Human Resources - Grading reviews and appeals protocol (L1400)

1.0 Summary of Changes

This protocol has been revised at:

• Section 3.1.1 regarding the review of jobs – reasonable timeframes updated;
• Section 3.2.1 updated HAY Application Form link;
• Section 3.3.2 regarding payment in exceptional circumstances.

2.0 What this Protocol is about

2.1 The purpose of this protocol is to outline the process for grading reviews and appeals in respect to staff roles within both Essex Police and Kent Police.

2.2 Within Essex Police this protocol applies to the “Purple Book” job evaluation process for staff roles up to and including PO6, and the HAY job evaluation process as used for posts at SPS1 and above. Within Kent Police the protocol will apply to evaluation of all staff roles between grades A to M.

Compliance with this protocol and any governing policy is mandatory. This protocol is not, nor is it intended to be, contractual.

3.0 Detail the Protocol

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 It is accepted that the particular duties and responsibilities attached to posts are likely to change from time to time but this will not necessarily give rise to a need for a grading review. In cases where there has been a substantial and prolonged change in the duties and responsibilities of a post and the post holder is dissatisfied with their current grade, a review of the grading may be requested. Line Managers should consider the grounds for requesting a review of the role within a reasonable timeframe and ensure staff are advised as to whether the request will be supported or not. Although cases may differ in complexity, it would be expected that in normal circumstances this consideration prior to any management supported formal submission would not exceed three months.

3.1.2 Any staff employee covered by Essex Police or Kent Police terms and conditions of service will be entitled to a review of their salary grading with the support of their line manager and LPA/Divisional Commander/Head of Department, provided the manager is able to demonstrate that the job has changed significantly in terms of the level of responsibility required.

3.1.3 Where support is not provided an understanding of the justification should be fed back to the individual. In exceptional circumstances where agreement may still not be reached, written submissions can be made to HR by both the individual and the LPA/Divisional Commander/Head of Department. A suitably trained member of the HR team will make a determination on whether changes to the role warrant a grading review.
 
3.1.4 Grading reviews may also be undertaken by each Force at appropriate times, such as part of restructuring, post implementation reviews or general quality assurance sampling. This will ensure that roles can be reviewed, with the appropriate communication and/or consultation, in line with changing business requirements and organisational need.

3.2 Job Evaluation Procedure

3.2.1 Where it is agreed that the grade of a job should be reviewed the following procedure will be adopted and a HAY Application Form will need to be completed:

• The job will be analysed by a trained job analyst;
• A job description questionnaire will be prepared;
• This will be an agreed document signed by the post holder or nominated representative post holder, line manager and LPA/Divisional Commander/Head of Department; Where appropriate the post holder or nominated representative post holder will also sign the document. There may be occasions where this does not occur and this will not prevent the role from being properly evaluated (e.g., restructuring, organisational change etc.) where the document will be subject to wider consultation with post holders at the appropriate time;
• The job will be evaluated at a job evaluation panel. All panel members will be formally trained in the relevant job evaluation scheme;
• A trade union representative trained in the job evaluation methodology will be invited to participate at each panel.

3.3 Salary Placement

3.3.1 Where the grade of the post increases as a result of the review, the LPA/Divisional Commander/Head of Department in conjunction with their HR Adviser is responsible for determining the salary placement within the new grade. When making this decision the following advice should be kept in mind:

3.3.1.1 On the re-grading of the post, based on increased duties and responsibilities, staff shall be paid a salary in accordance with the new grade, which is at least one Spinal Column Point in excess of the salary they received on the old grade. Where the first scale point of the new grade either overlaps or is below the post holder’s current scale point the post holder will receive a one scale point increment. If the line manager believes that there is a case for the post holder being appointed higher up the grade than these provisions allow, then a Salary Placement Form should be completed and submitted to the Head of HR Delivery for consideration.

3.3.2 Any increase in grade/ salary will be effective from the first day of the month in which the evaluation panel was held. In exceptional circumstances consideration to extend backdating of payment may be given by the HR Delivery Manager.

3.3.3 Any decrease in grade/ salary will be effective from the first day of the month in which the evaluation panel was held. Any individual subject to a reduction in grade will be eligible for salary protection payments applicable to their employing force in line with the arrangements set out in L 1280 Protocol – Employment Security, Restructuring and Redeployment, Section 3.84.

3.3.4 Where the grade of the job increases by two or more grades, the job will be advertised internally, and where appropriate any displaced jobholders will be placed “At risk”.

3.3.5 In exceptional circumstances, the procedure outlined in 3.3.4, may be waived. A written submission must be made to the HR Delivery Manager and consultation undertaken with the trade union to secure such an exemption.

3.4 Appeal Procedure

3.4.1 Where the re-grading of a job has taken place and it is not felt that the grade/scale awarded fairly reflects the responsibilities and accountabilities of the role the following will apply:

3.4.2 A member of SLT will submit a request for the job to be re-evaluated; in doing so the result of the original panel will be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal process. The request must be submitted, in writing, to the HR Delivery Manager setting out brief details as to why the grade/scale would appear to not adequately reflect the responsibilities of the job and must be submitted no more than 28 days after receipt of the letter notifying them the panel’s decision.

3.4.3 The same job description questionnaire will be re-submitted to a different panel. At this panel an “expert witness” will attend to provide the panel with their account of the responsibilities of the role. This will normally be the immediate line manager. See Guidance for the Expert Witness for further detail on what will happen at the panel.

3.4.4 The evaluation at the second panel will be the recorded outcome of the evaluation process. Any change in grading will be backdated to the month of the first panel. (NB there is no option to revert to the grading of the first panel should the outcome of the second panel not be as anticipated). There will be no further rights of appeal.

3.4.5 In the unlikely event that the manager submitting the appeal believes that that the Job Description Questionnaire submitted for evaluation requires revision to better reflect the role then the evaluation process will recommence, and the job will be submitted to the next available panel for evaluation; any resulting increase or decrease in grading will be effective from the date of that panel and will not be backdated

4.0 Equality Impact Assessment

4.1 This protocol has been assessed with regard to its relevance to race and diversity equality. As a result of this assessment the protocol has been graded as having a low potential impact.

5.0 Risk Assessment

5.1 There is no specific risk assessment or health and safety consideration thought relevant to the content of this protocol.

5.2 Officers and members of police staff engaged within the process must remain aware that they must follow the protocol correctly otherwise the risk to the organisation of a possible employment tribunal could be raised. A failure to fully adopt the principles set out in this protocol could have a detrimental effect upon the reputation of the organisation.

6.0 Consultation

6.1 The following were invited to provide feedback in the consultation phase during the formulation of this document:
• Joint Depts
o HR Teams (including HR Partners)
o Unison – Essex Police and Kent Police
o Equality and Diversity Co-ordinator
o Health & Safety
• Essex Depts
o Strategic Change Team
o PSD Superintendent
o Policy/Risk
o LPA Commanders/Head of Departments
o Support Networks
- MESA
- Disability Network
- Women’s Leadership Development Forum
- Work Life Balance
- NEXUS
- Christian Police Association

7.0 Monitoring and Review

7.1 The application of this protocol will be by the HR Delivery Manager. This protocol will be reviewed every 2 years.

8.0 Governing force policy

Related force policies or related procedures (Essex) / linked standard operating procedures (Kent)
8.1 This HR protocol supports the overarching HR policy L1.
• L 01280 Protocol – Employment Security, Restructuring and Redeployment

8.2 Data Security
8.2.1 Essex Police and Kent Police have measures in place to protect the security of your data in accordance with our Information Management Policy – W 1000 Policy – Information Management.
 
8.3 Retention & Disposal of Records
8.3.1 Essex Police and Kent Police will hold data in accordance with our Records Review, Retention & Disposal Policy – W 1012 Procedure/SOP - Records Review, Retention and Disposal.
8.3.2 We will only hold data for as long as necessary for the purposes for which we collected.