To consider statements and background documents (circulated separately).
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed the appellant and the Assistant Director Human Resources to the meeting. 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 appellant and the Assistant Director of Human Resources agreed with this approach.
(a) Mental Skills Factor – Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 3; Level Claimed - 4
The Case of the Appellant
The appellant advised that the job revolved around quarterly rent runs which took up to three months to plan and prepare in order to generate the commercial property invoices. The runs were produced from a specialist commercial property management system called GVA. She reported the preparation of those runs included analysing complex information, problem solving and creative thinking to manipulate the system to produce the correct result.
The appellant stated that she had also worked closely with ICT to create Crystal reports. The development of those reports had taken several months of analysing and investigating data to be able to produce the correct reporting fields. She stated that one of the tasks she had performed was the changing of the payment terms of the service charges which were a combination of advanced and arrears charges for January half yearly runs. The appellant stated that she was currently involved in the process of replacing/updating the existing system so that it would also function as the Chartered Surveyors’ daily case management system.
The appellant submitted that the post required the analytical and judgemental or creative and development skills to analyse and interpret complex information as required at Level 4 rather than such skills to solve varied problems or plans over the short-term as required under Level 3. She emphasised that her involvement with the property system had necessitated the analysis of varied and complex information since last May and what would take considerable more time to finish. She also pointed out that once the new system had been implemented it would be her responsibility to run it and to undertake further upgrades as and when they were due.
The appellant stated that she supervised the Estates Team and the back-up postholder regarding their usage of the information system. She stated that she was solely responsible for managing the specific property system to general £4,000,000 income for the Council.
Questions from the Assistant Director Human Resources
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that she had no questions to ask about the representations which had been made by the appellant.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In response to a question from a member of the Panel, the appellant stated that she had included as examples emails from the past members of staff rather than existing ones as she had not wished to create issues with current staff.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that the Mental Skills factor measured the requirements of a post for problem solving, development of plans and/or strategies. Problem solving took into account the requirements to collate and analyse facts to solve problems and planning was defined in the conventions as the establishment of goals, policies and procedures for a social or economic unit. She advised the Panel not to confuse the “planning” used as an example in the appeal evidence with processes. She submitted that the data inputting tasks associated with the quarterly rent runs were processes, not plans as defined by this factor.
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that the conventions at Level 4 stated that the mental skills required at this level were to analyse and interpret complex information. She stated that the Job Description for the post did not provide examples of where the post met this requirement. She stated that the information provided related to rent amounts which were provided to the post by the Estates Surveyors/Valuers which on some occasions needed to be manually calculated where part period payments were required. She pointed out that calculation queries were raised with the IT System’s Support Desk who then provided the formulas for calculating the rents for whole/part periods. She suggested that the formulas to be applied were not dissimilar to that which were applied to part year annual leave entitlements.
In relation to the project of assessing the functionality of the new Estates IT System and its implementation she stated that the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had considered this to be a one-off piece of work requiring an ex-gratia or honoraria payment.
The Assistant Director Human Resources emphasised that the evaluation process was not about the qualities of a postholder or the lack of ability of other officers.
Questions from the Appellant
The appellant advised that she had no questions to ask in respect of 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 reiterated that the post received information from other officers and that in order to input some of it into the system formulas were required. She also replied that the paperwork in respect of post did not show a requirement to analyse and interpret complex information.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
The appellant acknowledged that formulas were required and stated that it was unfair to suggest that other postholders did not have the necessary knowledge of the information system. She said that it was not their role to be IT specialised and that it was her role. She stated that the Council’s ICT Section only provided technical support and not whether the system produced the required information.
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that she had nothing to add at this stage.
(b) Supervision Factor - Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 1; Level Claimed – 2
The Case of the Appellant
The appellant stated that she managed the Council’s computerised commercial property management system, GVA, that held commercial property lease details and generated invoices. She stated that the system was complex and crucial to producing income for the Council. As a result, Internal Audit had highlighted the need for a back-up person with the necessary knowledge and understanding of the system. The postholder advised that she had trained and now supervised the back-up person. She also stated that she had trained the Chartered Surveyors and supervised them regarding their usage of the system including their access levels. The postholder stated that in addition she had provided training to another colleague in the Directorate on the processing of some of the Estate Management non GVA related invoices. She said she continued to provide further guidance to this postholder but did not co-ordinate their work nor check their work.
The postholder stated that in her view the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had totally ignored her involvement in the instruction of the back-up postholder, co-ordination of their work and the extensive training that she had provided and continued to provide.
Questions from the Assistant Director Human Resources
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that she had no questions to ask about the representations which had been made by the appellant.
Questions from Members of the Panel
The appellant advised she had no set time when she supervised the back-up postholder but estimated that she spent approximately half a day a week doing so.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that as part of an Internal Audit report it had been identified that the Council should provide cover for this post to enable rent runs to take place in the absence of the postholder. She referred to the employee currently providing this cover and pointed out the required tasks were not included in that employee’s Job Description and that the work was being undertaken by them working additional hours. She advised that if this cover was not available the tasks would be carried out by the appellant as part of their regular duties. She further advised that the work undertaken by the back-up postholder was carried out weekly to ensure that their knowledge of the processes and system were kept up to date for when cover was required.
In summary, therefore, she submitted that the tasks carried out by the back-up postholder were part of the regular duties of the appellant. If the back-up postholder left or decided that they could no longer provide the cover the appellant would continue with the tasks until other cover arrangements could be found.
The Assistant Director Human Resources pointed out that Level 1 of the Supervision factor stated that the work may involve the demonstration of one’s own duties and advice and guidance to new employees or others. Accordingly, she submitted that this level was the correct level for the post.
Questions from the Appellant
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that in the view of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel the appellant did not supervise the back-up postholder but simply showed, advised and guided that employee so that cover could be provided in the appellant’s absence.
Questions from Members of the Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources reiterated that the tasks being covered were those allocated to the appellant and did not involve direct responsibility for the supervision of another employee.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
The appellant stated that the Job Description for the post included having direct responsibility for supervising and training the back-up postholder for the system and software updates. She advised that Level 1 of this factor made no reference to training and she had undertaken extensive training of the back-up postholder. She pointed out that if the back-up postholder left she would need to train another officer to act as the back-up person.
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that she had nothing to add at this stage.
(c) Responsibility for Physical Resources - Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 3; Level Claimed – 4
The appellant stated that Level 4 required the adaptation, development or design of significant information systems and that she met this requirement as her role involved adapting and developing the Estate’s current system. She advised that it was also her role to oversee the project for updating or replacing the current system so that it could be used in a wider, more efficient way. She submitted that this work would increase her System Administration role to a different level and that procedures and working practices would need to be integrated into the new system.
The postholder submitted that she had made a significant contribution to this project by sourcing alternative systems, briefing, arranging and attending demonstrations, working with the current system providers with a view to making improvements to the current system so that it could be adapted to meet the Council’s needs.
The appellant stated that the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had acknowledged that her post had responsibility for the development of the existing system but this had not been reflected in the Physical Resources factor score. She also advised that the Job Evaluation Scheme did not prevent a postholder from scoring the same level as an IT postholder.
In relation to the suggestion of the Appeal Panel that her IT responsibilities should be recognised in other ways she said that the Panel had misunderstood the position as no account had been taken of the need for upgrades to the system as well as maintaining the system. She stated that the upgrading work had commenced approximately one year ago and there would be a need for another year’s work before it was completed. She submitted that whilst she received technical support from ICT officers she did not receive systems support. She drew attention to the statement submitted by the Assistant Director of Finance and ICT.
Questions from the Assistant Director Human Resources
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that she had no questions to ask about the representations which had been made by the appellant.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In response to a question, the appellant stated the fact that ICT officers supported more than one system whilst she was responsible for only one system was not relevant. She stated that Level 4 required the adaptation, development or design of significant information systems and that significant information systems were defined as a system used across a division of a service.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that this factor measured the direct responsibility of the post for physical resources which included manual or computerised information, data and records, equipment, tools, supplies, plant and machinery. She pointed out that the conventions advised that at Level 3 the job involved considerable direct responsibility for handling and processing of considerable amounts of manual or computerised information where care, accuracy, confidentiality and scrutiny were important. At Level 4 a job would involve high direct responsibility for the adaptation, development or design of significant information systems. She pointed out that Level 4 had been awarded to ICT specialist roles who had responsibilities for a number of corporate and/or directorate systems.
She drew attention to the requirements of the Person Specification for the appellant’s post and submitted that this did not demonstrate the level of experience, knowledge or skills that would be awarded at Level 4 under this factor.
She invited the Panel to take into account the dilution factor in relation to the appellant’s role having regard to the involvement of specialist ICT staff.
She advised that the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel’s view had been that the postholder’s responsibilities with regard to the current IT project should be recognised by way of an ex gratia or honoraria payment in order to reflect the temporary nature of the work. She pointed out that whilst the appellant would have a view on the decisions to be made those decisions would be made by other officers.
Questions from the Appellant
The appellant advised she had no questions to ask.
Questions from Members of the Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that Paragraph 12 of the appellant’s Job Description (responsible for the development and adaptation of the Council’s computerised property management system) had been recognised by the award of Level 3 under this factor. She also differentiated between the roles of a systems administrator and ICT technicians. She stated that in relation to the current IT project the Panel should note that ICT were providing technical expertise and advice and that as part of the new system’s functionality, on-going help desk support would be provided by ICT.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
The appellant submitted that the Panel should concentrate on the role that she was performing and should not take account of the comparison of her post with ICT officers. She emphasised the requirements of the Job Description and the role she was playing with regard to the current IT project.
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that she had nothing to add at this stage.
(d) Overall Summing-Up
Both parties advised that they did not wish to make any further representations.
(e) Deliberations of the Panel
The appellant and the Assistant Director Human Resources withdrew from the meeting. The Panel discussed the information which had been provided by the appellant 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 Estates Management Administrator. The Panel discussed the information which had been presented to them on a factor by factor basis.
(g) Decisions
(i) Mental Skills Factor
The Panel discussed the role of this post in relation to the quarterly rent runs, the creation of Crystal reports, changing the payment terms of service charges and the replacing/updating of the IT system.
The Panel noted that the local conventions at Level 4 gave an example of investigative work to solve more challenging problems by means of questioning, searching for or examining complicated information, analysing that information with the findings ordered into a structure which lead to the development of solutions. The Panel further noted the Person Specification for the post did not require specialist knowledge to analyse and interpret complex information.
The Panel further noted that the information relating to rent amounts was provided by others and on occasions had to be manually calculated by the appellant where part period payments were required. The Panel took account of the fact that calculation queries were raised with the system’s IT support desk who provided the formulas for calculating the periods. In the view of the Panel this element of the role was a process to apply formula and did meet the requirements of Level 4.
In relation to the work associated with a new system. the Panel considered that this was a one-off piece of work which was more appropriately recognised by way of an honoraria payment. The Panel noted the reference by the appellant to the on-going elements but did not consider this to be of such a nature to warrant a permanent change.
RESOLVED:
That on balance Level 3 is the correct level for this post
(ii) Responsibility for Supervision Factor
The Panel noted the role of the post in training others, particularly the back-up person for the commercial property management system.
The Panel further noted that Level 2 required some direct responsibility for the regular training of other employees. Account was taken of the Appeal Panel’s view that the factor measured direct responsibility of the post of supervision. The Panel noted that the local convention stated that a postholder might be in a direct supervisory position or might instead have an advice/guidance role with staff.
RESOLVED:
That the post meets the requirements at Level 2 of this factor.
(iii) Responsibility for Physical Resources
The Panel took account of the work of the postholder in relation to the Estates Management System and the requirements relating to Level 3 and 4. In particular, at Level 4 the requirement to have a high direct responsibility for the adaptation, development or design of significant information systems.
The Panel took account of the requirements of the Job Specification in relation to ICT and the assistance given to the appellant by ICT staff in relation to the Estates Management system.
The Panel noted the appellant’s responsibility in relation to the project of assessing the functionality of a new Estates IT system and its implementation and the role of ICT staff. In view of the nature of this one-off piece of work the Panel concluded an ex gratia or honoraria payment should be considered in recognition of the temporary nature of the work.
RESOLVED:
(1) That Level 3 is the correct level for this post; and
(2) That the appellant’s Manager consider an alternative method of recognising the appellant’s responsibilities with regard to the current IT project within Estates and Valuations.