Regrading Policy and Procedure

Regrading Policy and Procedure

Regrading Policy

1. Regrading Policy

1. Regrading Policy

The aim of this policy is to inform staff and Heads of Schools / Research Institutes / Services of the procedure to be followed for regrading a role within one of the professional services job families.

Scope

The Regrading Procedure is applicable to all roles within the Management, Professional & Administrative (MPA), Technical & Specialist and Operational job families. It is also applicable to roles seeking translation from the Research and Teaching family to one of the Professional Services job families.

1.1 Introduction

Staff have a crucial role to play in achieving the challenging mission, vision and strategic goals set out in the University Strategy - Inspiring People, Changing the World 2015-2020. The University therefore needs appropriate arrangements in place to recognise in a timely, transparent and fair way the development and growth of jobs. Circumstances will include those where an individual’s role has expanded or become extended to incorporate sustained work requirements at a higher level than their current grade.

The purpose of the Regrading Policy is to provide a sound framework within which to facilitate the regrading of roles in a fair, consistent and equitable manner across the University.

If a post (or a number of posts) need to be reviewed because of wider changes, such as during a team/departmental reorganisation, please refer to the University’s guidance on restructuring and contact your local HR team to arrange a more in-depth discussion.

The Regrading Panel will sit a minimum of four times a year. This will give Schools / Research Institutes / Services flexibility to apply to have a role considered for regrading when the role appears to “best fit” an appropriate higher level in the job family.

Human Resources will publish the relevant dates for submission of regrading applications on the HR web site – see the  Regrading webpage for dates.


1.2 Principles

1.2.1 This policy applies to all roles where there has been a substantial increase in the requirements of the job and a significant increase in the level of responsibility. It is recognised that individuals in all grades throughout the University put a great deal of effort and commitment into their work; it should however be noted that this procedure is intended to focus on the level of the responsibilities and duties assigned to the role, and does not seek to consider matters of individual performance or volume of work (which may be considered through other University procedures such as Recognition & Reward).

1.2.2   In order to ensure transparency of each stage of the procedure, a case for regrading a role may only be made through a joint submission prepared by School / Research Institute / Service line management and the postholder, regardless of whether the case is supported by line management. Discussions regarding the potential for a regrading case may be initiated by line management or the postholder, and following due consideration line management will confirm whether the case can go forward with management support. If line management do not support the application, the postholder may still request that the case proceeds for further consideration under this process; in this circumstance, line management would work with the postholder to approve an up-to-date job description that provides a true reflection of the responsibilities of the post, and will also provide a separate statement which gives clear reasons for the line management assessment that the post is appropriately graded at its existing level, and the postholder may include an individual statement. Irrespective of whether the application is supported by line management, all paperwork all paperwork should be submitted together and appropriately signed to confirm that all parties have had sight of, and approved as appropriate, the full submission.

1.2.3  The line manager should forward the Regrading Form to the Head of School / Research Institute / Service who should consider the application. If the Head of School / Research Institute / Service does not agree that the job description is a true and accurate reflection, the Head of School / Research Institute / Service and the line manager need to reach agreement before the application can come forward for review.  If the Head of School / Research Institute / Service does not support the application, reasons should similarly be provided in a separate statement. Applications should not be unduly delayed regardless of whether the case is supported.  Applicants should be kept abreast of developments should this occur.

1.2.4  Advice and guidance on all aspects of the application process may be sought at all stages from the local Human Resources team. While the local Human Resources team may provide guidance as required on appropriate case presentation, the written materials must be prepared directly by line management and the postholder.  

1.2.5  Where a case for regrading is successful at either the first submission or at appeal stage, the effective date of the change in grade and salary will be from the first of the month following the Regrading Panel meeting at which  the application was originally considered. The dates of effective grade and salary change will be established in accordance with the timing of the Regrading Panel.

1.2.6  If a case for regrading and any subsequent appeal is unsuccessful, then a re-submission cannot be made until a 12 month period has elapsed from the date the original application was considered by the panel.


1.3 Panel Membership

Consideration of all cases for regrading will be by means of review by an appropriately constituted panel. All members of the Regrading Panel must be trained in job evaluation and in carrying out the job matching process.

1.3.1    Panels will be set up as follows:

  • Chair – Senior University Manager
  • 2 management representatives
  • 2 HR representatives
  • 2 trade union representatives.

Whilst every effort will be made to ensure diversity in panel membership, if the management, trade union representative(s) or HR representatives are from the same School / Research Institute / Service as the role being considered for regrading, then the Chair should be made aware of any potential conflicts of interest for the role being considered for regrading.

All the above panel members will contribute equally to the decision making process.

A member of Human Resources will also be in attendance to ensure that the rationale for each decision is recorded and any comments duly noted.


2. Regrading Process

2. Regrading Process

2. Regrading Process2.1 Stage 1 - Job Matching Process

2.1.1 The Regrading Panel will carry out a job matching exercise in consideration of the regrading case, using the details supplied on the Regrading Form and informed by the statement provided by the School / Research Institute / Service for the role under consideration. Please note that the Regrading submission should include:

  • A Job Description
  • A summary of changes to the role over at least the last 12 months outlining the justification as to why a more senior level role is required. It is expected that roles will have grown in response to emerging or changing business needs, staffing changes or new and/or emerging strategic priorities.
  • An up to date structure chart
  • A statement provided by the Head of School / Research Institute / Service. 

2.1.2   The Chair will ensure the process is carried out in a consistent and fair manner and that all the members of the panel have an opportunity to fully understand the role prior to providing their assessment of the level.

2.1.3  The Regrading Panel must reach a consensus decision regarding the appropriate job family level. If the panel does not reach a consensus decision or is undecided, it can refer the regrading application to a Regrading Appeal Panel, who will fully evaluate the role using the Hay methodology in order to determine the appropriate job family level. This is not an automatic process as the Regrading Panel may request further information which would enable  a decision to be taken without referral to the Regrading Appeal Panel.  Applicants will be notified in this event.

2.1.4   The Regrading Panel may reach one of four decisions:

1)    The role is regraded to a higher level;

2)    The level of the role remains unchanged;

3)    The level of the role does not match the higher level, nor is the panel persuaded that it meets the current level, in which case it is referred back to the School / Research Institute / Service for reconsideration. In such cases, the local HR team will provide advice, support and guidance to both the line manager and the staff member to address and resolve any concerns expressed by the Regrading Panel.

4)    The role is referred to a Regrading Appeal Panel as the panel could not reach a consensus agreement on the appropriate level.

 


2.2 Stage 2 - Regrading Appeal Panel

Appeals should be submitted in writing to the Performance, Pay and Reward team (hr-ppr@glasgow.ac.uk) no later than one calendar month after notification of the original regrading decision.

The Regrading Appeal Panel will be convened as and when required, by the Head of Performance, Pay and Reward (or nominee), to consider cases where either:

  • a regrading request has been unsuccessful and line management and/or the staff member wishes to appeal the decision of the original Panel, or;
  • the Regrading Panel believed a case to be borderline or where a consensus could not be reached on the appropriate level.

The Regrading Appeal Panel will use the Hay Job Evaluation methodology to establish the size of the job, which in turn will inform the appropriate grade level.

  • All members of the Regrading Appeal Panel must be trained and experienced in the use of the Hay methodology.
  • No member of the original Regrading Panel may participate in the Regrading Appeal Panel as a panel member.
  • Membership of the Regrading Appeal Panel will be as follows:
    • Chair – Head of Performance, Pay and Reward (or designated nominee)
    • 1 management representative
    • 1 HR representative
    • 1 Trade Union representative

A member of Human Resources will also be in attendance to ensure that the rationale for each decision is recorded and any comments duly noted.

If the roles are from the MPA Job Family, the Trade Union representative will be   from either UNISON or UCU. Where the roles are in the Operational or the Technical and Specialist Job Family the Trade Union representative will be from UNITE.   In the event that the roles are across all families 2 Trade Union Representatives would be selected on the basis of preponderance of applications.


3. Regrading Procedure

3. Regrading Procedure

3.1 The Regrading Procedure

Human Resources will publish the relevant dates by which regrading cases have to be sent to Human Resources. Late submissions will be carried forward to the next scheduled Regrading Panel.  All those responsible for the application should take action to ensure it is not unduly delayed.  Line management and the postholder will be notified of the date when the panel will consider the application.

3.1.1   The process for submitting a case for regrading will be made through the completion of a Regrading Form. This form requires an up-to-date description of the significant and permanent changes to the role since the current grade was established, as well as a full job description which incorporates and highlights these changes/the additional or enhanced responsibilities of the role in bold.

3.1.2  Completion of the Regrading Form should be an active partnership between the line manager and the role holder, involving discussion and agreement about the role and how the role has changed.

3.1.3  The line manager or Head of School / Research Institute / Service, (whoever is most appropriate) should complete the Statement which will accompany the Regrading Form, guided by the most appropriate individual who has the knowledge and awareness of the main duties and responsibilities of the individual’s role. This section should detail how the role has increased in size, responsibility and complexity as well as providing further details of how the role fits in with the overall School / Research Institute / Service plans. If the line manager and/or the Head of School / Research Institute / Service does not support the application, reasons should be provided in a separate statement in addition to their original statement, neither of which should include commentary on the applicant’s abilities and performance.

3.1.4    College management teams may agree local arrangements for initial review of regrading cases prior to final submission. The Head of HR will involve the relevant College / US parties to enable sign off prior to forwarding the completed form to the Performance, Pay and Reward team (hr-ppr@glasgow.ac.uk) by the due date.

3.1.5    The Regrading Form must be accompanied by a current organisational chart provided by the Head of School / Research Institute / Service or nominee, which clearly shows where the role being regraded fits into the organisation of the relevant School / Research Institute / Service.

The organisation charts should include job titles and levels but not role holder’s names.

3.1.6    Forms will be returned if the application is not completed fully which may result in an        application not proceeding to the Panel timeously.


3.2 The Process after the Panel

The Performance, Pay and Reward Team will be responsible for informing the individual and their line manager of the outcome of the regrading application as well as giving the appropriate feedback on the rationale for the decision.

3.2.1   Where a case for regrading is successful, the individual will move onto the appropriate grade level, with effect from the first of the month following the date on which the Regrading Panel considered the role. Individuals will normally move to the minimum point on the salary band for the relevant job family unless there is a scale overlap.

Where the salary prior to the regrading is in the contribution zone and is higher than the minimum salary point of the grade level into which the role has been regraded, the role holder will move across onto the next salary point above their current salary in the new level.

3.2.2     The only criterion for requesting a review of the decision of the Regrading Appeal Panel will be on the grounds of procedural irregularity which could reasonably be considered to have affected the outcome of the regrading request. Any request for such a review must be made in writing by the Head of School / Research Institute / Service, stating the reasons for requesting a review and giving evidence of the procedural irregularity, to the Director of Human Resources. The deadline for receipt of such a request for review will be indicated in the letter to the staff member notifying the outcome of their regrading case.

The Director of Human Resources will decide whether or not a request for review will be considered. Reasons for not putting forward an application will include:

a)            Any vexatious or frivolous applications or;

b)            Where there is insufficient evidence for the review to go forward based on   procedural irregularity.

3.2.3    If an application is put forward for review, a further Regrading Appeal Panel will be convened to review the evaluation decision to establish the appropriate grade / level. Members of this panel must not have been involved in the original Regrading Panel or the Regrading Appeal Panel for the role in question. The decision of the subsequent Regrading Appeal Panel is final.

3.2.4  The Performance, Pay and Reward team will carry out equality and diversity monitoring with regard to all aspects of the regrading procedure and will report annually the outcomes to the Equality, Diversity and Strategy Committee and the HR Committee. 


Important Information

Important Information

Regrading Panel Dates

To be confirmed.  Please contact hr-ppr@glasgow.ac.uk in the meantime to enquire about expected dates.


Process Flow Chart