LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES JOB EVALUATION SCHEME:

TECHNICAL NOTE NO. 8: GENERIC JOBS AND JOB DESCRIPTIONS

1. Introduction

1.1 Frequently asked questions in the context of carrying out single status grading and pay structure reviews relate to generic jobs and job descriptions. What are generic jobs? Can generic job descriptions be evaluated? How generic can they be?

1.2 This Technical Note examines the issues. It expands on Technical Note No. 4: Options for Dealing with Non-Benchmark Jobs, para. 4, but it is of wider application as both benchmark and non-benchmark jobs are capable of being generic.

2. What are Generic Jobs?

2.1 Generic jobs are jobs which show some variations between them, but are treated the same, not only for grading purposes, but also in the work organisation context. Generic jobs may be introduced, for instance, where an organisation seeks to achieve greater flexibility across tasks considered to be of similar level, for example, a generic job family such as Clerical Role to replace separate Clerk Typist, Clerk Word Processor Operator and Clerical Support Officer jobs.

2.2 Generic job descriptions are inevitably written in more generalised language than specific job descriptions, because they usually have to cover a wider range of activities. Sometimes they are extremely generalised, or alternatively include only information about the competences required for the generic role. This may present a practical problem, when it comes to evaluation, but is not an argument of principle against generic jobs.

3. Can Generic Jobs be Evaluated? What is the legal position?

3.1 As long as sufficient job information is available, generic jobs can be evaluated in the same way as other jobs. There is nothing in law, which requires small variations in jobs to be evaluated separately [see Bromley v Quick [1988 IRLR 249 CA]].

3.2 Evaluation problems only occur if different versions of the generic job would evaluate significantly differently. This could be a serious problem, if some versions of the generic job are significantly more demanding than others in terms of the job evaluation system being applied and the less demanding version of the job is evaluated. In this situation, those undertaking the more demanding versions of the generic job could have grounds for appeal or for an equal pay claim to an Employment Tribunal.

3.3 If the more demanding version of the job were evaluated, then others in a lower grade might be able to claim that they carry out work of equal value to those undertaking the less demanding versions of the generic job.

3.4 The other problem, which can occur if jobs are too generic, is that an individual jobholder may be able to argue that their version of the job is significantly different from that which was evaluated and that they are thus not covered by that evaluation. There have been a number of equal pay claims based on this type of situation.

3.5 Such problems can be avoided by undertaking sample evaluations across the range of variations covered by the generic job (see below).

4. We already have Generic Jobs. How do we Proceed?

4.1 The first step is to agree a small sample of the generic jobholders to cover the range of variations within the group. The size of the sample will obviously depend on the number of generic jobholders and the degree of variation in their versions of the job. Where the generic job is relatively homogenous, then a small sample may suffice, even with large numbers of jobholders.

4.2 The second step is to collect the detailed job information necessary for evaluation purposes for the sample job versions, either by means of the Job Description Questionnaire or through use of the Gauge system. The sample can then be evaluated, preferably by the same evaluation panel, or using the same Gauge job analyst. The evaluation results should then be consistency checked in the usual way.

4.3 The third step is to review the evaluation results. Where the sample jobs evaluate the same or very similarly, then it is reasonable to treat the whole group as a single generic job for job evaluation purposes. Where some of the sample evaluate significantly differently from others (such as could result in their falling into a different grade), then it will be necessary to identify two or more different generic jobs and to determine a means for allocating members of the original generic group to the appropriate evaluated job. This may require further sampling and/or a procedure for matching other examples of the job to one of the evaluated sample.

5. We only have specific jobs at present, but we think there is scope for Generic Job Evaluations. How Do We Proceed?

5.1 Some local authorities, faced with evaluating multiple versions of jobs such as Clerical Assistant, Departmental Administrator, Personal Assistant have sought to introduce generic evaluations to reduce the evaluation workload, rather than for reasons of work or organisational flexibility.

5.2 The additional preliminary step in this situation is to identify those jobholders whose jobs may be treated generically for evaluation purposes. This is not always easy, especially where different job titles are in use across the potential generic job group, so needs close involvement from relevant managers and union/ relevant employee representatives with HR and/or evaluation project team members. It will be helpful if existing job descriptions are collected centrally and/or job summaries are drawn up to assist in identifying the initial sample for evaluation.

5.3 The steps as above can then be followed. It may be necessary to agree a somewhat larger sample for evaluation than where generic jobs are already established, in order to ensure that all significant variations are covered and there is credibility for the exercise.

5.4 Where all or most of the sample evaluate the same or very similarly, then the remaining jobs can be allocated to the generic evaluation. It is possible at this stage to draw up a generic job description to match the evaluation and cover the range of job duties, but this is not essential in the job evaluation context.

5.5 Where there are significant differences in the evaluations of the jobs thought to be generic, then it will be necessary to sub-divide the original group into a number of different jobs and to undertake further sample evaluations and/or develop a matching procedure to allocate the remaining group members to an evaluated job.

5.6 In the situation where there have not previously been generic jobs or job descriptions, it is important to evaluate the sample of jobs before drawing up the generic job descriptions. To attempt to do this the other way round is to court disaster, as there is then no way of ensuring that the most useful job descriptions are developed or that all the possible job variations are adequately catered for. This can lead to grievances, appeals or challenges to Employment Tribunal.

5.7 Once the generic jobs have been evaluated, a factor comparison or factor matching exercise can be carried out to allocate the remaining job versions to the appropriate generic evaluation. This should be done on an analytical basis to minimise the risk of subsequent appeals or legal challenges [see Technical Note 4]. An analytical procedure will also help prevent under-grading of jobs, as it is based on job demands rather than tasks. It will thus avoid the situation where a job is allocated to a lower grade profile on the grounds that it does not include 1 or 2 of the higher grade profile activities, when factor analysis shows that the job demands best match the higher grade profile.

6. Appeals in Relation to Generic Evaluations

6.1 The underlying protection for employees in relation to generic evaluations is that they should be able to appeal on the grounds that their version of the job is significantly different from the one, which was evaluated, and should be separately evaluated (see Tech Note 9 `Appeals' - to be produced mid June 05).

TECH NOTE 8 JUNE 2005

Page 3 of 4