To consider statements and background documents (circulated separately).
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed two of the appellants and the Assistant Director Human Resources to the meeting and introduced those present. He drew attention to the policies and procedures which would be taken into account by the Panel in relation to the appeal and indicated that the Panel would deal with the appeal on a factor by factor basis. The appellants present and the Assistant Director of Human Resources agreed with this approach. The appellants indicated that they would also be speaking on behalf of the third appellant who was currently on leave. The Panel noted that the post of Licensing Compliance Officer was a benchmark post which covered four employees, three of whom had appealed.
(a) Factor: Knowledge – Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 3; Level Claimed - 4
The Case of the Appellants
The appellants stated that the Licensing function was in the public eye and subject to constant changes. In the last four years the provisions of the Licensing Act had changed twice with changes to conditions on licensed premises including matters relating to drinks promotions and age restrictions. The appellants advised that these changes necessitated the Licensing Compliance Officers regularly increasing their knowledge in line with changes to legislation.
The appellants drew attention to the changes made to the staffing structure in the Licensing Section following the Service being moved from the Environment and Street Scene Directorate to the Corporate Support Services Directorate. They pointed out that a tier of management had been removed and had resulted in their immediate Line Manager having increased management duties leaving them responsible for the day to day running of the office. They advised that in order to answer complex queries when their immediate Line Manager was not present necessitated them acquiring a higher level of knowledge.
The appellants acknowledged that no specific knowledge was required on appointment to the post of Licensing Compliance Officer due to the fact that no licensing qualification existed. They submitted that the knowledge factor for the post should be judged on the necessary transferable skills which the postholders had acquired from previous employments as a school leaver with no previous employment experience would not be able to undertake the duties of the post.
The appellants stated that their immediate Line Manager had been awarded Level 4 for Knowledge and it had been suggested they could not score at the same level. They disputed this drawing attention to the duties of their immediate Line Manager and to their role in dealing directly with the public.
Questions from the Assistant Director Human Resources
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that she had no questions to ask about the representations which had been made by the appellants.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In response to questions, the appellants confirmed that the post of Licensing Compliance Officer had currently been awarded Level 3 for Knowledge and they were seeking Level 4. They stated that the post required specialist/expert knowledge in order to advise members of the public on the relevant legislation. They stated that the main purpose of their role was to ensure that licences were complied with and that in order to fulfil that function it was necessary for them to have detailed knowledge of the relevant legislation. They advised that they visited premises in order to carry out compliance checks and that it was not the case they were constantly seeking advice from a Line Manager or another Senior Officer.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that Knowledge was probably the most important factor in the Job Evaluation Scheme as it had a close relationship with the factors for Mental Skills, Communication Skills, Independence and Initiative and the relevant Responsibility factor. She stated that Knowledge was the factor that set the scene for these other factors, it indicated the complexity of the problems and advice the post would be expected to deal with, it would give an indication as to the level/responsibility of decisions to be made and the appropriate level under the relevant Responsibility factor.
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that the Person Specification for the post stated that no specialist qualification or specialist knowledge was required on appointment. The Job Evaluation Convention stated that at Level 4 on appointment, if no formal qualifications were relevant, the postholder would require a number of years experience in their “technical” or “specialist” area. It also stated that at Level 4, the post required on appointment an initial induction because a postholder would have the practical or procedural knowledge through experience or qualification.
The Assistant Director Human Resources drew attention to the statement provided by the Assistant Director (Legal) that it would not be correct to judge the knowledge required to undertake the licensing work against what was included in the Person Specification for the post. The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that in order to undertake a Job Evaluation it was important that the paperwork reflected the requirements of the substantive role. She continued that it was incumbent on postholders and managers to ensure that all the paperwork reflected the correct requirements and responsibilities of the role. She suggested that the paperwork should be amended showing the correct level of knowledge/experience required to fulfil the role and that the matter should be returned to the Job Evaluation Panel for re-evaluation.
Questions from the Appellants
In response to questions from the appellants, the Assistant Director Human Resources stated that Job Evaluation arranged jobs within a hierarchy within the Council. The Licensing Compliance Officers were on Grade 5 and the Person Specifications for the range of posts quoted in the introduction section of her written statement on Grade 6 had specific references in the Person Specifications for those posts to have experience and/or professional qualifications.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In response to a question from a member of the Panel, the Assistant Director Human Resources stated that both the essential and desirable elements of a Person Specification were taken into account but the essential criteria were those that were required in order to undertake the role.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that she had nothing to add at this stage. The appellants stated that they wished to sum up at the end of consideration of all of the factors under appeal.
(b) Interpersonal and Communication Skills - Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 3; Level Claimed - 4
The Case of the Appellants
The appellants stated that in their jobs, communication became difficult when a licence was refused.
They stated that they had to handle highly sensitive material on a daily basis ranging from Criminal Records Bureau checks to full medicals. They pointed out the information could have a major impact on the lives of individuals and that they had to be totally conversant with the provisions of the Data Protection Act in order to ensure that such material was not disclosed inappropriately. The appellants drew attention to the exchange of such information with the Police, Benefits and another Council.
The appellants drew attention to the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel comment that Licensing Compliance Officers attended Court simply to provide Statements of Fact. The appellants stated that Statements of Fact were only accepted in a case if there was a guilty plea and that in such cases they did not have to attend Court. They pointed out that they were required to attend Court if their Statements were not accepted and a defendant pleaded not guilty. In such circumstances they were called to give evidence and would be open to cross examination. They stated that this necessitated them having a full knowledge of the relevant legislation.
The appellants advised that their main purpose was to ensure compliance with the provisions of licences. Prosecutions were a last resort and prior to that it was necessary for the Licensing Compliance Officers to exercise communication skills in persuasion and negotiation.
Attention was drawn to the comparison with Customer Services Officers and it was pointed out that whilst those officers simply logged a complaint, the Licensing Compliance Officers were required to investigate and respond to matters within tight timescales. It was submitted the Licensing Compliance Officers were not only the first line of response in taking initial enquiries but they were also the second line of response in bringing an enquiry to a satisfactory conclusion.
Questions from the Assistant Director Human Resources
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that she had no questions to ask about the representations which had been made by the appellants.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In response to questions from members of the Panel, the appellants stated that in cases where applicants did not speak English as their first language they used their best endeavours to explain matters and if necessary could call in a translator. They also advised that in Court they could be questioned on the legitimacy of the prosecution case, on points of law and on any other matters raised.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that there was a close relationship between the Knowledge and Communication factors and that the latter could not score a higher level than the former as it was necessary to have the relevant knowledge in order to be able to give appropriate advice. She drew attention to the requirements in relation to Level 4 compared to those required in relation to Level 3. She drew attention to the differences in the conventions in relation to attendance at Court. She stated the posts at Level 3 could be the Council’s witness at Court not as an expert witness but in relation to matters of fact whereas at Level 4 there was an expectation that attendance at Court would be as an expert witness. The Assistant Director Human Resources pointed out that whilst the appellants had referred to being open to cross-examination at Court the paperwork did not reflect this fact. The Person Specification for the role did not require experience of cross-examination and this was specified within the Licensing Manager’s role.
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that whilst she did not dispute the sensitive nature of some of the information handled by the postholders and the necessity to exchange such information with other bodies the role did not meet the requirement of exchanging such information with a range of audiences which for example would apply to a Social Worker presenting information at a Case Conference.
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that whilst reference had been made to the Customer Services Officers in her written statement, the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had not benchmarked the Licensing Compliance Officers with those posts.
Questions from the Appellants
In reply to questions, the Assistant Director Human Resources stated that the Person Specification for the post simply referred to the need to give evidence in Court and that whilst it was acknowledged that sensitive information was exchanged with some other bodies it was not considered that this met the requirement of a range of audiences. She repeated that Level 4 under this factor would be awarded to a Social Worker for their role at Case Conferences.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In reply to questions from members of the Panel, the Assistant Director Human Resources confirmed that one of the limbs of Level 4 had to be met, not all or a mixture. In relation to exercising developed skills in limb (c) of Level 4, the Assistant Director Human Resources stated that it was necessary to look at the knowledge required in order to distinguish that from requirements at Level 3. She also distinguished between the requirements in Levels 3 and 4 in relation to using languages other than English and pointed out there was nothing in the Person Specification for the Licensing Compliance Officers requiring the ability to use one or more languages other than English to exchange complicated information with individuals, or to identify and respond to the needs of clients, in that language.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
Both parties stated that they did not wish to sum-up in relation to this factor.
(c) Mental Skills - Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 3; Level Claimed - 4
The Case of the Appellants
The appellants stated that the paperwork submitted demonstrated that they acted in an expert advisory role when attending enforcement events. They stated that the Environment Team were reliant on their knowledge when deciding breaches of the Act. The appellants stated that as part of their regular daily role they communicated, persuaded, and negotiated with many and varied parties to ensure that compliance with legislation was met. They also had to be able to deal with circumstances when such provisions were not met.
They emphasised that they did not work under constant supervision and had to attend premises on their own without support to guide them on issues. They drew attention to their attendance at Loughton Pub Watch meetings when they were expected to answer questions rather than say that they would need to refer matters to a manager.
Questions from the Assistant Director Human Resources
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that she had no questions to ask about the representations which had been made by the appellants.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In response to a question regarding skills over the medium term, the appellants stated that they might witness a breach on a particular day but that evidence would need to be built up over several months in order to ensure that the Council was in a strong position to take formal steps. Also, in undertaking reviews and making representations with regard to premises licences this could span several months. The appellants stated that they undertook compliance visits on their own initiative and they managed their own diaries.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that the Mental Skills factor measured a post’s requirements for problem solving, and development of plans and/or strategies. She continued that the factor had a close relationship with the Knowledge factor as the knowledge required would impact on the complexity of the problems the role would be expected to deal with. She referred to the Person Specification for the post which stated that no specialist qualification or specialist knowledge was required on appointment. She stated that a post could not score higher in the Mental Skills factor than it did in the Knowledge factor.
The Assistant Director Human Resources reported that Level 3 required the post to have analytical and judgemental skills to solve varied problems or develop solutions/plans over the short term. This level was met as demonstrated by the Additional Information sheet for the post provided to the original Job Evaluation Panel and the Appeal Panel whereby plans of up to one month were required. However, it did not meet the criteria at Level 4 whereby the requirement was over the medium term. She claimed that the “up to a month” timescale indicated by the Additional Information sheet would also suggest the nature of the investigations were not complex or difficult but were varied. She stated that answering questions and giving advice came within communication skills which were not measured under this factor and that pursuing breaches of legislation were not be defined as problem solving. She suggested that the examples given by the appellants in support their case were not measured under this factor.
Questions from the Appellants
There were no questions from the appellants on the case of the Assistant Director Human Resources.
Questions from Members of the Panel
There were no questions from members of the Panel on the case of the Assistant Director Human Resources.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
Both parties stated that they did not wish to sum-up in relation to this factor.
(d) Responsibility for People - Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 3; Level Claimed - 4
The Case of the Appellants
The appellants stated that the decisions they made impacted on the wellbeing of others and that they were dealing directly with people’s livelihoods. They stated that these decisions had a huge impact on the wellbeing of people. They stated that the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel appeared to have been under the misapprehension that the Senior Licensing Officer only attracted a score of 3 for this factor and therefore the posts of Licensing Compliance Officers could not attract a score of 4. They asked the Staff Appeals Panel to consider that the Senior Officer’s post had been re-graded to take into account the high managerial level that was required following the last restructure.
Questions from the Assistant Director Human Resources
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that she had no questions to ask about the representations which had been made by the appellants.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In response to a question from a member of the Panel, the appellants acknowledged that the decisions taken in respect of people’s livelihoods were taken by the Licensing Sub-Committees. They also stated that in their view their role involved high direct impact on the wellbeing of individual, or groups of people through enforcing regulations.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that the Responsibility for People factor measured the responsibility of the job holder for individual, or groups of, people other than employees supervised or managed by the job holder. She drew attention to the differences in the requirements of levels 3 and 4 and pointed out that enforcing regulations on Level 4 related to the ability to take direct action e.g. powers of an Environmental Health Officer to close down food premises.
Questions from the Appellants
There were no questions from the appellants on the case of the Assistant Director Human Resources.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In response to questions from members of the Panel, the Assistant Director Human Resources referred to the conflicting evidence regarding the level given to the Senior Licensing Officer. She stated that the most up to date Job Evaluation paperwork from May 2010 scored this post at Level 3 in relation to Responsibility for People. She also stated that as jobs evolved the paperwork in respect of jobs should reflect changes and that such changes could be dealt with under the Job Evaluation Maintenance Policy.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
Both parties stated that they did not wish to sum-up in relation to this factor.
(e) Overall Summing-Up
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that both the original Job Evaluation Panel and the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had evaluated the post on the paperwork which had been provided. She said they had not reflected on representations now being made which were not supported in the paperwork for the posts.
The appellants thanked the Panel for having the opportunity to present their case. They emphasised that no licensing qualification existing and that appointment to the post reflected transferable skills which they brought to the position. They emphasised the role they had played in attending Court. They challenged the statements they did not exchange sensitive information with a range of audiences. They challenged the comparision between the Customer Services Officers and stated that Licensing Compliance Officers were both the first and last line of contact. They gave an example of a recent application which in their view showed that their mental skills were used over the medium term. They accepted that there were aspects of their job which were not included on the Job Specification and suggested that they had demonstrated the true role of the post which should enable a re-evaluation to be made rather than the matter being re-submitted to an Evaluation Panel.
(f) Deliberations of the Panel
The appellants and the Assistant Director Human Resources withdrew from the meeting. The Panel discussed the information which had been provided by the appellants and the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel in writing and orally including their statements, the relevant policies and procedures, the Job Description, Person Specification, Limits of Authority and additional information for the post of Licensing Compliance Officer. The Panel discussed the information which had been presented to them on a factor by factor basis.
(g) Decisions
(i) Knowledge Factor
The Panel noted that the Person Specification did not require any specialist qualifications or knowledge on appointment to the post. The Panel further noted that there was no qualification for this type of post and that the Person Specification stated that after one year there was an expectation of a postholder being able to perform all the tasks required by the Job Description.
The Panel further noted that the local conventions applied to Level 4 stated that on appointment, postholders were expected to require only a short induction period (one month) and that the level of experience must demonstrate a commensurate breath and depth in competence.
RESOLVED:
(1) That the current Person Specification does not meet the criteria for Level 4;
(2) That, from the information provided by the appellants and taking account of the statement of the Assistant Director (Legal), it would not be correct to judge the knowledge required to undertake the role against what is included in the Person Specification; accordingly, there would be merit in revising this core document to reflect the actual situation; and the appellants should consult their Manager regarding a revision of the paperwork and submission to another Job Evaluation Panel.
(ii) Interpersonal and Communication Skills Factor
The Panel noted the officers attended Court to give evidence and could be subjected to cross-examination. The Panel also noted the role of the post in relation to handling sensitive personal information.
In relation to attendance at Court, the local convention referred to acting as an expect witness. In the view of the Panel, from the information provided, the officers might be subjected to cross-examination on matters of fact but did not appear to give an “expert” opinion.
In relation to the handling of sensitive information the Panel acknowledged the exchange of such information with some other bodies. In the view of the Panel, this factor was not about the administrative exchange of documents but more about officers routinely dealing with and making decisions about the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information in the context of discussions and interaction with a range of audiences. The Panel did not consider that the role necessitated the exchange of such information with a “range of audiences” expected under Level 4.
RESOLVED:
That Level 3 is the correct level for the post.
(iii) Mental Skills Factor
The Panel noted the relationship between this factor and the Knowledge factor and that it was not possible for a job holder to score a higher level for Mental Skills than for Knowledge. Also, the Panel noted that Level 4 required the post to have relevant skills over the medium term (defined as over one month and up to 6 months) and that it was clear from the Additional Information sheet for this post that the postholder was expected to formulate plans, policies/strategies over a period of only one month (defined as short term and applicable to Level 3).
REVOLVED:
That Level 3 is the correct level for the post.
(iv) Responsibility for People Factor
The Panel reflected on the conflicting evidence about the score for this factor of the Senior Licensing Officer. The appellants had claimed that this had been revised to Level 4 whilst the Assistant Director Human Resources had advised the level for that post was Level 3. The Panel noted that a postholder could not score higher than their supervisor but in exceptional circumstances could score the same level. The Panel noted that whilst Level 3 related to implementing regulations, Level 4 related to enforcing regulations. In the light of the information provided, the Panel concluded that the role of the post was to implement and not to enforce.
RESOLVED:
That irrespective of the position relating to the Senior Licensing Officer, Level 3 is the correct level for the post.