|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Grainger v North East London NHS Foundation Trust  EWHC 2254 (QB) (08 September 2017)
Cite as:  EWHC 2254 (QB)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| EVELYN ANN JANE GRAINGER
|- and -
NORTH EAST LONDON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST
Andrew Allen (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 4, 5, 6 and 10 July 2017
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Lavender:
(1) her job changed when she was given an additional role in January 2007;
(2) thereafter the Defendant was under a contractual duty to carry out a formal job evaluation;
(3) the Defendant was in breach of contract in failing to carry out such an evaluation;
(4) such an evaluation would have resulted, or would have had a chance of resulting, in a decision that her job fell within band 8D, and consequently an increase in her pay, back-dated to January 2007.
(1) whether certain provisions (i.e. paragraphs 1.4, 3.2 and 3.3 of Chapter 3 of the Job Evaluation Handbook and the "Grading Review Procedure" or "Banding Review" section in the Defendant's HR Handbook for Managers) had contractual effect;
(2) what was the extent of the additional role given to the Claimant;
(3) whether that additional role was such as to oblige the Defendant to carry out a job evaluation; and
(4) whether the Claimant has waived and/or is estopped from asserting any of her contractual rights.
(1) Dr Trudie Rossouw. She worked for the Defendant for about 20 years until January 2017. She was a Consultant Child Psychiatrist. Until 2005 she was the Lead Clinician for Redbridge. In 2005 she became the Clinical Director for the Defendant's Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services ("CAMHS"), which was part of the Specialist Services Directorate.
(2) Susan Boon. She has worked for the Defendant since November 2005. She was the Operational Director for Specialist Services until September 2010. As such, she was the manager responsible for CAMHS.
(3) Robert Edwards. He has worked for the Defendant since 2006. He took over from Susan Boon in September 2010 as Operational Director for Specialist Services.
(4) Dr Benjamin Smith. He is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist. He worked for the Defendant from September 2010 to September 2015, initially as Professional Head of Pyschological Services and, from January 2013, as Clinical Director for the Allied Health Professional and Psychological Services. He was the Claimant's professional lead. (The Claimant's operational line manager was a Service Manager in Barking and Dagenham, i.e. Siobhan Quinn to February 2007, Clive Blackwood to August 2009 and Merrisha Briscoe thereafter. They did not give evidence).
(5) Caroline Ward. She has worked for the Defendant since December 2010 as Assistant Director of Children's Services for Barking and Dagenham. Her only relevant involvement with the Claimant was in 2014, when she was asked as an independent person to conduct the review to which I will refer.
(6) Caroline O'Donnell. She has worked for the Defendant since 2009. Her only relevant involvement with the Defendant was in 2014-15, when she chaired the grievance appeal panel to which I will refer.
(4) Agenda for Change
(1) Band 8B included 6 pay points, from 39 to 44.
(2) Band 8C included 6 pay points, from 43 to 48.
(3) Band 8D included 6 pay points, from 47 to 52.
(4) Band 9 included 6 pay points, from 51 to 56.
(1) Pay points 43 and 44 were the highest pay points in band 8B and the lowest pay points in band 8C and represented annual salaries of £50,122 and £51,494 respectively.
(2) Pay points 47 and 48 were the highest pay points in band 8C and the lowest pay points in band 8D and represented annual salaries of £60,077 and £61,793 respectively.
(3) Pay points 51 and 52 were the highest pay points in band 8D and the lowest pay points in band 9 and represented annual salaries of £70,947 and £74,381 respectively.
"to allow pay progression in post. Staff will progress from point to point on an annual basis to the top point in their pay band or pay range, provided their performance is satisfactory and they demonstrate the agreed knowledge and skills appropriate to that part of the pay band or range."
(1) Band 8B was the appropriate band for jobs with scores from 585 to 629.
(2) Band 8C was the appropriate band for jobs with scores from 630 to 674.
(3) Band 8D was the appropriate band for jobs with scores from 675 to 720.
(1) Job matching (described in Chapter 8 of the Second Edition and in Chapter 11 of the Third Edition of the Job Evaluation Handbook) involved comparing a job to certain national evaluation profiles. It was anticipated that most jobs would be dealt with in this way.
(2) Local evaluation (so called because it was carried out locally, and described in Chapter 10 of the Second Edition and in Chapter 13 of the Third Edition of the Job Evaluation Handbook) involved eight "Nationally agreed steps for local evaluation." This was a more time-consuming process than job matching, and was therefore only to be used for: (a) jobs (such as senior managerial posts) where there was no national evaluation profile; or (b) jobs where job-matching had proved impossible.
(5) Contractual Terms
(1) paragraphs 6.30 and 6.31 in Section 6 of Part 2 of the Terms and Conditions Handbook;
(2) paragraphs 1.4, 3.2 and 3.3 of Chapter 3 of the Third Edition of the Job Evaluation Handbook; and
(3) the Grading Review Procedure or Banding Review section in the Defendant's HR Handbook for Managers.
(5)(a) Incorporation of Terms
"There is no single test as to whether an employer and employee intended to agree that provisions of an agreement such as the Practitioners Disciplinary Procedure should be contractual between them (rather than advisory or hortatory or an expression of aspiration), and if so which provisions. The indicia that a provision is to be taken to have contractual status which are, I think, of some relevance to this case include these:
(i) The importance of the provision to the contractual working relationship between the employer and the employee and its relationship to the contractual arrangements between them […] the more important the provision to the structure of the procedures, the more likely it is that the parties intended it to be contractual. …
(ii) The level of detail prescribed by the provision: as Penry-Davey J said in Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Trust  IRLR 949 at para. 25, the courts should not "become involved in the micro-management of conduct hearings", and the parties to the contract of employment are not to be taken to have intended that they should be. (In the Court of Appeal in Kulkarni, [ ICR 101] at para 22, Smith LJ endorsed this observation of Penry-Davey J.)
(iii) The certainty of what the provision requires: as Swift J observed (in Hameed [ Med LR 412] at para. 68), if a provision is vague or discursive, it is the less apt to have contractual status.
(iv) The context of the provision: a provision included amongst other provisions that are contractual is itself more likely to have been intended to have contractual status than one included among other provisions which provide guidance or are otherwise not apt to be contractual.
(v) Whether the provision is workable, or would be if it were taken to have contractual status; the parties are not to be taken to have intended to introduce into their contract of employment terms which, if enforced, would not be workable or make business sense: see Malone v British Airways plc  EWCA Civ 1225 at para 62."
(5)(b) The Terms and Conditions Handbook
(1) Principles and partnership.
(3) Terms and conditions of service.
(4) Employee relations.
(5) Equal opportunities.
(6) Operating the system.
(7) Transitional provisions.
"1.3 … All staff covered by Agenda for Change will, on assimilation, be assigned to one of these pay bands on the basis of job weight as measured by the NHS Job Evaluation Scheme."
"1.5 The NHS Job Evaluation Handbook1 sets out the basis of job evaluation, which underpins the new pay system and includes the factor plan, the weighting and scoring document and a guide for matching posts locally. The process for assimilation is set out more full in Section 46.
"6.30 Individuals may be moved into a higher pay band where it is necessary to fill a post on a temporary basis when a vacancy is unfilled, but being advertised, or the post is being held open for someone who is due to return, e.g. from long-term sick leave, maternity leave, or from extended training.
6.31 Pay should be set either at the minimum of the new pay band or, if this would result in no pay increase (by reference to basic pay plus any recruitment and retention premium if applicable) the first pay point in the band that would deliver an increase in pay. Temporary movement into a new pay band should not normally last more than six months or less than one month except in instances of maternity leave or long-term sick leave where a longer period may be known at the outset. In circumstances where the individual is not required to carry out the full responsibilities of the post, pay will be determined by job evaluation."
(5)(c) The Job Evaluation Handbook
"3.5 Dealing with new and changed jobs
One of the aims of Agenda for Change is to allow trusts and other NHS organisations to operate more flexibly by developing roles in partnership. Detailed procedures need to be agreed locally. This note deals with the principles of how changed and new jobs, once agreed, should be dealt with in terms of the NHS Job Evaluation Scheme.
3.6 Changed jobs
Jobs change all the time. Only significant changes are likely to affect matching or evaluation. When a job is identified as having changed significantly, a decision needs to be made as to whether it is likely to match a profile (not necessarily the one to which it may have matched before the change). If so, it should be put through the Matching Procedure (see Section 8) in the normal way.
If it is agreed that the changed job will not match any of the national profiles, or matching is unsuccessful, then it should be put through the Local Evaluation Procedure (see Section 10) in the normal way. However, it may be sensible to delay completion of the JAQ until such time as the changes have 'bedded down', with agreement for back-dating of any pay increase as appropriate.
3.7 New jobs
It is standard job evaluation practice for proposed new jobs to be matched or evaluated as a desktop exercise, in order that a provisional pay band can be determined for recruitment purposes. This exercise should be carried out by experienced matching or evaluation panel members, who will be advised by appropriate management and staff representatives from the relevant sphere of work.
Once the new job has been in operation for a reasonable period of time so that the jobholder is able to provide comprehensive information, then the job should be matched or evaluated in accordance with the appropriate procedure.
New jobs which are likely to become commonly occurring across the health service, but which do not match any of the published profiles, should be locally evaluated and then referred to NHS Staff Council for consideration as to whether a national profile should be produced. If a national profile is subsequently agreed at a different pay band from the initial local evaluation, then banding for the individuals concerned will need to be retrospectively adjusted."
"1.1 This version of the Job Evaluation (JE) Handbook incorporates NHS Staff Council advice which has been published since the second edition of the Handbook, as well as the factor plan and procedures to implement job evaluation (JE) in your organisation."
"1.3 Chapter one provides the background to the JE scheme. Chapter two contains advice on the status of guidance approved by the NHS Staff Council, professional bodies and staff side organisations and whether advice is mandatory or advisory.
1.4 Chapters three and four contain essential guidance for future use of the scheme in a changing NHS, either when roles are new or change, or when the service is reconfigured."
"1. Guidance approved by the NHS Staff Council Executive
1.1 The Job Evaluation Handbook contains all of the guidance on interpreting and applying the AfC JE Scheme and profiles, which have been developed nationally and approved by the Executive on behalf of Staff Council. Further explanation of how this guidance should be used is available from the national training materials for matching and evaluation panels (see NHS Employers website as www.nhsemployers.org for further details on training).
1.2 On occasion, the Job Evaluation Handbook guidance may be supplemented by additional advice and questions and answers approved by the Executive on behalf of Staff Council, and published on NHS Employers website (www.nhsemployers.org), on the Job Evaluation web pages. This advice will be published to cover new situations as required.
1.3 All of the above guidance is binding on local matching and evaluation panels. No other guidance has the same status or is binding."
"1.4 There is a need for the NHS JE Scheme to continue to be used for determining the banding of posts and consequently staff pay rates. This will apply to all new posts and posts which have significantly changed since they were last evaluated."
"3. Changed jobs/re-evaluation
3.1 One of the aims of AfC is to allow NHS organisations to operate more flexibly by developing roles in partnership. Detailed procedures need to be agreed locally.
3.2 All posts change over a period of time. For most, the job evaluation outcome will not normally be affected unless there are significant changes. Some job outcomes may be close to band boundaries and consequently the banding for these jobs may change with only limited changes to job demands.
3.3 Where a post holder and their manager agree that the demands of the post have changed, then a re-evaluation of the post needs to be carried out.
3.4 Organisations need to establish how changes to posts will be identified and verified. In some cases it may be obvious and there will be discussion around these changing roles. On other occasions it may be due to demographic, incidental or re-organisational changes.
4. Re-evaluation of changed jobs
4.1 Where a job has changed there should be a re-match or re-evaluation and the whole job should be assessed, albeit with a reference back to the original match or evaluation. Just dealing with some of the factors could lead to inconsistencies.
4.2 Where a request for re-evaluation has been made, the post holder must submit evidence showing which skills and responsibilities applicable to the post, have changed. They should also provide details of the changed job demands that have led them to believe there is a change in factor levels."
8.1 Organisations must ensure that the NHS JE Scheme is embedded in everyday operational processes. …"
(1) the Claimant's job changed significantly; or
(2) the Claimant and her manager agreed that the demands of her job had changed.
"1.2 Local evaluation is much more time-consuming than matching so it is important to be certain that a local evaluation is necessary before embarking on this route. For those jobs which do need to be evaluated locally the nationally agreed steps are set out below. Detailed procedures on how to implement these steps are to be agreed locally in partnership. Additional guidance on some aspects of this protocol is provided at the end of this section."
"3.5 What is 'a job' for the purposes of local evaluation?
For evaluation purposes, the job to be described consists of:
• Those duties actually carried out by individual jobholder(s). The last year is generally a good guide on what should be taken into account as part of the job. The job is not an amalgam of what the jobholder might be required to do in other circumstances, nor of what the jobholder's colleagues do. The jobholder is treated for evaluation purposes as being typical of the group of jobholders they represent.
• Those duties acknowledged by the jobholder and their line manager, either explicitly (through you having been asked to undertake the duties) or implicitly (through not being told not to undertake particular duties), to be part of the job. These may be more, or less, than the duties listed on a formal job description."
(1) the Claimant's job changed significantly; or
(2) the Claimant and her manager agreed that the demands of her job had changed significantly.
(5)(d) The Defendant's HR Handbook for Managers
"The purpose of this handbook is to help you familiarise yourself with HR processes whilst managing your staff."
"MANAGEMENT REQUEST FOR GRADING REVIEW
Where you require a new post to be graded a full set of documentation should be sent to the relevant Human Resources Adviser with the attached Grading Review Form (which can be requested from the HR Dept.)."
"Where you wish to change/enhance an existing post, a revised set of documentation as above ( … ) together with the old documentation should be sent to the relevant Human Resources Adviser."
"INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE REQUEST FOR GRADING REVIEW
Where an individual employee requests a grading review, you should in the first instance establish and document how the employee feels the post has changed from the existing job documentation.
After having assessed whether these changes to the job documentation are agreed, you should forward the revised documentation together with the Grading Review Form and previous post documentation.
Where you do not agree the changes to the post, the employee should be counselled as to which duties/responsibilities he/she should refrain from carrying out. The relevant Human Resources Adviser should be contacted for advice.
Where an employee either refused to refrain from specified duties or where a Grading Review is insisted upon the documentation should be forwarded with the [sic] your comments/concerns entered on the Grading Review Form."
(6) Relevant Events
(6)(a) 2004-05: The Introduction of the NHS Pay System
(6)(b) 2006-07: New Responsibilities and a New Post
"In the meantime [the Claimant] has kindly agreed to continue to represent Child Psychotherapy at CAMHS Heads of Disciplinary meetings and to act as focal point for child psychotherapy until a clearer way forward is identified.
(6)(c) 2008-9: Some Clarification of the Claimant's Role
(1) Ms Boon thanked the Claimant for:
"all the support you have provided us over the past year acting as representative for Child Psychotherapy within the Directorate."
(2) Ms Boon explained that it had been decided not to recruit a band 8D Child Psychotherapist. This meant that the band 8D job of Head of Child Psychotherapy would not be created, either permanently or on a fixed-term basis.
(3) Ms Boon added the following:
"Consequently, we would be very keen for one of the Consultant Child Psychotherapists Posts to take a lead role across the Directorate. Time would obviously need to be properly ringfenced in a job plan to facilitate this."
(4) Ms Boon concluded the letter by saying:
"We once again thank you for the effort you have made in supporting us in these uncertain times and very much hope you will feel able to continue to represent Child Psychotherapy within the Directorate."
"In view of this, I would be very pleased to discuss your thinking about my taking a lead role across the Trust. I have been wondering whether it would be possible for the ring-fenced time devoted to this role to be treated as band 8d sessions. This would have the advantage of giving my position some clarity and authority, which has been missing in my present role during the past year."
"As you are aware we took the decision to review the vacancy of 8d head of child psychotherapy and replace this with a 0.5 8c post and a 0.5 band 7 psychology post and also deliver some CIP last year. Since this time Eve Grainger has kindly been leading on child psychotherapy across the Trust in an informal way pending the outcome of the psychological therapies review.
Trudie and I have been working with Eve to review her job plan and in this context Eve has raised the issue of leadership for child psychotherapy across the trust. We all agree that the psychological therapies review has not provided us the opportunity to address this issue corporately as I had hoped and it is unreasonable to expect Eve to continue to pick up this responsibility via such an informal arrangement.
I am keen to address this and have agreed to draw up a role description for a lead child psychotherapist for NELFT and to invite expressions of interest form [sic] the consultant psychotherapists in the Trust.
I have explained to Eve that it is not possible to make this role a full time 8d position as the direction of travel for the Trust is to move towards fewer band 8d posts and above. However Eve has reasonably asked me to consider whether it is possible for the number of sessions identified for this role could be banded at an 8d level if not the whole post. Perhaps another way of achieving this could be via a responsibility allowance payment although I suspect A4C makes this difficult.
I am keen to support Eve's request and to ensure that the leadership of child psychotherapy in the Trust is valued. Please can you advise what the corporate position on this request is."
"Thank you for your email below. The Trust position in relation to Senior Clinical Bandings remains unchanged from what has been publicly stated. We are an Organisation that has an above average "rich" skill mix and need to progress towards a position of increased capacity within existing budgets. I would of course be happy to discuss further regarding pace of change and process, however the direction of travel continues."
(1) Lead Child Psychotherapist (the Claimant);
(2) Lead Family Therapist (Lynn McCandless, whose job was in band 8D);
(3) Lead Child Psychologist (June Ferrell, whose job was in band 8D): and
(4) Lead Perinatal and Infant Mental Health Services (Amanda Jones, whose job was in band 8C).
(1) Clive Blackwood (who, as I have said, was her manager from February 2007 to August 2009) provided written answers to various questions on 18 June 2012 and he spoke of "the lack of clarity about the level of sessions [the Claimant] had or were required to fulfil the Trust lead role" and the "inequity" of the time allocated to the different leads, given that "My understanding at the time was that 2 Trust wide sessions were allocated to Lead for Child Psychotherapy and 3 to Head of Family Therapy." Mr Blackwood did not give evidence and so did not explain these remarks any further.
(2) Merrisha Briscoe (who was the Claimant's manager from August 2009) referred in her letter of 11 May 2011 to the Claimant to a current allocation of 16 hours per week for the Trust lead role. The reference to 16 hours per week (rather than, say, per month) seems very high, but there was no evidence to explain it from Ms Briscoe.
(6)(d) 2010-11: The Claimant's First Application for a Grading Review
"As you are aware the Operational Directorate lead for CAMHS has now transferred to Bob Edwards and it would seem more appropriate for Bob and Pam Grimes to agree your revised job description and to submit it for grading rather than myself at this time."
"I note your comments regarding your application for a grading review of your post. The comments you make about the Psychological Therapies review still hold to be true, in that the review itself has of course now been completed, but is yet to be implemented across NELFT.
The review will be implemented in CAMHS later this year and this will lead to a new structure for Psychological Therapies being put in place within the service. This will lead most likely to having a single lead therapist in the service, with a hierarchy of grades beneath.
I do not believe therefore, that it is appropriate to consider applications for re-grading of posts at the present time, pending implementation of the review. I am not therefore minded to consider your application further at this time.
As regards to the second point, you make. I am unclear on what basis your Union adviser Will Gilley, has suggested that you will be eligible to be paid at the next pay point from your current banding. I am unaware of any formal written agreement between Sue Boon and yourself from 2007, regarding your acting status and there is, as far as I am aware, no Change Form having been completed to that effect, on your file. Clearly, if you can provide evidence to support your view, I would be happy to consider your request further, but again I do not feel it is appropriate to exceed [sic] to your request for an additional payment at this time."
(1) Ms Briscoe did not give evidence.
(2) In his letter of 14 June 2011, Mr Edwards did not refuse the Claimant's request for a regrading as unfounded. He merely said that it was premature.
(6)(e) 2011-12: Disciplinary Proceedings
(6)(f) 2013-14: The Claimant's Second Application for a Grading Review
(6)(g) 2014-15: Grievance Procedure
(7) Alleged Breach of Contract
(7)(a) Comparisons with Other Jobs
(7)(b) Changes in the Claimant's Job
"• To be responsible for the provision of an efficient, effective, comprehensive and highly specialist psychoanalytical psychotherapy assessment and treatment service for infants, children and adolescents with severe, highly complex and persistent mental health problems, their carers/parents and families.
• To be responsible, clinically and managerially, for the initial setting up and running of The Listening Zone (TLZ) Young People's Counselling Service. This includes direct responsibility for the development and day to day running of the service, clinical and managerial supervision of the clinical staff, and for managing the service budget.
• To provide highly specialist supervision, consultation, teaching, training for multi-disciplinary staff within the Specialist Tier Three CAMHS and staff of related agencies (health, education, social services, voluntary sector, youth criminal justice system).
• To undertake audit and research.
• To be responsible for the contribution to the evaluation, monitoring, development and implementation of the CAMHS Directorate's operational policies and services.
• To work autonomously in clinical practice within the overall framework of the CAMHS Directorate's and the Trust's policies and procedures."
"The Lead Child Psychotherapist will:
- Provide line management for all Consultant Child Psychotherapist in the Trust in conjunction with the appropriate CAMHS Service Manager
- Appraise all Consultant Child Psychotherapists in conjunction with the appropriate Service Manager
- Agree a job plan with all the Consultant Child Psychotherapists in the Trust in conjunction with the appropriate Service Manager
- To ensure that all Child Psychotherapists in the Trust have appropriate management appraisals and job planning arrangements in place
- To performance manage the productivity of child psychotherapy across the Trust against agreed activity targets in conjunction with the Assistant Operations Director with responsibility for CAMHS"
"- To provide clinical leadership in relation to child psychotherapy
- To ensure the discipline is represented appropriately in the Directorates cycle of business in agreement with the Assistant Operations Director with responsibility for CAMHS
- To engage all Child Psychotherapists and represent their views at a directorate and corporate level as necessary
- To take the lead in Child Psychotherapy in the development and implementation of a CAMHS service model
- To provide clinical supervision for all the Consultant Child Psychotherapists in the Directorate
- To ensure there are appropriate supervision arrangements in place for all Psychotherapists in the Directorate."
(7)(c) The Relevant Factors
(1) The Claimant's job had been given the maximum score for four factors (nos. 1, 2, 14 and 15). These scores could not be increased on re-evaluation.
(2) In respect of four more factors (nos. 5, 10, 13 and 16), the Claimant did not contend that her job's score could have increased on re-evaluation.
(3) That left eight factors (nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12) in respect of which the Claimant contended that her job's score could have increased. However, Mr Cordrey's submissions understandably focused on five of these, i.e.:3 Analytical and judgemental skills4 Planning and organisational skills7 Responsibilities for policy and service development implementation9 Responsibilities for human resources12 Freedom to act
|Level||3. Analytical and judgemental skills||4. Planning and organisation skills||7. Responsibilities for policy and service||9. Responsibilities for human resources||12. Freedom to act|
(7)(c)(i) Factor 3: Analytical and Judgemental Skills
"This factor measures the analytical and judgemental skills required to fulfil the job responsibilities satisfactorily. It takes account of requirements for analytical skills to diagnose a problem or illness and understand complex situations or information; and judgemental skills to formulate solutions and recommend/decide on the best course of action/treatment.
Skills required for:
Level 4: Judgements involving complex facts or situations, which require the analysis, interpretation and comparison of a range of options.
Level 5: Judgements involving highly complex facts or situations, which require the analysis, interpretation and comparison of a range of options."
(7)(c)(ii) Factor 4: Planning and Organisation Skills
"This factor measures the planning and organisational skills required to fulfil the job responsibilities satisfactorily. It takes account of the skills required for activities such as planning or organising clinical or non-clinical services, departments, rotas, meetings, conferences and for strategic planning. It also takes account of the complexity and degree of uncertainty involved in these activities.
Skills required for:
Level 4: Planning and organisation of a broad range of complex activities or programmes, some of which are ongoing, which require the formulation and adjustment of plans or strategies.
Level 5: Formulating long-term, strategic plans, which involve uncertainty and which may impact across the whole organisation."
(7)(c)(iii) Factor 7: Responsibilities for Policy and Service
"This factor measures the responsibilities of the job for development and implementation of policy and/or services. It takes account of the nature of the responsibility and the extent and level of the jobholder's contribution to the relevant decision making process, for instance, making recommendations to decision makers. It also takes account of whether the relevant policies or services relate to a function, department, division, directorate, the whole trust or employing organisation, or wider than this; and the degree to which the responsibility is shared with others.
Level 3: Implements policies for own work area and proposes policy or service changes which impact beyond own area of activity.
Level 4: Responsible for policy implementation and for discrete policy or service development for a service or more than one area of activity.
Level 5: Responsible for a range of policy implementation and policy or service development for a directorate or equivalent.
Level 6: Corporate responsibility for major policy implementation and policy or service development, which impacts across or beyond the organisation."
(7)(c)(iv) Factor 9: Responsibilities for Human Resources
"This factor measures the responsibilities of the job for management, supervision, co-ordination, teaching, training and development of employees, students/trainees and others in an equivalent position.
It includes work planning and allocation; checking and evaluating work; undertaking clinical supervision; identifying training needs; developing and/or implementing training programmes; teaching staff, students or trainees; and continuing profession development (CPD). It also includes responsibility for such personnel functions as recruitment, discipline, appraisal and career development and the long term development of human resources.
The emphasis is on the nature of the responsibility, rather than the precise numbers of those supervised, co-ordinated, trained or developed.
a. Responsible for day to day management of a group of staff or
b. responsible for the allocation or placement and subsequent supervision of qualified staff or students or
c. responsible for the teaching/delivery of core training on a range of subjects or specialist training or
d. responsible for the delivery of core HR advice on a range of subjects.
a. Responsible as line manager for a single function or department or
b. responsible for the teaching or devising of training and development programmes as a major job responsibility or
c. responsible for the delivery of a comprehensive range of HR services.
a. Responsible as line manager for several/multiple departments or
b. responsible for the management of a teaching/training function across the organisation or
c. responsible for the management of a significant part of the HR function across the organisation.
Level 6: Corporate responsibility for the human resources or HR function."
(7)(c)(v) Factor 12: Freedom to Act
"This factor measures the extent to which the jobholder is required to be accountable for their own actions and those of others, to use own initiative and act independently; and the discretion given to the jobholder to take action.
It takes account of any restrictions on the jobholder's freedom to act imposed by, for example, supervisory control; instructions, procedures, practices and policies; professional, technical or occupational codes of practice or other ethical guidelines; the nature or system in which the job operates; the position of the job within the organisation; and the existence of any statutory responsibility for service provision.
Level 5: Is guided by general health, organisational or broad occupational policies, but in most situations the post holder will need to establish the way in which these should be interpreted.
Level 6: Is required to interpret overall health service policy and strategy, in order to establish goals and standards."
(7)(d) Relevant Factors: Summary