NHS Job Evaluation Handbook.

Any employee wishing to request a review is required to submit this in writing to the Head

of HR within three months of receiving notification of the job matching/evaluation

outcome. This request should be lodged by completing the standard Request for a Job

Evaluation Review form within Appendix 5.

Prior to submitting a review request it is recommended that the employee discuss their

review with someone trained in job matching/evaluation. Where the employee does not

know someone trained in job matching/evaluation they should contact either the Human

Resources Department or the Partnership Office. The purpose of this discussion is to

resolve any dispute arising from a misunderstanding of the Job Evaluation process. This

discussion will be used to clarify the matching or evaluation outcome, identify whether or

not a case for review exists and provide guidance on what steps the jobholder can take.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

The possible outcomes from this discussion are:

a) The jobholder withdraws their review request because they now understand and

accept the original outcome. There must however be no pressure on the job

holder(s) to withdraw review requests, even if they appear to be unfounded

b) The employee is able to focus on the appropriate factors within the national profile

used that may be relevant to a review

It is recommended that this discussion takes place prior to submitting the Job Evaluation

Request for Review Form or an amended Job Analysis Questionnaire

A Panel will review the matching/evaluation of the post and can:

Confirm the same match or evaluation outcome

Change some of the levels matched by the original panel (which may result in the

determination of a higher or lower pay band)

Match the job description to a different national profile (which may result in the

determination of a higher or lower pay band)

Or, exceptionally, refer a previously matched job description for Job Evaluation. This

would require a JAQ to be completed for the post

After the review panel has reached its decision there is no opportunity for a further review

in relation to the matching or evaluation outcome (even if the post was referred to a JAQ).

Should an employee feel however that the Job Evaluation process was not followed or

applied correctly; he/she has the right to use NHS Borders Grievance policy to seek

redress. If such a grievance is upheld a potential remedy may be to refer the post to a

new matching or evaluation panel. The Grievance Policy should not be used to dispute

the matching/evaluation outcome as those hearing a grievance may not be trained in job

matching or evaluation.

The job description may not be re-submitted for matching for at least 1 year unless there

has been a significant change to the duties and responsibilities of the post, and the

jobholder, line manager and the Head of Human Resources specifically agree to this.

6 Assessment of the banding of new jobs

Managers are recommended to regularly review their post files in line with changing

service demands. This can lead to the identification of the need for new jobs to be

established i.e. a job that did not previously exist within the same or other locality.

Application of NHS Borders Job Evaluation Policy will ensure that the grading of new jobs

is consistent with that of established posts and that pay banding can be assigned with the

minimum of delay so as to avoid unnecessary deferment of recruitment processes.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Before a manager develops a new job description, discussions should take place with HR

to explore existing job descriptions as follows:

Existing posts - if the new post can be shown to be a direct match to a current or

vacant NHS Borders post for which the band is known then this should be agreed

Generic Posts - it may support business needs to appoint to a generic job

description where the band is known in order to provide flexibility in the

development of a new role(s)

Where an existing job description is not the solution, the manager can:

Request assistance to identify national profiles at the appropriate level/pay band as

a pre-cursor to writing a job description

Identify appropriate job descriptions for similar roles in other NHS Boards (although

the banding would need to be checked locally)

Develop a new Job Description - the proposed new job description will need be

matched or evaluated in order that a pay band can be determined for recruitment

purposes

During the drafting process, where appropriate, the manager may requested feedback

from the Job Evaluation and Partnership Leads. The line manager of the post and the

relevant Director or General Manager must sign off this job description as being an

accurate reflection of the role expected.

To enable a Job Matching Panel to carry out a desktop exercise the manager is required

to submit a job description for the proposed new role to the HR Department. The Head of

HR will arrange for this job description to be submitted to the next available Job Matching

Panel whose membership would not have previously been involved with the post.

Before finalising the desktop matching outcome for the new job, the panel will check this

against existing job matching / evaluation profiles to ensure consistency with established

evaluation standards within NHS Borders.

Where a manager believes that the outcome of the desktop matching is not reflective of

the level of post, they are advised to discuss this with the Head of HR.

Once a jobholder has been in a new post for a minimum period of six months the jobholder

and line manager will reconsider the job description in light of the practical operation of the

post. If there is agreement that the actual duties are significantly different to those in the

job description, the jobholder and line manager will review the job description and sign off

the job description in the normal way. This will be submitted to the HR Department who

will arrange for the post to be re-matched.

Where a post cannot be matched to a national profile, the job holder will be required to

prepare a Job Analysis Questionnaire to enable the post to be evaluated.

It is the responsibility of the Head of Human Resources to decide if the new job(s) are

likely to become commonly occurring across the health service. Where this is the case,

and there are no suitable published national profiles, the job evaluation outcome will be

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

provided to the NHS Staff Council for consideration as to whether a national profile should

be produced. If a national profile is subsequently agreed at a different pay band from the

initial local evaluation, a further job evaluation panel will determine whether the pay

banding for the individual(s) concerned will need to be retrospectively adjusted.

7 Outcome scenarios of new jobs

The outcome of the local matching or evaluation processes will be one of the following:

a) Confirmation of the provisional pay band as the substantive pay band for the post

In this situation the outcome will be confirmed to the job holder who will continue on the

salary arrangements to which they were appointed.

b) A substantive pay band for the post that is higher that the provisional pay band

In this situation the higher pay band will be applied to the post from its inception, and the

salary position of the jobholder reviewed on the basis of being placed straight into the pay

band from the date of appointment. This review will be undertaken by the manager in

association with HR, and will be conducted on the basis of deciding the salary that would

have been offered at the outset if the substantive pay band of the post had been known at

the time. This means therefore that the substantive starting salary need not necessarily be

any higher than that originally agreed if incremental credit had been given for previous

service or relevant experience. It will not however be acceptable for the revised starting

salary to be any less.

c) A substantive pay band for the post that is lower than the provisional pay band

In this situation the lower substantive pay band will apply to the post from the date of its

inception. However, as the jobholder will have been recruited and appointed in good faith

to the higher pay band, then he/she will receive protection of the salary paid in the

provisional pay band on a ‘mark time’ basis until that salary is overtaken by that to which

the jobholder would be entitled in the correct pay band for the post. This provision is

subject to review in the light of any national policy position that is established on protection

subsequent to the agreement of this local protocol.

8 Communication of matching / evaluation outcomes

The outcomes of Job Matching and/or Evaluation Panels are confidential and panel

members should not disclose the outcome of panel decisions. NHS Borders will also not

disclose the names of the panel members who have undertaken matching for particular

posts. It is the responsibility of the Head of HR to communicate the job

matching/evaluation outcomes to the relevant line manager. Along with this outcome, the

line manager will receive a copy of the matched job report, and where appropriate a copy

of the national profile used. This information will be supplied to the line manager within 5

working days of the panel.

The line manager is responsible for forwarding these documents to the employee(s) within

5 days of receipt of this information, and for completion of the notification of change form

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

to be forwarded to the Payroll Department to action any change to the job holder’s pay

band.

9 Financial costs

It is the responsibility of the manager of the department/service to meet all additional

financial costs associated with this policy and protocol, in relation to increased salaries.

For this reason, managers should be aware of the possibility of job ‘drift’ (a series of small

incremental changes to job requirements over a period of time), ensuring any changes to

posts are requirements of the post.

10 Joint posts

To enable the provision of joint services it is accepted that certain posts should be open to

both NHS and Local Authority staff, and this policy is required to provide a local

mechanism to deal with requests for the pay banding of posts which were previously held

by Scottish Borders Council.

A post may need to be graded by both NHS Borders and Scottish Borders Council if:

The post is jointly funded by all relevant partner organisations

The post is accountable to all relevant partner organisations

The priorities of the jobtholder are normally agreed with all relevant partner

organisations

Managers are recommended to speak to an HR Manager when they are looking to

establish the band of a new joint post

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

11 Summary of roles and responsibilities

The responsibility of all employees is to:

Be aware of and follow the procedure for raising job evaluation or banding issues -

each staff member (jobholder) has the right to do this if s/he feels that their job

description has substantially evolved since being appointed to the post

The responsibilities of every Line Manager in NHS Borders are to:

Manage job evaluation and pay banding issues when they arise by following the Job

Evaluation Policy and Protocol

Be aware of the possibility of job ‘drift’, and ensure any changes to the role and

responsibilities of jobholders are requirements of the job

Communicate the outcome of a request to re-assess the pay band of an existing post

with the job holder within 5 days of receiving the notification from the Head of HR

The responsibilities of the Head of HR are to:

Take responsibility for co-ordinating the job evaluation panels, and ensuring there is

sufficient numbers of staff trained in job evaluation

Communicate the result of the job matching/evaluation panel within 5 days of the

panel’s outcome

The responsibility of all Staff Side Representatives is to:

Familiarise themselves fully with this policy and protocol.

The responsibilities of the Job Evaluation panel are to:

Consistently apply the training received in deciding the correct pay band for posts

submitted for consideration

The responsibilities of the Trained Job Matchers / Analysts / Evaluators are to:

Support staff and managers in the preparation of job descriptions, and provide

general advice on the process where requested

The responsibility of Training and Professional development is to:

Develop the skills of managers and staff representatives to allow this policy and

protocol to be put into practice effectively

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

APPENDIX 1

Job Description Template and Guidance Notes

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

JOB DESCRIPTION TEMPLATE AND GUIDANCE NOTES

1. JOB DETAILS

Job Title:

Insert job title for this job

Responsible to:

Insert job title for line manager’s job

Department & Base:

Insert department and base where postholder will be based

Date this JD written/updated:

Insert date (month and year) you wrote this job description

2. JOB PURPOSE

This should provide an accurate, concise statement in one sentence or paragraph of why the job

exists. It should allow readers to immediately focus on the job’s overall role in the organisation.

It is best to write the remainder of the job description first in order to develop an overall view of it,

and them come back to this section to complete it, using the insights gained from the rest of the

job description to clarify thoughts on the job’s overall purpose.

3. ORGANISATIONAL POSITION

The purpose of this section is to establish how the job fits into the rest of the organisation. It

should be clear to whom the post holder is responsible and whether they have any other key

lines of accountability, e.g. to a professional head.

Please therefore record:

a) the immediate line managers job

b) job titles of colleagues reporting to the same boss

c) job reporting directly to the post holder

It is usually best to draw the chart with the immediate line manager in the centre at the top, the

job in question immediately below with peers on either side. Subordinate jobs should then be

shown below. The example below gives a useful style, and can be edited for use. The names of

individual postholders should not be shown on the chart, just job titles.

It is occasionally more convenient to attach a separate sheet with the structure chart, rather

Colleague

Subordinate

no. 1

Subordinate

no. 2

Subordinate

no. 3

Subordinate

no. 4

Job Title

(THIS JOB)

Colleague

Boss

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

than having to incorporate it in the body of the job description. To do this, simply write

“organisation chart attached” in this section.

If there are any unusual organisational relationships that need to be explained or emphasised,

this should also be done in this section.

4. SCOPE AND RANGE

This should provide an insight into the job and the context within which it works. It is not

necessary or helpful to include a long list of statistics that relate to the job, but the section

should provide core information along the lines indicated below.

For managerial and supervisory jobs:

a) capital and revenue budgets – when quoting figures, it is important to show only figures

on which jobholders’ activities have some impact, detailing the nature of this impact;

b) staff numbers – show the total number of subordinates who report to the job whether

direct or through intermediate supervisors/managers. It is helpful to have a breakdown of

grade, group and/or function for those jobs where large numbers of staff are involved;

c) other statistics – total annual payroll for staff reporting to the job may be helpful, as may a

number of other statistics. This should, however, be restricted to those that are strictly

relevant to the job.

For non-supervisory and non-managerial jobs:

Any information which helps understanding of the range and scope of the job and/or the

department in which it works should be included (eg provides housekeeping service to three

wards, number of invoices processed per month, number of admissions processed per week,

etc)

5. MAIN DUTIES/RESPONSIBILITIES

This is the most important part of the job description and should contain a summary of the main

duties and responsibilities of the job. Ideally, there should be 10-12 of these in total, and

certainly no more than 15. For managerial and other senior positions this is best expressed in

terms of the key results or outputs of the job, rather than a long and detailed list of tasks. For

other posts, it is acceptable to set out the actual duties.

There is no one right way of completing this section for every job, but the aim should be to

emphasise what responsibilities and duties are expected of the job. The statement is usually

constructed in a way that indicates how the activity links to the desired output, as follows:

What is done…

To what / whom…

With what outcome…

Prepare, monitor and control

The annual department

budget

To ensure expenditure is in

line with the Business Plan.

Where it is a clear job requirement to periodically take charge of a work section, ward or

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

department, the details of that requirement should be described, including the regularity and

frequency.

6. SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT

This section should describe any machinery and/or equipment used in the job, or to which the

job otherwise relates (eg for maintenance). This could range from sophisticated medical

equipment, to computers, to domestic cleaning machinery. Where not obvious, a brief

description should be given of the use of the equipment in the job. Any computer software

packages used in the job should also be described here.

This section should also describe any systems that the post works with or contributes to, for

example in relation to information management. This may range from keeping simple manual

records to working with complex computer databases. The nature of the job’s role in relation to

the system should be described (e.g. security, processing and generating information; creation,

updating and maintenance of information databases or systems) and the degree to which it is

shared with others. An example for a manager might be completion of timesheets and

forwarding them to the salaries department.

7. DECISIONS AND JUDGEMENTS

Most jobs operate within defined procedures, plans, budgets, programmes, etc. In some jobs

the day to day work is very clearly assigned by a manager or supervisor, whereas in other

cases, particularly in professional and managerial jobs, the jobholder is expected to anticipate

problems or needs and get on with resolving them without being asked, eg developing

managerial policies and procedures, patient diagnosis or planning care. However, even many

task-focused jobs will still have some degree of discretion. For example, this may simply be the

order in which tasks are carried out.

So in this section, please describe:

• The frequency and nature of supervision of the job

• The areas of discretion

• Typical judgements made in the course of the job

8. COMMUNICATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS

This section should specify the various types of people, either inside or outside the

organisation, that the jobholder needs to have contact with (excluding immediate boss and

subordinates). Examples may include patients, visitors, clients, and work colleagues in other

departments or organisations. It is important that there is an explanation of the type of

communication and its purpose, and explain why there is a need to maintain such contacts.

This section should also be used to describe any emotionally demanding aspects of the job.

For example, information on whether there is a requirement for the post holder to motivate,

negotiate, persuade, make presentations, train others, empathise, communicate unpleasant

news sensitively or provide counselling and reassurance.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

9. PHYSICAL DEMANDS OF THE JOB

This section should describe the nature, level, frequency and duration of the physical effort

(sustained effort at a similar level or sudden explosive effort) required for the job. It takes

account of any circumstances that may affect the degree of effort required, such as working in

an awkward position or confined space.

The physical skills required in the job should also be described (eg requirements for speed and

accuracy, keyboard and driving skills, manual handling skills etc).

10. MOST CHALLENGING/DIFFICULT PARTS OF THE JOB

This section is intended to give a ‘feel’ for the most challenging or difficult aspects of the job.

The purpose of the question is to elicit information about the issues that confront the jobholder

and tax his or her skills to the most. There should not normally be more than one or two of

these.

For some jobs it may seem that there are no difficult aspects, and if that is the view of the

jobholder, it will be sufficient to say “not relevant” in this section. However, it should be borne in

mind that degrees of difficulty or complexity are relative to the nature of the job, and most will

have some tasks, duties or responsibilities that are felt to be more complex/difficult/challenging

than the rest, and it is helpful to be aware of what these are. This may include times when the

job has reduced access to supervision or support such as when assigned to take charge of the

department, or during standby or on-call duty.

11. KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO DO THE JOB

This section is intended to identify the training, qualifications and/or experience required for

standard acceptable performance in the job.

This includes theoretical and practical knowledge; professional; specialist or technical

knowledge; and knowledge of the policies, practices and procedures associated with the job. It

takes account of the educational level normally expected as well as equivalent levels of

knowledge gained without undertaking formal courses of study; and the practical experience

required to fulfil the job responsibilities satisfactorily.

The temptation should be avoided to make generalised statements such as, e.g. “requires

extensive experience” as this simply begs another question – what does extensive mean and

what sort of experience is required?

It is imperative to differentiate between the knowledge, skills and experience which the job

needs the jobholder to have for it to be done effectively (which is what should be included in this

section), and the knowledge, training and experience which the jobholder happens to possess

(which is not what should be described in this section)

Where a competency profile has previously been devised for the job, this may be attached to

the job description.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

12. JOB DESCRIPTION AGREEMENT

A separate job description will need to be signed off by each jobholder to

whom the job description applies.

Job Holder’s Signature:

Head of Department Signature:

Date:

Please note: This template is for Job Evaluation purposes only. For recruitment purposes,

sections 11 and 12 should be removed and a Person Specification attached. Please refer to the

Recruitment and Selection Policy for more information.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Appendix 2

Job Evaluation Authorisation Form

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

NHS Borders

JOB EVALUATION AUTHORISATION FORM

Please complete one request form per job

description and forward to Isabel Richardson, AfC

Office, 10 Sime Place, Galashiels, TD1 1ST.

The job description will not be processed until this form, signed by a member of

the Board Executive Team and signed/electronic copies of Job Description / Person

Spec has been submitted to the AFC Office.

POST DETAILS

Please complete all appropriate fields

Post title:

Suggested Profile:

New post:

Is this a new post for

advert

yes / no

Is this a re-evaluation of someone’s post

yes / no

New post for

advert:

(if applicable)

Previous post holder

Date Left (if known)

Title of post being

replaced (if applicable)

Re-evaluation:

Date post changed Title & CAJE ID of

current post

Jobholder(s)

Directorate/

department:

Line Manager:

Posts for re-evaluation will be dated when they arrive into the AFC Office. This will be

marked as the date the post changed, unless there is a clear reason for a different date

e.g. covering maternity leave.

Jobholder (print): Title:

Signature: Date:

Recruiting Manager (print): Title:

Signature: Date:

Authorising Manager (print): Title:

(BET Director)

Signature: Date:

For additional postholders please print and sign names overleaf

For AfC use only :-

JD Ref No:

Date received:

Date JD matched:

Date consistency

checked:

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

APPENDIX 3

Job Matching / Evaluation Process for Existing Posts

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Job Matching / Evaluation Process for Existing Posts

Appropriate profile No profile

available

Yes

Jobholder raises job evaluation request with line manager

where they believe the role has significantly changed

Job Description matched

to national profile

Are jobholder’s current

duties a requirement of

the post..?

Job Evaluation Panel

considers appropriate

national profiles

Manager confirms outcome

of process to jobholder

within 5 working days

Jobholder follows job

Evaluation process as

detailed in Appendix 4

Job Analysis

Questionnaire evaluated

on a factor-by-factor basis

Job Description matched

against national profile on

a factor-by-factor basis

Reviewed and signed off

job description submitted

to HR Department

Head of HR confirms outcome to line manager within

5 working days, forwarding the matched job report

and national profile (where appropriate)

Job Description sent to

Job Evaluation Panel for

consideration

Outcome of Job Matching /

Evaluation communicated to

Head of HR

Duties of the post are

realigned to the scope of

the original job description

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Appendix 4

Job Evaluation Process and guidance for completion of JAQs

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

NHS BORDERS LOCAL EVALUATION PROCESS

Background to Local Evaluation

The jobs of most health service employees will not need to be evaluated locally, because

they will be matched to national profiles. The jobs to be evaluated locally are:

• Jobs for which there is no national profile, because they are unique or significantly

different wherever they occur. This is likely to apply to many senior managerial

posts, administrative posts and to many jobs in specialist areas, such as IT, or

public relations

• Jobs where an attempt has been made to match them to one or more national

profiles, but this has not proved possible. This is most likely to apply to unusual

and/or very specialist healthcare and non-healthcare roles

Local evaluation is much more time consuming than matching so it is important to be

certain that a local evaluation is necessary before embarking on this route. For those jobs

that do need to be evaluated locally, the following procedure is based on nationally agreed

steps.

Process for local evaluation:

Step 1: Job Analysis Questionnaire completion:

• The jobholder meets with one of the job analysts to understand the overall

procedure and the information to be entered on the Job Analysis Questionnaire

(JAQ). The analyst introducing the JAQ needs to stress that it must reflect the job

at the date from which the job description applies. The JAQ should not contradict

the job description.

The jobholder completes the JAQ as far as possible (in computerised form), seeking

assistance from line manager, supervisor or colleagues. This draft document is supplied

in advance of the Job Analysis Interview to the job analysts.

The outcome of this step is a draft JAQ, and this should be submitted both electronically

and as a hard copy signed off by manager and jobtholder.

Step 2: Job analysis interview:

The jobholder is interviewed by a team of two trained job analysts, one representing

management, and one representing staff. The analysts will not be from the same job

family as the jobholder. The aim of the interview is to check, complete, improve on and

verify the draft JAQ by, for example:

• Checking that the JAQ instructions have been correctly followed

• Filling in information and examples where required questions have not been

answered or have been inadequately answered

• Checking closed question answers against the examples given and the statement

of job duties

The outcome of this step is an analysed and amended draft JAQ.

Step 3: Signing off:

The amended draft JAQ is checked by the line manager or supervisor and then signed off

by the jobholder, line manager or supervisor and both job analysts. If there are any

differences of view between the jobholder and line manager over the information on the

JAQ, this should be resolved, with the assistance of the job analysts, if necessary, by

reference to factual records, diaries or equivalent. Any more fundamental disagreements,

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

for example over the job duties or responsibilities, should be very rare and should be dealt

with using the same approach as with job descriptions.

The outcome of this stage is an analysed, verified and signed off JAQ.

Step 4: Evaluation of JAQ:

The agreed and signed JAQ is considered by a joint evaluation panel of four members and

the computerised evaluation input boxes completed. The job analysts cannot sit as

members of the evaluation panel.

This will involve:

• Validating the closed question answers against the examples and statement of job duties.

This should normally be a straightforward, virtually automatic process

• Analysing and evaluating the closed and open ended information on those factors where

'automatic' evaluation is not possible

• Only where necessary, seeking further information from the job analysts and/or jobholder,

where the information is inadequate. At the extreme, this could involve sending a badly

completed and/or analysed JAQ back to the jobholder and job analysts to repeat Steps 2

and 3 above. More commonly, it might involve asking the jobholder or line manager for a

specific piece of information to resolve a query at the border between question categories

or factor levels

• Checking the provisional evaluation for consistency on both a factor by factor and total

score basis against both national profiles and other local evaluations

The validated factor analyses/evaluations are input factor by factor into the computerised

system for evaluation, scoring and weighting. Any 'alert' messages on potentially

inconsistent factor assessments thrown up by the computer system need to be checked by

the panel.

The evaluation panel must complete all relevant boxes including those requiring job

evidence. The computerised JAQ is the complete record of the process, to be made

available to the jobholder in case of query.

The outcome of this stage is a factor by factor evaluation of the job, together with a total

weighted score and an explanatory rationale.

Step 5:

Local evaluations should be checked for consistency with national profiles and other local

evaluations on an ongoing basis and by a consistency panel. The outcome of this stage is

a factor by factor evaluation of the job, together with a total weighted score and an

explanatory rationale.

Step 6:

If the jobholder is dissatisfied with the outcome of the local evaluation, they may request a

review. In order to trigger this request the jobholder must provide details of where they

disagree with the initial evaluation.

Step 7:

A panel comprising a majority of members different from the first panel will re-evaluate the

post. It is for the jobholder to decide whether to use the original questionnaire or resubmit

a second questionnaire, subject to the validation processes described above.

Step 8:

The panel will confirm their evaluation decision. The jobholder has no right of appeal

beyond this second evaluation. If the jobholder believes the process was incorrect they

may pursue this through the local grievance procedure. They may not pursue a grievance

about the outcome of the grading decision.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Multiple Jobholders

Where the job is unique within NHS Borders, then the single jobholder must obviously

complete the JAQ. Where a number of jobholders carry out the same job being locally

evaluated, then there are a number of options for completion:

(1) Jobholders can select one of their number to complete the JAQ and be interviewed

by job analysts: the resulting JAQ is circulated to other jobholders for comment both

before the interview and, if there are changes as a result of the job analysis interview,

before being signed off

(2) Jobholders can work together to complete the JAQ and then select one of their

number to represent them at interview with the job analysts. This option works best

where jobholders work together in an office or other work location. It is effective, but

can be time consuming

(3) Where jobholders work in different locations, an option is for one jobholder from each

location to complete the JAQ and then meet together to produce a single JAQ and

select a representative for interview

For additional guidance on local evaluations please refer to pages 63 – 65 of the NHS Job

Evaluation Handbook.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Appendix 5

Job Evaluation Review Process

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

NHS BORDERS JOB

EVALUATION REVIEW PROCESS

1 Introduction

This procedure sets out the review process for those employees who have submitted a

changed job description for matching and are dissatisfied with the outcome. A written

request for a review must be made to the Head of HR within three months of receipt of the

banding outcome. Please see Section 5 preceding.

2 Criteria for Review

There are three reasons why an employee may wish to request a review of their job

evaluation outcome:

a) The employee considers that his/her job has been matched to an inappropriate national

profile

(b) The employee feels that relevant information in his/her job description has been

overlooked

description

3 Review Process

Stage 1

Guidance and advice is available for all staff from the Human Resources Department and

staff side representatives. By seeking guidance, he/she will gain a better understanding of

the process and be more able to consider if there is sufficient reason/evidence for review.

It is the employee’s responsibility to discuss his/her request for a review with his/her line

manager. An informal meeting can be arranged to discuss any issues about which the

employee is unclear. The discussion will also identify whether or not the matter can be

resolved at this stage.

Stage 2

In requests for review involving issues over the job description (criteria b) or c)), the

employee should use the Job Matching/Evaluation Evidence as a basis for review. The

attached Request for a Job Evaluation Review form should be used to submit evidence for

review. On completion of the form and the evidence having been signed off by the

employee and the line manager, the form should be sent to the HR Department.

If the evidence is not agreed by the individual and their line manager, the mediation

process is identical to that already agreed for job descriptions. In summary the process is:

Step 1: manager and individual meet to try and resolve any differences

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Step 2: manager and HR Manager meet with individual and staff-side representative

to try and resolve differences

Step 3: dispute is referred to an appeals panel comprising the manager’s immediate

manager and a different staff-side representative who will jointly reach a final, binding

decision

The written request for review will be acknowledged by the Head of HR within ten working

days. The form will be checked and if any further information is required then the

employee will need to submit this within a further ten days.

Stage 3

Once the evidence has been submitted, the Head of HR will arrange for a Review Panel to

reconsider the job description using the additional information. At least three, and where

possible four, members of the Review Panel will be different from those on the original job

matching panel.

The Review Panel will operate under the existing national Job Matching principles and

protocols and will take place as quickly as possible from receipt of the formal written

request for a review. The Review Panel may:

(a) Match to the same band using the original or different profile and confirm

the match

(b) Match to a different profile and a higher banding

(d) Refer the job for local evaluation as the review has resulted in a band

mis-match

The Head of HR will write to advise the manager of the outcome and the manager will then

inform the employee.

4 Right of Appeal

The employee has no right of appeal regarding the matching or pay banding decision

outcome itself, beyond the Review Panel.

If the employee can demonstrate that the procedure was misapplied he/she may pursue a

grievance using the NHS Borders Grievance Policy.

Where a grievance is upheld, one solution may be a referral to a new job matching panel.

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

REQUEST FOR A JOB EVALUATION REVIEW

This form must be completed where an employee is requesting a review of their Pay

Band. The form should be completed giving a brief description of the rationale for

the review in part 1 and then detailing the evidence to support this in part 2 of the

form. The completed form should be sent to the Head of HR.

Postholder’s Name: ___________________________

Manager’s Name: ___________________________

Part 1 -

Please outline the reasons for your request below:

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Part 2

Please provide supporting evidence as per the factors below to allow your case to

be reviewed. Information on the factors can be found in the NHS Job Evaluation

Handbook available from your manager or on the website www.scotland.gov.uk

CAJE No.

Job Title:

Band

FACTOR

LEVEL

COMMENTS

1. Communication and

Relationship Skills

2. Knowledge, training and

experience

3. Analytical and

judgemental skills

4. Planning and

organisational skills

5. Physical skills

6. Responsibilities for

patient/client care

7. Responsibilities for policy

and service development

implementation

8. Responsibilities for

financial and physical

resources

9. Responsibilities for human

resources (HR)

10. Responsibilities for

information resources

11. Responsibilities for

research and development

12. Freedom to Act

13. Physical effort

14. Mental effort

15. Emotional effort

16. Working Conditions

Job Evaluation Policy v2.4 –signed off at APF 191009

Additional Comments:

I confirm the information above is an accurate reflection of the jobholder’s responsibilities