Job Evaluation - Review Instigated By The Police Authority
The Devon and Cornwall Constabulary has completed a Job Evaluation (JE) scheme. In excess of 500 job roles were identified and evaluated. A number of staff were re-graded and salary scales changed from April 2005 resulting in some staff being paid more and others receiving, in some cases, significant salary cuts. Some staff would have stayed on their existing salary.
The original intention was to protect the salaries of those staff subject to a cut until October 2006. As a result of the reactions by staff it has now been agreed that all staff who would have been reduced in salary will remain on their current salary until such time as they leave their current post.
Three reviews were undertaken: -
The first, undertaken by ACAS, was an independent review of the actual Job Evaluation scheme. This is about identifying whether the scheme used, including the IT software, was in fact fit for purpose.
The second review commissioned by the Police Authority was about reviewing all associated aspects of JE, with the exception of the formal scheme, and determining how the process was allowed to proceed to the point where staff reacted as they did.
The terms of reference of the second review are as set out below and acknowledge that the job evaluation scheme is the subject of a separate review which does not form part of this review. Except in so far as there may have been issues of process, implicit or explicit in the scheme, adopted that were not adhered to during the application of the Scheme. The aim is to review all the associated managerial, relationship, leadership and organisational issues leading up to the severe disruption over job evaluation with a view to making recommendations for immediate or future action. In particular: -
- What were the objectives that the evaluation process and revised salary structure was intended to meet?
- How were potential JE schemes evaluated prior to determining the most appropriate scheme to be used.
- What enquiries, if any, were made to identify if other Forces had undertaken JE, what scheme had been used and what lessons had been learned?
- What risk assessment including any pilot evaluation was undertaken prior to and throughout the process and what use was made of such assessment?
- What information and support was provided by the Force to Police Staff before and throughout the JE process? Was any formal consultation undertaken with staff prior to introducing the scheme and what feedback was given to staff after the consultation process? How were concerns raised channelled into the process and addressed?
- At what stage(s) were the three relevant Trade Unions, Unison, T&G and GMB involved and what level of information and support did they provide to police staff? Were the unions involved within any of the formal decision making processes?
- What specialist skills and competencies were identified as necessary to undertake the JE process and how was the final Team identified? Was any training given to members of the Team?
- What guidelines concerning the involvement of individual police staff and / or their representative(s) in the Job Evaluation process were drawn up and to what extent were these followed?
- What were the actual roles of individual Team members?
- How did the overall process operate – what structures were in place to manage the process and how did these operate? What meetings were held, who chaired meetings, who attended and what actions and decisions were agreed at such meetings? Were decisions taken subject to any further ratification? How were decisions taken actioned and notified to other relevant individuals? Were the salary implications presented and understood in addition to the scoring data?
- Was any external advice or support considered and / or used?
- What were the governance links operating between the programme and the project?
- What general system was in place to enable decisions to be taken and recorded throughout the process outside of any formal meeting structure? Were these decisions reported back into the formal meeting process?
- How and when did any formal ‘sorethumbing’ process operate? How did any such process relate to the development of the pay structure?
- Is there a clear audit trail relating to decisions taken and the resultant changes and implications for individual staff groups?
- Why did the figures appear to become more extreme during the quality assurance process?
- Is there an audit trail for changes in data used in the process?
- How and when was the salary structure developed, modelled and approved? What changes, if any, were made to job evaluation scores to meet the requirements of the salary model? How were such changes justified and recorded?
- What financial and other constraints governed the development of the pay structure?
- What benchmarking of salary levels was undertaken during the development of the salary structure and what account was taken of this in any subsequent amendments to either job evaluation scores and / or salary proposals including the possibility of market supplements?
- How were the Chief Constable and other individual members of the Command Team kept briefed on the JE process including the scores and salary implications and what formal decisions were taken by either the Chief Constable or individual Command Team members? What level of information was made available to the Chief Constable and individual Command Team members during the process and at what time?
- Were any assessments made at any stage as to whether the scheme would achieve the desired outcome? Were any representations received suggesting that the process should be delayed, amended or abandoned before release and, if so, were these appropriately handled?
- What discussions took place with Unions and Line Managers before the final results were presented to staff and what actions were taken to address the inevitable staff reaction? Was any advice/training given to Line Managers as to how to deal with their staff?
- What options were considered to relay the outcome to staff? On what grounds was it decided a letter was the best option and was any risk assessment made of the potential impact of using this option? Who finalised the wording of the letter and in particular the term ‘ I am pleased to advise you …’
- How was the date on which the information was released to staff determined?
- What strategies were put in place to deal with the associated press and media interest?
- What actions were taken to share relevant information between the Chief Constable, individual Command Team members, the Police Authority, the JE Team and Police Staff prior to and after the results of the process had been relayed to staff?
- What was the role undertaken by the Authority generally and the Human Resources Committee specifically?
- What are the key leadership, management or management style issues?
- In addition the review may comment on any other pertinent aspects of the way that the scheme and the consequent salary proposals were developed and / or implemented.
The third report was commissioned by the Independent Police Complaints Commission