To consider statements and background documents (circulated separately).
Minutes:
The appellant attended the meeting supported by the Director of Finance and ICT.
The Chairman welcomed the appellant, the Director of Finance and ICT and the Assistant Director Human Resources to the meeting. He introduced those present to the appellant and 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.
The appellant sought an assurance that the decisions of the Panel would be based on the post and not the postholder. She stated that in her view the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had based their decisions on her as an individual and not on the post. She submitted that the Appeal Panel had taken no account of her 18 year’s experience and the training she had undertaken.
She drew attention to the statement of the Assistant Director Human Resources in which examples had been given of posts at Grade 9 (a grade above that of the appellant). The appellant pointed out that some of those posts had additional reporting lines to herself and that some of those posts did not have management responsibilities.
Finally in opening the appellant asked the Panel to have particular regard to the statements which had been made in support of her case by the Director of Corporate Support Services, the Assistant Director Legal and the Assistant Director ICT.
The Chairman confirmed that the Panel would evaluate the post and not the postholder and that account would be taken of all the submitted documents including the Job Description and the Person Specification.
(a) Mental Skills Factor – Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 4; Level Claimed - 5
The Case of the Appellant
The appellant pointed out that the Job Evaluation Scheme provided that it was not possible to score a higher lever for Mental Skills than a post scored for Knowledge. She pointed out that as she was claiming Level 5 for Mental Skills and had been awarded Level 6 for Knowledge this was not an issue.
The appellant advised that the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had accepted that her post dealt with complex information but, due to the specialist nature of the work, had not believed that it met the varied element required for Level 5. In addition the Panel had made reference to the Additional Information sheet for the post which indicated medium-term planning was required.
The appellant submitted that the Appeal Panel had only looked at part of her Job Description, that part which related to contracts. She advised that her contract work fell into distinct areas such as procurement, the contracts and contract law, each of which could be further sub-divided into works, services and goods. The appellant stated that the procurement element related to how the contracts were let. The rules governing procurement in general were those contained in Local Government law and for the higher value contracts the EU Procurement Regulations. The contracts themselves could be standard industry forms which in some cases did not have standard Council amendments that the appellant had drafted or ad hoc contracts such as the Service Contracts. Contract law was required firstly when drafting the document as it was necessary to understand what the Council was acquiring but also the need to have an exit strategy.
The appellant stated that when instructed, colleagues often did not know what type of contract they required. Accordingly it was necessary for her to check the most advantageous way of dealing with their requirements. She pointed out that sometimes more than one contract was required for each project and that it was essential that such contracts did not conflict in any way. Also, due to the complexity of EU Regulations many contracts were first referred to her many months before they were let so that she could advise and assist on different aspects throughout the whole process.
The appellant pointed out that the medium-term planning requirement was met as the whole process from tendering to final drafting of the contracts could take many months.
The appellant advised that in addition to her contract work her Person Specification required knowledge of IT systems and this was reinforced in the Job Description for the post. She drew attention to the work which she had undertaken in relation to developing a new IT system for the Legal Section. She advised that when new upgrades were required to the Legal Section’s Case Management System or new systems were being introduced it was her responsibility to prepare the financial case, liaise with ICT and arrange initial training for staff, all of which needed to be planned and implemented over six months.
The appellant stated that she was solely responsible for the Land Registry system in the Legal Section and that her management responsibilities related to a Legal Assistant and a Clerical Assistant.
The appellant suggested that the post required a Mental Skills factor score above 4 in order to apply a knowledge factor score of 6.
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 appellant.
Questions from Members of the Panel
Members of the Panel indicated that they had no questions to ask.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources reported that over the years this post had been evaluated and scores had increased in recognition of changes made to the role. She pointed out that Job Evaluation ranked jobs into a hierarchy within the Council. She stated that in referring to other posts on grades 8 and 9 in her introductory written statement she had not been making a distinction about reporting levels but simply attempting to give an outline of the level of those roles.
She advised that the Mental Skills factor measured a post’s requirements for problem solving, development of plans and/or strategies. Level 4 required the post to analyse and interpret complex information and solve difficult problems or develop solutions or plans over the medium-term. She submitted that the complete definition was met by the post. However, the evidence provided by the postholder to both the original Job Evaluation Panel and the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel referred to planning over the medium-term i.e. one to six months and as a result only a Level 4 could be given to the post under the Mental Skills factor.
The Assistant Director Human Resources pointed out that at Level 5 the post would be required to deal with varied and complex information. Varied meant that the information sources were differing from one another, of different sorts or kinds, or a number of discreet sources. She submitted that contract law was not varied, that the responsibilities of the post in relation to IT systems administration was not varied or complex and that the representations made about supervision were covered under the Supervision factor and not the Mental Skills factor.
Questions from the Appellant
In response to questions from the appellant, the Assistant Director Human Resources stated that she could not comment on scores awarded to the post of Trainee Legal Officer as she had not brought the relevant paperwork to the meeting. She acknowledged the differences between structures with several levels in the hierarchy from those where postholders reported direct to an Assistant Director. She stated that the scores for this post in relation to Knowledge and Mental Skills were based on the paperwork which had been provided by the postholder and that the paperwork did not reflect complex decision making or advice. She confirmed that the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had taken account of all the documents put before it.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
Both parties advised that they did not wish to add anything at this stage.
(b) Initiative and Independence Factor - Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 4; Level Claimed - 6
The appellant stated that the convention at Level 4 stated that the post worked within recognised procedures, responding independently to unanticipated problems and situations and that the job holder generally had access to a supervisor/manager for advice/guidance on serious problems. The appellant advised that the Assistant Director Legal only became involved in contract work when she was on leave or if there were timing issues in relation to contract work. She stated that as the Assistant Director Legal had other responsibilities she had little time to deal with contract work. She pointed out that when the Assistant Director Legal was on leave there was no one else in the Legal Section from which to seek advice on contracts and that the Director of Corporate Support Services had on occasions consulted the appellant on contract issues. She advised the complexity and variety of her work could not be covered by internal legal policies, she said that she often started with a precedent but would need to tailor it in order to fit the purpose required by the client. She pointed out the services contract which was widely used as a precedent had been prepared by her. She stated it was simply not just a case she only inputted data into gaps in standard forms.
The appellant stated that in her view the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had not taken account of the other types of work included within her Job Description. She stated she prepared training and guides to help officers within the Section to use the IT systems which were not the subject of any precedent. She stated that it was necessary for her to use her own initiative in the best interests of Legal Services in relation to IT issues as nether the Director of Corporate Support Services nor the Assistant Director Legal had the required level of IT expertise. She pointed out that in order for Legal Services to retain the Lexcel Accreditation it was necessary to have a Case Management system in place to enable auditors to access files easily.
In relation to management responsibilities she pointed out that she managed the Legal Administration Team which comprised two members of staff. She said in relation to that Team she was responsible for the recruitment, monitoring, allocation of work and performance development reviews. In addition she was responsible for staff recruitment, training through Employability or Back to Work Schemes when individuals were required to assist with work in the Section.
The appellant pointed out that she was a card holder for one of the Council’s credit cards and had to carry out reconciliations. The extent of this duty had increased as more on-line payments were being demanded.
The appellant stated that in her view the Job Evaluation Appeals Panel had not recognised the IT aspects of the post.
Questions from the Assistant Director Human Resources
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised she had no questions to ask about the representations which had been made by the appellant.
Questions from Members of the Panel
In relation to questions from members of the Panel, the appellant gave examples of the broad level of activity of the post. She referred to the different types of contract and to the work she undertook in relation to IT which was not simply the setting up of accounts. She also referred to work undertaken in relation to Section 50 licences for highways equipment and CCTV and Housing Possession cases.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel would have taken account of all of the paperwork submitted. She stated that the Appeal Panel had taken account of the fact that the local convention stated that a broad range of activity meant exercising discretionary initiative over an extensive range of different and possible unrelated tasks which made up the overall activity. In addition the Appeal Panel had heard that posts awarded a Level 6 under this factor would be Spending Control Officers as they had the authority to allocate resources as required. She pointed out that this post was not a Spending Control Officer. The Assistant Director Human Resources pointed out that the Additional Information sheet for the post in relation to frequent decisions made by the post did not meet the requirements for a Level 6 under this factor.
In relation to Housing Possession cases she submitted that it was the Housing Directorate which made decisions for Legal Services to implement.
In relation to management responsibilities she submitted that the post’s responsibilities were diluted having regard to the role of the Assistant Director (Legal).
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that having regard to all the relevant factors the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel had concluded that Level 4 reflected the requirements of the post.
Questions from the Appellant
In response to questions, the Assistant Director Human Resources did not dispute that the postholder dealt with matters directly when required. She confirmed that the Appeal Panel had not considered that it had a better knowledge of the IT requirements for the post than the Assistant Director ICT. In relation to management responsibilities she referred to the Job Description for the post. She acknowledged that at Level 6 the convention stated that posts at this level were likely to be Spending Control Officers but there was no requirement for such a designation. She pointed out that at Level 5 permission would be required to alter the resources or policies for which the postholder was responsible.
Questions from Members of the Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources distinguished between giving advice and making decisions under this factor.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
Both parties advised that they did not wish to add anything at this stage.
(c) Physical Resources Factor - Level Awarded by the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 3; Level Claimed - 4
The Case of the Appellant
The appellant stated that the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel’s decision had been misguided. She pointed out that most IT systems were installed and fully supported by ICT or were hosted by outside bodies such as the Land Registry. However, in the Legal Section she was responsible for the software for the IT systems. She stated that Timebase was a Case Management System in which cases were logged, documents filed etc. It transferred work so that lawyers only undertook legal work and it carried out time recording which assisted in allocating the cost of work to particular files which was of benefit in claiming court costs and generally. She pointed out that such a system needed to be managed and new updates installed and the officers using it needed to be trained and updated. She pointed out that she was responsible for all of this work including ensuring that sufficient money was placed in the budget.
The appellant stated that as Manager of the Legal Administration Team she was responsible for the safe keeping of the Council’s Title Deeds, contracts and other legal documents and stated that she was also responsible for ensuring that the Land Terrier was kept up to date.
The appellant drew attention to the Witness Statements attached to her case and submitted that the Appeal Panel should have looked at the level of work involved and not the value of the work.
Questions from the Assistant Director Human Resources
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised she had no questions to ask about the representations which had been made by the appellant.
Questions from Members of the Panel
There were no questions from members of the Panel.
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 and computerised information where care, accuracy, confidentiality and security were important. She stated that considerable direct responsibility meant that the responsibility was a major feature of the post.
She pointed out at Level 4 the job would involve high direct responsibility for the adaptation, development or design of significant information systems. She stated that Level 4 had been awarded to ICT specialist roles and that the Appeal Panel had not considered that the level of responsibility for the appellant’s post was the same as that of specialist IT posts.
She drew attention to the essential requirements of the Personal Specification for the appellant’s post.
Questions from the Appellant
In response to questions, the Assistant Director Human Resources confirmed that Level 4 was not restricted to ICT posts. She advised she did not have information to hand regarding the scoring of Council Tax posts for this factor. She again confirmed the Appeal Panel would have taken account of all of the submitted documents and emphasised that it was incumbent on staff and their managers to ensure that the paperwork reflected the correct position.
Questions from the Appellant
There were no questions from the appellant.
Questions from Members of the Panel
There were no questions from members of the Panel.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
Both parties advised that they did not wish to add anything at this stage.
(d) Responsibility for People Factor – Level before Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 4; Level Awarded by Job Evaluation Appeal Panel – 1; Level Claimed - 4
Case of the Appellant
The appellant stated that it had not been immediately clear from the letter of 13 March 2012 advising her of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel decisions that this factor had been re-evaluated. She said that she had not expected this factor to be considered as it had not been one which she had raised. She stated that the Appeals Guidance stated that only issues raised in the appeal could be looked at by the Panel and that it was clearly wrong that the Panel could change a factor without raising it at the appeal or discussing it with her Director.
The appellant submitted that the post had been downgraded in relation to this factor on the basis of one question the purpose for which had not been made clear.
The appellant submitted that in the interests of natural justice the status quo should be reinstated for this factor i.e. Level 4.
The appellant continued to make representations about why she felt the post justified Level 4 under this factor. She stated that the Appeal Panel had based its decision on the post not having responsibility for attending Court and for not being a Prosecuting Officer. She stated that had she been asked by the Appeal Panel she would have pointed out that she prepared and issued Court Proceedings for Possession Proceedings usually because of non-payment of rent. Hearings were usually attended by the Housing Officers alone unless they were complex when the Senior Legal Executive would attend to argue the complex points. She stated that in order to undertake this role she needed knowledge of the law and to be sure that the information was correct. She also pointed out that she did speak to tenants on occasions who had proceedings taken against them.
The appellant stated that she prepared Instructions for Counsel for cases and prepared documents to be forwarded to assist Counsel in replying to the advice being sought. As a result she was subject to long conversations with Counsel over the telephone, and face to face if necessary.
The appellant stated she had been the Lead Officer seeking advice from Counsel and interpreting that advice for Senior Officers in relation to the enforcement of contract conditions and their possible breach in relation to the Limes Farm Hall Project. She stated that she also prepared Agreements with Essex County Council which allowed CCTV cameras to be placed on the highways which was in the interest of public safety.
The appellant drew attention to the Statement of the Assistant Director Legal that enforcement did not only refer to one being a Prosecuting Officer in Court but could be done in other ways e.g. by serving Notice on Default on contracts.
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 appellant.
Questions from the Members of the Panel
Members of the Panel advised that they had no questions to ask.
The Case of the Assistant Director Human Resources on behalf of the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources advised that there were two issues to consider, working directly with clients/residents and implementing statutory regulations. She drew attention to the differences between implementing and enforcing.
She stated that an example of enforcing would be an Environmental Health Officer who had authority to close down a premises. She contrasted that with the role of the postholder in relation to housing issues where the decision required was made within the Housing Directorate.
She stated that the Appeal Panel could not have ignored the answer given to the question asked although this had not been part of the submissions. She pointed out that it was made clear to appellants that in lodging an appeal their score could go up or down.
Questions from the Appellant
In response to questions, the Assistant Director Human Resources stated that the reference to a score going up or down emanated from the National Conditions from which the Job Evaluation Scheme had been developed. She confirmed that the National Conditions did not go into such detail as to refer to matters which had not been appealed. She confirmed that the Appeal Panel had been reconvened by way of an exchange of telephone conversations and that the appellant had not been a party to this process. She stated that the matter had not been addressed earlier as the Evaluation Panel had not been aware of the situation. She stated that there had been no intention to hide this aspect in the decision letter but acknowledged that it had not been set out under headings in the same way as decisions on the other factors. She said that she had not been a party to reducing the factor by three levels in any other case as this had been her first involvement in a Job Evaluation Appeal Panel. In response to a further question she advised that to the best of her knowledge no Panel had reduced a factor by three levels. She accepted she had been on a Maintenance Panel in 2008 when Level 4 had been awarded for this post.
The Assistant Director Human Resources acknowledged that this post managed an employee who had been awarded Level 2 under this factor. She stated there was no indication on the Job Description under management responsibilities that the postholder would have responsibility for providing a service to the public dealing with searches and land ownership queries as stated on the score sheet for that other post. However, she acknowledged it would be unusual for a manager to receive less than a subordinate and conceded that Level 2 should be awarded.
Questions from Members of the Panel
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that she could not see the situation happening in another case. She repeated that as the issue had been raised before the Appeal Panel it could not be ignored. She said as she had only chaired one Appeal Panel hearing she could not comment on how any other anomolies might have been dealt with. She stated that where it became apparent that changes to a factor on one post impacted on another it would be a matter for the appropriate manager to review the situation and pursue if necessary.
Summing-Up in relation to this Factor
Both parties advised that they did not wish to add anything at this stage.
(e) Overall Summing-Up
The Assistant Director Human Resources stated that many of the difficulties arising from this case were as a result of the submitted paperwork. She stressed the importance of managers and staff submitting correct and up to date paperwork to Job Evaluation Panels.
The appellant stated that her score in relation to the Responsibility for People factor had been downgraded on the basis of one question put to her at the Appeal Panel meeting. She repeated that she had not been informed of the context of this question. She stated that even at Level 2 for this factor she would be scoring lower than other officers in the Legal Section and suggested that the Assistant Director Human Resources was now attempting to negotiate a comprise level rather than follow the correct procedure.
She asked the Panel to assess the post and not her as an individual. She asked the Panel to pay particular regard to the Statement submitted by the Director of Corporate Support Services.
She again drew attention to the ICT duties of the post and to the discrepancy in the scoring between her post and the Trainee Legal Officer post which had no management responsibilities.
(f) Deliberations
The appellant, the Director of Finance and ICT 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 Senior Contracts Lawyer. 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 noted the contracts work of the job including contract law, EU requirements and the procurement element. The Panel also noted the IT and management aspects of the job.
The Panel took account of the fact that the requirements of Level 4 were to analyse and interpret complex information or situations and to solve difficult problems or develop solutions or plans over the medium-term (over one month and up to six months) whilst Level 5 required the analysis and interpretation of varied and complex information or solutions and to produce solutions or strategies over the long-term (six months or more).
The Panel noted the references made by the appellant to contract processes taking many months and undertaking ICT processes some of which needed to be planned and documented over more than six months including training of staff. However, they noted the Additional Information sheet for the post stated that the postholder formulated plans, policies/strategies over the medium-term (one to six months).
The Panel concluded that in order to base its decisions on the job and not the job holder, great importance had to be attached to the paperwork relevant to the job. On balance therefore the Panel concluded that the requirements of Level 5 were not met.
RESOLVED:
That Level 4 is the correct level for the post.
(ii) Initiative and Independence Factor
The Panel noted that Level 6 required that the job involved working within broad practice or guidelines using discretion and initiative over a broad area of activity with little access to more senior officers.
The Panel took account of the representations made by the appellant about the role of the Assistant Director (Legal) and the general lack of IT skills in the Legal Section. The Panel also took account of the appellant’s management duties. In relation to the broader area of activity the appellant had referred to the different types of contract that she dealt with and her work in relation to IT issues, and other legal work. Whilst accepting that contracts could be different, the Panel taking account of the definition of “broad range of activity” in the local convention did not consider the post exercised discretion or initiative over an extensive range of different possible and related tasks making up the overall activity.
Accordingly the view of the Panel was that the requirements at Level 6 were not met.
RESOLVED:
That Level 4 accurately reflects the initiative and independence required of the post.
(iii) Responsibility for Physical Resources Factor
The Panel noted the responsibilities of the job in relation to ICT and the safekeeping of the Council’s Title Deeds. The Panel did not consider that those roles satisfied the requirements of Level 4 to have high direct responsibility for the adaptation, development or design of significant information systems or security for a range of (different/discreet from each other) high value physical resources.
RESOLVED:
That the view of the Panel is that Level 3 is the correct level.
(iv) Responsibility for People Factor
The Panel noted the circumstances leading to re-evaluation of this factor which had not been subject to appeal, namely, as a result of one question at the Job Evaluation Appeal Panel, the reason for which and the consequences of the answer given had not been explained to the appellant. The Panel noted as a result the appellant had not been given an opportunity to make any representations in relation to this matter. The Panel accepted that by appealing a postholder was made aware that scores could go up or down or stay the same. However, the Panel concluded that natural justice required the status quo to be reinstated to Level 4.
RESOLVED:
That this factor be not evaluated but that Level 4 be reinstated in the interests of natural justice.