Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

\\mpl_f1\data\localgov\job evaluation\other schemes\branch briefing on hay & gl

\\mpl_f1\data\localgov\job evaluation\other schemes\branch briefing on hay & glpc/ga/jj Comparison of Hay guide chart profile system of job evaluation and the GLPC job evaluation scheme with the principles of the local government NJC job evaluation scheme The independent Local Government Pay Commission stated that the principles of single status were good and job evaluation should continue. The Commission added that the NJC Job Evaluation Scheme provided a ‘good basis for going forward’ and the presumption should be that it would be used for single status grading reviews. If any employer wishes to use an alternative, the onus is on the employer to justify the use of the other scheme i.e. they must demonstrate that the alternative scheme meets the principles of the NJC scheme. Attached is UNISON’s assessment on how the Hay and GLPC Job Evaluation Schemes match up to the principles of the NJC JE Scheme. The principles are set out in the NJC Joint Evaluation Technical Working Group Technical Note 2 (attached.) UNISON recommends the NJC Job Evaluation Scheme, as the only one if implemented properly that will fully protect local government employers against equal pay cases. The choice of job evaluation scheme is very important because different schemes may produce different outcomes. The Hay Job Evaluation Scheme may compress salaries at the bottom and stretch those at the top. The GLPC Job Evaluation Scheme can be expected to deliver similar outcomes to the NJC Job Evaluation Scheme but may undervalue frontline jobs which have a responsibility for people and put emotional demands on the jobholder. If an employer proposes alternative scheme(s), branches will want to address: • Is the scheme analytical i.e. factor based? • Are the factors suitable for all the jobs to be covered? Do they cover all significant features? • Do the factor levels represent genuine steps in demand amongst the jobs to be covered? • Does the weighting system match the values of the organisation? Are the most heavily weighted factors the most important ones to the organisation? • Does the scheme comply with equal value principles and practices? 2 Background JETWG and NJC JE Scheme The Job Evaluation Joint Technical Working Group (JETWG) was set up by the national employers and unions during the Single Status negotiations as a sub committee of the NJC. It designed and developed the NJC JE Scheme and promotes its use. It comprises representatives from the employers and unions and each side had its own technical adviser. JETWG issues comprehensive technical advice and supports the NJC on JE matters and the use of the NJC JES. In designing and developing the NJC Job Evaluation Scheme the JETWG drew on and applied the Green Book principles of equality, transparency, openness and joint working. The NJC Job Evaluation Scheme has 13 factors: - Knowledge - Mental skills - Interpersonal and communication skills - Physical skills - Initiative and independence - Physical demands - Mental demands - Emotional demands - Responsibility for people - Responsibility for supervision/direction/co-ordination of employees - Responsibility for financial resources - Responsibility for physical resources - Working conditions Each factor is defined as having different levels. These vary between 5 and 8 levels. Each level is designed to reflect increasing steps in demands of the job task and responsibilities. Hay System of Job Evaluation The Hay Guide Chart Profile System was developed in the United States in the periods immediately before and after the Second World War. It was designed specifically to cover administrative and managerial jobs in large organisations. Hay was first used in the UK in financial sector organisations. It subsequently spread to many other sectors, primarily, until the late 1980s for managerial and administrative jobs. Since then Hay has increasingly been used to cover all jobs in an organisation. The scheme was amended in the late 1990s to accommodate local government manual jobs. A unique feature of the Hay system is that it is a universal scheme, in that the same scheme, with the same factors, factor levels and scoring system is intended to be applied in the same way in any organisation adopting the Hay system. A second unique feature of the Hay system is the Guide Charts. In summary, the factor headings are: Know-How 3 Depth of Technical Know-How Breadth of Management Know-How Human Relations Skills Problem-Solving Thinking Environment Thinking Challenge Accountability Freedom to act Magnitude Impact Physical Demands Phyiscal Effort Working Conditions The numbers of levels used on some Hay factors can vary depending on the organisation. Generally there are up to eight levels. The Hay job evaluation scheme does not match up to the NJC principles as set out by JETWG in their Technical Note 2 (attached) as follows: • The Scheme predates UK and international equality legislation. There is no evidence that the Hay Scheme has been objectively tested to ensure compliance with equal value principles and practices. • The NJC principles of jointness, openness and equality are not associated with the Hay system. The system can be operated jointly or by management only. It can be used openly or not. Equality is not mentioned in most versions of the Hay manual. The team that modified the Hay system for use in local government post single status was employer led. • The principles, if any, on which the Hay system scoring and weighting systems are based, are not published. They are said by Hay consultants to reflect experience of jobs over many years of use of the system, but this cannot be verified objectively. • The Hay Guide Chart Profile System has three original factors – Know-How, Problem Solving and Accountability. A fourth factor Physical Demands was introduced to take account of single status. The modified system has 10 sub factors compared to the 13 factors of the NJC JES. There is a risk of overlap between Thinking Environment and Freedom to Act sub factors – this may lead to ‘double counting’ of points. • The NJC JE scheme has factors such as Interpersonal Skills, Physical Skills, Emotional Demand and responsibility for people to ensure that features of jobs, which may have been undervalued in the past, are fairly measured. In the Hay system Interpersonal Skills are covered by a specific sub factor of the Know-How factor, but this only has three levels. Physical skills are not specifically measured Emotional demands are not specifically covered. There is no factor to specifically measure Responsibility for People. 4 • It is not clear how the Hay weighting of factors was derived. Hay consultants argue that weighting varies between jobs. Jobs are weighted either in favour of Accountabilities or in favour of Know-How; this is used as a check on the evaluation. The lack of transparency around the weighting system may have equal pay implications. • The NJC scheme adopts the principle of equality throughout. This can be seen in the aim of having equal steps in demand between factor levels and then equal points steps to reflect this. Under Hay all scoring steps are geometric i.e. increasing points at each level, as opposed to roughly equal points (arithmetic) as in the NJC Scheme. The Hay geometric steps are said to be based on experience of what people can distinguish between jobs. • Under the NJC scheme similar factors were developed in parallel to each other, for example, Responsibility, Effort factors each with the same number of levels and the same weighting. There are not similar factors in the Hay system. • All aspects of the NJC scheme are open and transparent. This led to publication of the factors, factor levels, scoring and weighting of the scheme and a user guide on implementation as the recommended model for carrying out grading reviews, in Part 4 of the Single Status Agreement. The Hay system factors, factor levels and scoring matrix are published in the scheme manual of the guide charts. For some organisations, there is a separate user guide on implementation. These documents are available to evaluators and steering group members but not usually to employees generally. • The NJC scheme operates under the principle of joint working. The joint Technical Working Group developed and promotes the scheme. The principle of jointness is included in the user guide on implementation. There is joint presentation and training on the scheme wherever possible. The Hay system was neither originally designed nor modified by a joint group involving trade union representatives. In neither instance was there opportunity for trade union contributions. The Hay system can be operated jointly or not; where it is operating jointly, joint training is provided. Presentations are made by Hay consultants. • The Equal Opportunities Commission was consulted regularly during the development of the scheme and made helpful comments, which were followed, particularly on implementation issues. It is not known whether the Hay system has been submitted to the Equal Opportunities Commission for comment. Hay consultants claim that it has been tested and validated through Employment Tribunal cases. GLPC JE Scheme The GLPC job evaluation scheme was developed by the London Employers uploads/Management/ hay-guide.pdf