Common use of Re-evaluation & Appeals Clause in Contracts

Re-evaluation & Appeals. 6.1 An evaluation panel should re-evaluate a job where it is claimed that there has been a change to its content. This change may have resulted from the gradual addition of new features over a period or as a result of restructuring. 6.2 Part 2 paragraph 5 of the NJC agreement establishes the right to appeal for a reconsideration of grading. Procedures must be agreed locally to deal with such appeals. The NJC has issued joint guidance on the conduct of grading appeals. 6.3 In particular, where authorities are applying the scheme, procedures should be developed to ensure that appeals are decided using the scheme. A model procedure is attached at Appendix 2. 6.4 An employee who is dissatisfied with the grading of their job after an evaluation using this scheme has a right of appeal on one or more of the following grounds: • the scheme has been wrongly applied e.g. factor levels have been wrongly allocated; the evaluation panel has failed to follow guidance etc. • the job description questionnaire did not provide complete information • it is believed that an equivalent job is more highly graded and paid. • the job has been wrongly clustered for evaluation purposes or wrongly matched to a generic evaluation. 6.5 All union and employer representatives involved in appeals should be properly trained in the scheme design and operation and equalities considerations. They should not have been members of the panel which initially evaluated the job under appeal.

Re-evaluation & Appeals. 6.1 An evaluation panel should re-evaluate a job where it is claimed that there has been a change to its content. This change may have resulted from the gradual addition of new features over a period or as a result of restructuring. 6.2 Part 2 paragraph 5 of the NJC agreement establishes the right to appeal for a reconsideration of grading. Procedures must be agreed locally to deal with such appeals. The NJC has issued joint guidance on the conduct of grading appeals. 6.3 In particular, where authorities are applying the scheme, procedures should be developed to ensure that appeals are decided using the scheme. A model procedure is attached at Appendix 2. 6.4 An employee who is dissatisfied with the grading of their job after an evaluation using this scheme has a right of appeal on one or more of the following grounds: •  the scheme has been wrongly applied e.g. factor levels have been wrongly allocated; the evaluation panel has failed to follow guidance etc. •  the job description questionnaire did not provide complete information •  it is believed that an equivalent job is more highly graded and paid. •  the job has been wrongly clustered for evaluation purposes or wrongly matched to a generic evaluation. 6.5 All union and employer representatives involved in appeals should be properly trained in the scheme design and operation and equalities considerations. They should not have been members of the panel which initially evaluated the job under appeal.

Re-evaluation & Appeals. 6.1 An evaluation panel should re-evaluate a job where it is claimed that there has been a change to its content. This change may have resulted from the gradual addition of new features over a period or as a result of restructuring. 6.2 Part 2 paragraph 5 of the NJC agreement establishes the right to appeal for a reconsideration of grading. Procedures must be agreed locally to deal with such appeals. The NJC has issued joint guidance on the conduct of grading appeals. 6.3 In particular, where authorities are applying the scheme, procedures should be developed to ensure that appeals are decided using the scheme. A model procedure is attached at Appendix 2. 6.4 An employee who is dissatisfied with the grading of their job after an evaluation using this scheme has a right of appeal on one or more of the following grounds: • ◆ the scheme has been wrongly applied e.g. factor levels have been wrongly allocated; , the evaluation panel has failed to follow guidance etc. • etc.‌‌ ◆ the job description questionnaire did not provide complete information • ◆ it is believed that an equivalent job is more highly graded and paid. • the job has been wrongly clustered for evaluation purposes or wrongly matched to a generic evaluation. 6.5 All union and employer representatives involved in appeals should be properly trained in the scheme design and operation and equalities considerations. They should not have been members of the panel which initially evaluated the job under appeal.

Re-evaluation & Appeals. 6.1 An evaluation panel should re-evaluate a job where it is claimed that there has been a change to its content. This change may have resulted from the gradual addition of new features over a period or as a result of restructuring. 6.2 Part 2 paragraph 5 of the NJC agreement establishes the right to appeal for a reconsideration of grading. Procedures must be agreed locally to deal with such appeals. The NJC has issued joint guidance on the conduct of grading appeals. 6.3 In particular, where authorities are applying the scheme, procedures should be developed to ensure that appeals are decided using the scheme. A model procedure is attached at Appendix 2. 6.4 An employee who is dissatisfied with the grading of their job after an evaluation using this scheme has a right of appeal on one or more of the following grounds: • ◆ the scheme has been wrongly applied e.g. factor levels have been wrongly allocated; , the evaluation panel has failed to follow guidance etc. • ◆ the job description questionnaire did not provide complete information • ◆ it is believed that an equivalent job is more highly graded and paid. • the job has been wrongly clustered for evaluation purposes or wrongly matched to a generic evaluation. 6.5 All union and employer representatives involved in appeals should be properly trained in the scheme design and operation and equalities considerations. They should not have been members of the panel which initially evaluated the job under appeal.