LGTN8APPEALS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES JOB EVALUATION SCHEME:

TECHNICAL NOTE NO. 9: APPEALS, REVIEWS AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE

1. Introduction

1.1 Part 4.1 Para 6 of the National Agreement, refers to a model appeals procedure for use in relation to evaluations using the Local Government NJC JES. The model procedure provides a nationally agreed framework for local appeals, but needs amplifying to suit the needs of each Local Authority.

1.2 The local detailed procedure should be discussed and agreed jointly. This Technical Note discusses some of the procedural issues in relation to appeals in the context of job evaluation.

2. Terminology

2.1 It is standard job evaluation practice to allow appeals against an initial evaluation exercise, in order to correct any errors by allowing an employee to argue that their job was incorrectly evaluated or that the information provided was inadequate. Such initial appeals are usually time limited, for example, to within 3 months of the publication of the job evaluation results.

2.2 It is also standard practice to allow requests for re-evaluation of a job, which has changed significantly since the initial evaluation, to keep the evaluations up-to-date with changes and accurate. This is an ongoing process.

2.3 Sometimes, these two separate procedures are combined into a single appeal procedure, as in the Part 4 model procedure. However, there are arguments for keeping them separate and labelling them differently, as they relate to different stages of the evaluation process. If this is done, it may be necessary to agree ground rules for establishing whether a job change is sufficiently significant to allow for re-evaluation.

2.4 Where requests for re-evaluation are separated from appeals, it is possible to allow for a distinct appeal procedure for employees who are dissatisfied with the re-evaluation of a changed job. This can also be time limited to an agreed period after the publication of the outcome of the re-evaluation (see below, on Timescales).

2.5 It is good job evaluation practice, and minimises risks of subsequent challenge, to provide for ongoing maintenance of the system to ensure that all evaluations remain accurate and up-to-date, without relying on individual employees appealing or requesting a re-evaluation of their jobs. This can be done by, for example:

Re-evaluating all jobs in departments or sections subject to re-organisation or

re-structuring

Re-evaluating all jobs over time on a rolling programme.

2.6 All of the above apply whether the paper-based or computerised (Gauge) version of the NJC JES was used for the initial evaluations, although by definition there is no scope for evaluation errors as such when using the computerised version. However, there is scope for appeal on the grounds of inadequate or inaccurate information input into the Gauge system (see Grounds for Appeal, below).

3. What is the Nature of the Appeal (as distinct from a request for Re-evaluation)?

3.1 Traditionally, appeal procedures provided a mechanism for challenge against decisions often made by employers alone and sometimes in secrecy. This sometimes led to large numbers of appeals and queues of appeals waiting to go through a lengthy appeals procedure.

3.2 Where grading has been determined jointly and transparently through use of a fair and non-discriminatory job evaluation scheme, the situation is different. The aim of such an exercise should be to minimise appeals through carrying out the exercise properly. In these circumstances, appeals should be restricted mainly to:

Those who believe there has been a genuine error of job information or evaluation
Those who wish the relative downgrading of their job to be double-checked

3.3 In order to emphasise the idea of an appeal as a check on the original evaluation and because of unhappy experiences with appeals in previous grading reviews, the procedures for questioning matching and evaluations in the NHS Agenda for Change Job Evaluation Scheme are called requests for review, rather than appeal, and the panel a review panel.

4. What are the Potential Grounds for Appeal against Initial Evaluation or Re-evaluation?

4.1 Part 4 of the National Agreement lists as the grounds for appeal against initial evaluation as:

The scheme has been wrongly applied e.g. factor levels have been wrongly allocated, the evaluation panel has failed to follow guidance etc.
The job description questionnaire did not provide complete information
It is believed that an equivalent job is more highly graded and paid

The last of these was included to allow equal value issues to be resolved internally without immediate recourse to an Employment Tribunal. Where generic jobs have evaluated (see Technical Note 8), an additional ground for appeal would be that:

The job has been wrongly matched.

4.2 If using the Gauge computerised version, `the grounds for re-evaluations and appeals remain as set out in the Green Book. However, in practice use of the computerised version should significantly diminish the scope for appeals. In particular it should virtually eliminate appeals on the grounds that the scheme has been wrongly applied as use of the computerised version will remove the potential for inconsistent panel results, particularly over time' [Green Book, Part 4.1, Appendix 4].

5. Initial Appeals - When?

5.1 It is sometimes suggested that appeals against the initial grading review evaluations should take place after completion of the evaluations and consistency checking, but before publication of grading and pay structure proposals. A variation is to allow appeals after the grade boundaries have been drawn, but before pay scales have been attached to the proposed grades.

5.2 The arguments for these options are:

They are the purest options in that employees are appealing about the evaluations rather than the pay outcomes
They allow the outcomes of appeals to be taken into account in costing the pay structure proposals.

5.3 The arguments against are:

They may increase the number of appeals
They are likely to delay the publication of pay structure proposals
It may be necessary to allow a further round of appeals once the pay structure proposals are published

5.4 For these latter reasons most organisations allow initial appeals against evaluation from the date of publication of the grading and pay structure proposals.

6. Appeal Procedures - Issues for Consideration

There is no one perfect appeal procedure. In practice appeal procedures vary between organisations and are influenced by local culture and other related procedures, such as those for other grievances.

6.2 However, what is essential to all appeals procedures and is required by Part 4 of the Agreement is that all appeals panel members are fully trained in the use of the scheme and in the avoidance of bias.

6.3 Some issues for consideration in developing an appropriate appeals procedure are:

a. Informal Appeal/Review

The model appeal procedure includes provision for an informal review of the case, by `the employee, a representative of management and his or her union representative' together with `a representative of the department responsible for maintaining the JE scheme'. This allows for:

Errors of scoring, blatant evaluation errors or obvious errors of allocation to the wrong benchmark job, none of which would occur in an ideal world, but which do occur in the real world, to be corrected on the spot.
Appeals arising from lack of understanding or misunderstanding of the scheme or outcome to be resolved through provision of the required information without resort to a formal appeal.
Advice to be provided on the scope for appeal, which may assist the potential appellant to decide whether it is worthwhile going through the formal appeal procedure

The informal procedure should not preclude a job from going through the formal appeals procedure, but is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary or inappropriate appeals.

It will be necessary to agree locally exactly how the informal stage should take place, for example:

What are the timescales for this informal stage? The model procedure says the discussion should take place `as soon as possible' and it should obviously not be a cause of significant delay to those appeals which go forward to the formal procedure.
What should be put in writing at this stage?
When will the employee be notified of the outcome - on the day, or in writing immediately afterwards?

b. How Many Stages to the Formal Appeal Procedure?

Historically, public sector appeal procedures allowed for a two or more stage appeal with a higher-level appeal to chief officer or elected member level and sometimes outside the organisation, for example, to regional or national joint council level.

The model procedure includes provision for `a further appeals mechanism' to be agreed locally `to apply in exceptional cases where the panel fails to reach agreement'.
However, if the appeal is regarded as a request to review and check the initial evaluation, then there should really only be need for a one-step formal appeal hearing, at which the appellant's case is set out and a final determination made.
If there is to be a higher level appeal, then it is important that the higher level appeal panel members are also fully trained in the job evaluation system and that they ensure that their appeal decisions are consistent with other evaluations.
The model procedure allows for the provincial council to be involved in second stage appeals, where this agreed locally. However, where councils in the region have adopted different local conventions, the relevant local conventions would need to be used by the regional appeal panel.

c. Timescales for Appeals

It is in the interests of all parties to set timescales for each stage of the appeal process, but these should be realistic.
For the appeals from an initial evaluation exercise, capacity to deal with them within an agreed timescale will obviously depend on the numbers of appeals received, which may be difficult to forecast. Assuming that every effort has been made to keep appeals to a minimum, it would be reasonable to provide for appeals to be submitted within 3 months of publication and to be dealt with within, say, 6 months of submission. However, it may be necessary to provide for completion date to be amended if numbers of appeals exceed expectations.
For appeals against evaluations of new or re-evaluations of changed jobs, it should be possible to set firm timescales. Where a two stage appeals procedure is agreed, then there should be a timescale for each stage of the procedure. The model procedure says that the `NJC recommends that appeals should be dealt with within 3 months of being submitted'.

d. Composition of the Appeal Panel

For a one-stage formal appeal procedure, the model procedure provides for it to be carried out by a different panel from that which undertook the original evaluation in order to provide an objective second look at the initial evaluation.
A second stage panel, if adopted, should also be different from either the original panel or the initial formal appeal panel.

e. Size and membership of the appeal panel

If the first formal stage appeal panel is regarded as an evaluation review panel, then it is likely to be of the same size and style of membership as an initial evaluation panel. Otherwise, appeal panels are generally smaller, rather than larger, than initial evaluation panels. They may include for example:

A more senior member of HR/Personnel than was the case for initial panels
A head of department
A senior trade union convenor or Regional Officer instead of or in addition to local trade union representation

The appeal panel should be as balanced as possible in terms of gender and ethnicity.

f. Chairing of the Appeal Panel?

If the appeal panel is regarded as an evaluation review panel, then chairing system is likely to be as for the original evaluation panel, although the model procedure allows for an independent chairperson, if this is locally agreed. If the panel is differently composed or is a higher-level panel, then there are some different options, for example:

Director/Head of HR or another Chief Officer
An elected member
A Regional Council representative or official
A trade union senior regional officer
An independent chair agreed by unions and employers

It is important that, whoever chairs the panel, they and other panel members are trained and experienced in applying the Local Government NJC JES.

g. Information to be Provided for Formal Appeal

It is good practice to have agreed forms for appeals and, if separate, requests for re-evaluation.
A request for re-evaluation form should require the employee to identify the changes to the job which have lead to the request. It will need to be agreed locally whether or not the employee should be asked to specify to which JE factors s/he considers the changes to be relevant, and whether or not there should be a section for the line manager's comments. If it is agreed that the appellant should specify relevant factors, then the Authority will need to ensure that information about the scheme is available to all employees, including those who do not have access to computerised information.
The appeal form usually requires the appellant to specify the grounds for appeal and to provide further details of the appeal. It will need to be agreed locally whether or not the appellant is required to identify those factors s/he considers to be affected by the appeal. This is often considered helpful as it focuses the minds of both the appellant and the appeal panel.

[Author ID1: at Tue Oct 11 10:54:00 2005 ]

h. Appeal Record Keeping

Whatever procedures are used for appeals, it is important that careful records are kept of any changes to the initial factor evaluations and the reasons for them. This provides the basis for informing the appellant of the outcome, but also provides information in case of subsequent query or external challenge.

i. Monitoring

Appeals, like all other aspects of job evaluation, should be monitored and reported on at agreed intervals, for example, annually. Data should be maintained by gender, ethnicity, disability and, for the future, age (monitoring information can be requested on the appeal form) of:

The numbers of appeals submitted (distinguishing single and group appeals)
The number of appeals resolved at the informal discussion stage and the outcomes
The number of appeals resolved at the formal appeal hearing and the outcomes
The number of appeals resolved at the second appeal stage, where relevant, and the outcome.

TECH NOTE 9 OCT 2005

Page 8 of 8