The University has its own job evaluation scheme (the University of Bristol Job Evaluation Scheme, or UBJES). This is based on a very well established job evaluation method developed by a company called Hay. UBJES is used to determine the correct grade for all roles in order that the University can pay fairly in relation to job size.
At the heart of job evaluation is the job description. Each role will either have a unique job description, usually written primarily by the role-holder, or a generic job description where a number of people do essentially the same job (for example, Precinct Cleaners, Departmental Manager, Research Secretary, or the role profiles on the Academic Pathways). It is essential that the job description is an accurate reflection of the role being undertaken and the descriptions should therefore be regularly reviewed by the member of staff and their manager in conjunction with the guidance on writing job descriptions.
All jobs are evaluated against the same UBJES elements using one of three different methods.
Direct Evaluation means that a role is individually evaluated by a panel who apply the UBJES methodology directly to a job description.
UBJES matching means that a role is individually matched to the relevant academic-related role profile by a panel. These are generic role descriptions, each of which has been scored using the UBJES methodology. As part of this process, the panel also agree a ‘Know How’ score as a quality check.
Academic matching means that a role is individually matched to the relevant academic role profile within the appropriate pathway. Each of these profiles has been scored using the UBJES methodology. The profiles are generic job descriptions and each member of staff on an academic pathway will have been allocated to the appropriate profile on the implementation of the grading structure or on appointment. Subsequent changes of grade will be governed by the promotion and progression procedures.
Regardless of whether roles are directly evaluated or matched to profiles (all of which have themselves been directly evaluated), the same job evaluation criteria have been applied to all roles to determine the end result.
All job evaluation and matching panels are composed of staff from across the University who have been trained in UBJES. Both men and women are properly represented on panels to counteract any tendencies to gender bias. A full panel comprises of 5 people - two nominated by the University management, and two nominated by the trades unions, plus a Technical Adviser. A short panel comprises of 3 people - one nominated by the University management, and one nominated by the trades unions, plus a Technical Adviser.
Managers may identify the need for new roles in their departments. Before they can be advertised or filled, a detailed job description must be developed and submitted for evaluation by a panel, who will use the appropriate method (direct evaluation or matching). Roles considered to be part of the Administrative and Professional Services family with a Know How score of 175 or greater will be considered under the Matching process. If a short panel are unable to agree an outcome the job description will be referred to a full panel.
Over time roles may evolve as responsibilities are added or removed. When a member of staff and their manager agree that a role has changed significantly, they will need to revise the job description, agree the date at which it becomes applicable and submit it for re-evaluation. Re-evaluations will be considered by a full panel using the appropriate UBJES method for the role (direct evaluation or matching) and the result notified to the individual via their manager. Roles that were classified as Academic Related prior to 1st August 2007 will be considered under the Matching process. Re-evaluation can result in a higher, lower or the same grade.
During the evaluation process a role is put through rigorous quality assurance to ensure that from a scheme methodology perspective the result is technically correct and relativities between roles are appropriate. Outcomes are reviewed by a short panel and, where there are significant doubts or problems, roles are submitted to a further full panel for final decision. If necessary, the job description will be returned to the role holder or manager for further information.
In some cases staff may wish to appeal against the outcome of their re-evaluation. To this end the University has an agreed Appeals policy and process. Appeals will be heard by a full panel who will consider the case and make a decision as to whether the appeal should be upheld or not. The decision of the Appeal panel is final. An individual who is appointed into a new role does not have the right to appeal the outcome but may submit an agreed revised job description for re-evaluation after they have been in the role for 6 months.
