The focus of the EU and EOC guidance in respect of implementing job evaluation is to ensure that all significant features of jobs carried out by women as well as those undertaken by men are first ‘cap- tured’ as part of the process, and then fairly evaluated. The meth- ods recommended for achieving this are:
ឣ Use of a detailed job questionnaire: job evaluation on the basis of a traditional organizational job description is likely to be unsatisfactory, because it leaves evaluators to use their own experience or make assumptions when assessing jobs against factors for which no information is provided.
The preferred approach is to collect job information from jobholders and their supervisors or line managers by means of a structured questionnaire, which asks specific questions, requiring factual answers, under each of the job evaluation factor headings. This pre-analysis of job information, although time consuming to do properly, also makes for more efficient evaluation by reducing the time evaluators spend identifying the information they need and debating what is relevant. Fully computerized schemes (see Chapter 8) also adopt this approach by asking specific questions under each factor heading.
ឣ Training in avoidance of bias for job analysts/facilitators and evaluators. This both assists in avoiding discrimination in the implementation of job evaluation and demonstrates to others that efforts have been made to avoid bias (see Chapter 6).
ឣ Avoidance of traditional ‘slotting’ techniques: in even a medium- sized organization, it is time consuming to evaluate the job of every individual employee separately. In a large
organization, it is impossible. Historically, therefore, it was common practice in larger organizations to evaluate only a benchmark sample of jobs and to ‘slot’ other jobs against the benchmark through some form of whole-job comparison.
However, in its decision in the case of Bromley & Others v H.&J. Quick, the Court of Appeal said that the applicant and comparator jobs which had been ‘slotted’ in this way had not been analysed and evaluated under the scheme in question, so were not covered by the ‘job evaluation study’
defence. There was not such a study ‘where the jobs of the women and their comparators were slotted into the
structure on a ‘whole job’ basis and no comparison was made by reference to the selected factors between the
demands made on the individual workers under the selected headings’.
This decision has significant implications for job evaluation in large organizations, as it implies that all employees should be attached to a job description, which has either been analysed and evaluated, or, at minimum, has been matched to an evaluated benchmark job, using an analytical process.
ឣ Monitoring of outcomes: the initial job evaluation exercise and subsequent appeals should be monitored for their impact on male- and female-dominated jobs. Other things being equal, one would expect a new job evaluation scheme to result in some upward movement of female-dominated jobs,
particularly those that show typical features of work carried out by women, relative to other jobs, as historical pay discrimination is eliminated.
References
1. Eaton Ltd v Nuttall[1977] IRLR 71 EAT: a valid job evaluation study must satisfy ‘the test of being thorough in analysis and capable of impartial application’.
Arnold v Beecham Group Ltd[1982] IRLR 307 EAT: ‘there is no complete job evaluation study unless and until the parties who have agreed to
carry out the study have accepted its validity. However, it is not the stage of implementing the study by using it as the basis of the payment of remuneration that makes it complete; it is the stage at which it is accepted as a study.’
O’Brien v Sim-Chem Ltd[1980] IRLR 373 HL: Once a job evaluation study has been undertaken and has resulted in a conclusion that the job of a woman is of equal value with that of a man, then a comparison of their respective terms and conditions is made feasible and… The equality clause can take effect. It is not necessary for the pay structure to have been adjusted as a result of the conclusions of the job evalua- tion study.’
2. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1982] IRLR 333 ECJ
3. European Commission, Employment & Social Affairs:A code of practice on the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value for men and women:
Luxembourg, 1996
Equal Opportunities Commission: Code of Practice on Equal Pay:
Manchester, 1997 (currently being revised)
4. Paddison, Lorraine: Job evaluation and equal value– a study of white collar job evaluation in London local authorities: London Equal Value Steering Group (LEVEL), September 1987
5
Equal pay reviews
As described in Chapter 4, UK organizations have a legal obligation to provide equal pay for equal work that is free from sex bias. In order to know whether this legal obligation is being met, organiza- tions need to understand whether their practices and policies are achieving this outcome. The Equal Opportunity Commission’s (EOC’s) Code of Practice on Equal Pay1says that an internal review is
‘the most appropriate method of ensuring that a pay system deliv- ers equal pay free from sex bias’.
This chapter describes the equal pay review process (sometimes termed equal pay audits). However, it does not intend to replicate the comprehensive guidance that is available through other sources such as the EOC Equal Pay Review Kit2or the CIPD Equal Pay Guide3. It focuses instead on how organizations can respond to the analysis challenges presented by equal pay reviews in the context of their existing approach(es) to valuing jobs.
As highlighted in Chapter 4, equal pay legislation deals with the analysis and diagnosis of equal pay issues between women and men. Equal pay legislation requires equal pay to be given for ‘equal work’. Equal work is:
ឣ like work – work which is the same or broadly similar;
ឣ work rated as equivalent – work which has been evaluated similarly using an analytical job evaluation scheme;
ឣ work of equal value – work which is of broadly equal value when compared under headings such as effort, skill and decisions.
Pay differences are allowable only if the reason for them is not relat- ed to the sex of the jobholder. The same principles of fairness and equity should, of course, apply to other potentially discriminating characteristics such as racial group and disability. However, for the sake of simplicity this chapter refers mainly to gender.