Resources

Purpose

The Gender-inclusive Job Evaluation Standard is a voluntary standard developed by Standards New Zealand through a Standards Development Committee of job evaluation providers, equity advisors, the Human Resources Institute of New Zealand, employer groups, and unions from the public and private sectors.

How the Standard is met needs to be demonstrated for each job evaluation project, since the Standard deals with both scheme design and about how job evaluation is carried out.

The format for this report has been developed in consultation with the Standard's original committee. Its main objective is to provide a framework for demonstrating how the requirements of the Standard will be, are being, and/or have been met in a particular job evaluation project.

This report includes references to relevant materials on job evaluation and gender bias that have been collected in the Pay and Employment Equity Unit's Gender Bias in Job Evaluation: A Resource Collection.

Demonstrating meeting the Standard

This report aims to show how the job evaluation process employed by the Dorfox Foundation meets the Standard's requirements

3.3 Planning the job evaluation project

Overview

Taking time to plan the job evaluation project helps to ensure that it will include all the information and resources everyone needs to participate effectively. If shortcuts are taken, there is a risk of overlooking steps crucial to ensuring the job evaluation process achieves its gender equity objectives.

Outcome

The job evaluation project plan sets out how gender bias will be avoided.

3.4 Participants in the job evaluation project

Overview

The size and scope of the job evaluation project affect how it is conducted and who is involved. Representative committees can make a valuable contribution where a wide range of jobs are being evaluated or where a new job evaluation scheme is being introduced. Smaller scale job evaluation projects (for example, where a few jobs are being evaluated or re-evaluated) may involve internal staff or external job evaluation consultants.

3.5 Selection of job evaluation schemes

Overview

The capacity of job evaluation schemes to analyse different types of work (including service sector and human services work) is varied. Whether job evaluation schemes fully and fairly capture and analyse different types of jobs can have gender implications, particularly where jobs are mainly held by women or men. When choosing a job evaluation scheme important considerations include:

(a) Do the factors capture important similarities and differences between the jobs being evaluated? and

(b) What is the effect of weightings (implicit and explicit, preset or tailored) on the rankings of jobs mainly held by women or men?

3.6 Jobs included in job evaluation

Overview

The jobs selected for evaluation should be representative of the jobs covered in the project and represent the range of work performed. It is important to include jobs with unique characteristics and jobs predominantly occupied by one gender, even if the overall numbers are small.

Outcome

The sample of jobs selected represents the full range of the work that is carried out.

3.7 Job information

Overview

Gender bias can occur when data is being gathered or analysed (including in questionnaires, interviews, work observation or focus groups). Job holders and/or their managers will be better able to provide quality job information when the information gathering process covers the range and contribution of the job and its purpose, accountabilities and outcomes.

4 Evaluating the jobs

4.2 The evaluation process

Overview

Job evaluators necessarily exercise judgment in making their decisions. These judgments are influenced by individual values and personal experiences. Evaluators can reduce the risk of making unfair decisions based on gender by developing an understanding of how gender bias arises, and using consistent processes for conducting the job evaluations.

Outcome

The job evaluation process used is consistently applied to all job evaluations without gender bias.

4.3 Monitoring and checking evaluation outcomes

Overview

If the application of gender-inclusive job evaluation results in some previously unrecognised or undervalued aspects of work dominated by one gender being measured, this will most likely alter the relative size of some jobs mainly held by women or men.

4.4 Appeals

Overview

Having an appeals procedure as part of the overall job evaluation project will help to demonstrate commitment to a fair and open process that identifies and addresses gender bias. The size of the organisation(s) and the job evaluation project and the range of jobs covered may affect whether an appeal is conducted by a panel/committee or by an individual. Once jobs have been sized, job holders can use the appeals procedure to challenge evaluation scores or job rankings.

Outcome

Any gender bias in the job evaluation process can be redressed.

4.5 Slotting

Overview

Once the formal job evaluation of the selected benchmark positions has been completed, any appeals resolved and the final outcomes reviewed by the person responsible for the job evaluation project, the remaining jobs can be slotted into the overall ranking of the evaluated benchmark positions. Where jobs do not match any on the list, they are 'slotted' between positions that are considered larger or smaller than the role and assigned the appropriate job size. Non-matching jobs may need to be compared to evaluated jobs on the list through an analytical process applying relevant factors. Slotting is most effective when the jobs to be slotted are very similar to evaluated jobs.

Outcome

All jobs are ranked. Roles not corresponding with benchmark positions are included in the overall ranking of all positions through a slotting process. This is implemented in line with the gender-inclusive requirements and guidance set out for the job evaluation process. (See sections 3 and 4)

4.6 Re-evaluating jobs

Overview

Changes in technology, organisational structure, business directions, economic conditions and labour market conditions can affect the design and scope of jobs. Job characteristics allocated a high points score may become more or less important. It is likely that the understanding of some types of work, gender bias, and skills will continue to develop. Devising a systematic process to ensure all job descriptions are updated and evaluations remain relevant will enhance the value of the original job evaluation project.

4.7 Monitoring and reviewing remuneration outcomes

Overview

Where a gender-inclusive job evaluation shows that occupations or jobs mainly held by women have previously been undervalued, remuneration for those jobs may increase. Linking the job evaluation outcomes to a remuneration scheme designed to treat all jobs equitably according to their ranking should further reduce the opportunity for gender bias. It is important to examine other processes used to set pay to avoid the re-introduction of gender bias.

Outcome

Remuneration outcomes are monitored and reviewed, including analysis by gender, and remuneration is changed where necessary to achieve equitable treatment of jobs that are the same or substantially similar in size and mainly held by women or men.

Objectives of project

1. To conduct a job evaluation audit review of approximately 48 positions.
2. To determine the suitability of the selected positions as benchmarks for derivation of market data appropriate to the broader employee population.
3. To provide access to suitable market remuneration data for comparison of job evaluated positions as part of the remuneration setting process.
4. (If required) To assist with the development of an effective, comprehensive remuneration structure applicable to those positions covered by individual employment contracts.

Gender equity principles #3.3.1.2(b)

In all stages, the project undertakes to adhere to the following principles of gender-inclusive job evaluation as based on the Haldimand-Norfolk case (1991) as follows:

• The job evaluation system must consider the particular establishment (workplace) and the range of work of women in the establishment.
• The language must be understandable to employees so incumbents can properly recognise and report the skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions required in their work and as applicable to the project.
• Incumbents should be educated about the job evaluation process and about pay equity before completing job information questionnaires.
• Skills should not be defined to cover only managerial jobs; communications skills should include not only non-verbal communications but also the need to quickly alter the level or sophistication of communication.
• Assignment of value should not be restricted to 'normally' or 'frequently' required skills, responsibilities, effort or conditions because the infrequent may be critical to the work.
• Consistency is a necessary but not sufficient requirement of gender neutrality.
• Attaching a value to various factors is not just a technical action, but a manifestation of value judgements made between female and male job characteristics.

Compliance with these principles will be documented throughout the project.

Gender neutrality of the job evaluation scheme

A letter attesting to the gender neutrality of the job evaluation scheme chosen for this project is attached to this Project plan (see Appendix B - Statement by project leader). Documentation on the review of the scheme for this purpose is available for inspection. #3.5.2.2

Gender bias training #3.3.1.2 (d)

Training materials on the avoidance of gender bias will be provided to all participants in the job evaluation process. These materials are attached as a supplement to this plan (see Appendix E - Project plan supplement on gender bias training).

The job evaluation process #3.3.1.2(e)

Dibble Associates propose application of our Dibble system for the job evaluation of these positions. A supplementary letter is attached to this plan (see Appendix D - Consultant memorandum on gender-inclusiveness of Dibble System) attesting to the gender-inclusiveness of the Dibble job evaluation system and the manual for that system. #3.5.2.2

Consultant capability in gender-inclusive issues #3.4.3.2(a)(b)(c)

A supplementary letter is attached (see Appendix C - Statement by consultant) attesting to the qualifications of the consultant with regard to Gender-inclusive issues.

The consultant will actively monitor and review the project and document the processes in relation to gender bias as provided in the Standard.

Presentations will be made to management and staff in the course of this process. This will provide them with an overview of the Dibble job evaluation system, survey capability and remuneration philosophy, while reassuring them of the on-going continuity of the consulting assistance offered. #3.5.3.2(c)

The presentation will include an outline of the Dibble job evaluation scheme, its factors and how they differentiate among jobs.

The Dibble job evaluation system #3.5.3.2(a)(b)(d)(e)

The factor rating charts that comprise the Dibble job sizing system evolved from our work with clients in customising job evaluation factor plans to suit their business needs and values systems. In working with those clients to benchmark their points to market salary surveys, it became clear that certain elements bear the most weight in assigning job size and determining market value. The Dibble job sizing system is a tool for assessing the content and relative size of jobs using a total of five factors or job sizing criteria.

The lengthy and extensive experience of Dibble Associates in the application of the Dibble system has demonstrated that the factors in the system provide important, acceptable and comprehensive criteria for ranking jobs. The factors used can measure the characteristics of all jobs to which they have been applied and are defined in levels that differentiate between jobs. The factor levels have been carefully defined to avoid double counting of the features of jobs.

Factor weightings of the Dibble job evaluation system #3.5.4.2(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)

The weightings of the five factors in the Dibble scheme are as follows.

• Accountability 24%
• Complexity 26%
• People 8%
• Interpersonal skills 19%
• Expertise 23%

The appropriateness of these weightings has been determined through long and extensive use on thousands and thousands of jobs across all sectors of the New Zealand employment market. In all that time, not a single claim of gender bias has ever been raised against the system.

The Dibble system does not provide for the tailoring of these weightings.

The Dibble system has no factors that are exclusive to jobs mainly held by women or men. Some advocates have claimed that factors on interpersonal skills tend to relate more closely to jobs held by women while factors on experience tend to relate more closely to jobs held by men. As is evident above, the weightings of these factors are comparable and therefore provide no 'advantage' to either group.

Dibble Associates regularly reviews its job evaluation systems and processes and tests them for potential exposure to bias of various kinds. The latest review was in mid 2007 when the Job evaluation manual was audited closely for any such exposure. Documentation on that review is available for inspection.

Training of data gatherers #3.7.2.2(c)

Data gatherers will be selected by management for purposes of facilitating completion of the questionnaires by employees. Data gatherers will be chosen with due regard to balance in terms of job level, pay grade, tenure, gender, and representation of any groups considered appropriate. The consultant will arrange for training of the data gatherers in gender bias recognition and techniques for avoiding it in the data collection process. If appropriate, external experts in gender-inclusive training may be invited to assist at this stage of the project.

Information collection

In this exercise, we will draw on the multiple following sources of information to ensure the job information is comprehensive. #3.7.2.2(d)

Sources of information will include:

1. Interviews with selected managers in order to obtain their views of how the jobs are expected to function in relation to each other within the organisation along with a clearer understanding of the structure and operations of the organisation.
2. Existing position descriptions for those jobs where such documentation is available.
3. Questionnaires completed by selected jobholders or other knowledgeable persons to supplement the information typically available in position descriptions. This is optional depending on the quality of other sources of information.
4. Written materials on the organisation provided in the course of the project, including material from the organisation's website.

A sample questionnaire is provided which will be reviewed and revised as appropriate.

Collection of information will be done within the following principles:

• The information collection process will be applied consistently across all jobs, and all participating jobholders will be given equal opportunity for input into the process. #3.7.2.2(a)
• All information collected will be current and relevant to the job evaluation process. The focus will be on the job as it currently exists and not as it once was or may be in the future. #3.7.2.2(b)

Use of committee in review process #3.4.2.2(a)

Evaluation of positions will be done through a review of current position descriptions and questionnaires by the consultant who will provisionally determine the assigned job sizes for each position. This approach is considered the most effective in terms of time and resources required for the initial evaluations.

Following this, a select group, will review the provisional results with the consultant to arrive at a final agreed ranking of jobs. This would be accomplished through a workshop process likely to take most of a day. The resulting ranking will be appropriate for further work, and the management group will become familiar with the job evaluation process and able to draft further evaluations as required.

As part of this process, the consultant will provide training and informational materials as appropriate on the job evaluation process, the particular scheme used and the gender equity aspects of the exercise. #3.4.2.2(d)

The evaluation review process #4.2.1.2(a)(b)(c)

In the committee review stage, the consultant will ensure that all members have appropriate opportunity to participate and contribute. It will be the consultant's responsibility to ensure that all members apply the job evaluation process consistently across all jobs reviewed. A written record of the decisions reached including any exceptions or issues of note will be included in the project report on completion of the project.

Checking the results of the job evaluation process #4.3.2.2(a)(b)(c)

Upon completion of the exercise, the consultant will provide a report on the process. This report will include an analysis of any detectable distinction in the outcomes as they relate to jobs mainly held by women or men at any levels. This will include the final point scores as well as the individual factor scores of all jobs reviewed.

Comment will be provided on any differences detected in the ranking of jobs held mainly by women or men before and after the job evaluation process and whether any such differences can be justified.

Recommendations will be made for addressing any such differences detected that are not justified.

Review or appeals process #4.4.1.2(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)

Following completion of the deliberations of the job evaluation review committee, the results will be provided to jobholders in an agreed format. The outcomes will be explained to jobholders in clear format. A review or appeals process will be made available to those employees who feel strongly that the outcome does not fairly reflect the contribution of their roles to the organisation. A model for that review process is attached as a supplement to this plan.

Monitoring the outcome of review or appeals process #4.4.2.2(a)(b)(c)

The outcome of the review process will be reviewed for any gender distinctions that may be detected. Any such distinctions will be documented and justified. Any such distinctions that can not be justified will be reviewed further.

On-going job sizing process #4.5.1.2(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)

While there are different approaches to the on-going use of a job evaluation process, we propose the following slotting process as the most effective means of meeting the client's needs as outlined in our discussion. When evaluations are required, up to date position descriptions, along any relevant information on that part of the organisation and its activities, will be provided for any new positions. If you wish, jobholders, or other appropriate personnel, will be allowed to complete individual questionnaires providing additional information on the roles. Slotting will be applied only as single jobs are required to be sized, and management will undertake to complete a wider, more formal job evaluation process whenever any substantial number of jobs require reviewing.

• Slotting will be undertaken by the consultant who understands the jobs, the organisation and the job evaluation methodology.
• The consultant is competent in all aspects of gender-inclusive job evaluation as described in this Standard
• Slotting will be based on full information comparable to that used in the initial project, including a current position description that has been prepared using the gender-inclusive requirements set out in the Standard.
• The consultant will apply the same analytical process in comparing demands made in individual jobs (as identified in the job documentation) as in the original exercise.
• Slotting recommendations will be validated in the same manner as the evaluated positions.
• Slotted positions will be identified and distinguished from those job evaluated in all relevant documentation.
• The outcomes of the slotting process will be checked against the outcomes of the initial exercise to ensure all applicable principles are applied equally.
• Job holders have access to an appeals process similar to that set out for the job evaluated benchmark roles.

On-going maintenance of the job evaluation process #4.6.2.2(a)(b)(c)

Management will undertake to review the status of the job evaluation process every three years. Such review will include an analysis of any distinctions among roles by gender that may be identified.

Criteria will be identified to use for checking the currency of evaluations and relativities.

Data relating to the gender composition of the jobs and roles in the organisation will be collected and reviewed regularly.

Monitoring and reviewing remuneration outcomes #4.7.1.2 (a)(b)(c)(d)

A report will be prepared in which the pre and post job evaluation outcomes will be analysed in terms of jobholder gender and overall ranking in the organisation.

A further report will be written describing final pay outcomes including analysis by gender. This report will focus on jobs evaluated as being equal of substantially similar in size and that are occupied predominantly by different genders.

If any significant differences in remuneration are identified between roles that are the same of substantially the same in size, and those differences correspond to gender rather than other, clearly identifiable and acceptable differences, e.g. tenure or performance, these will be reported on in detail.

Jobs to be included in the project

The jobs listed on the following page are to be reviewed in this project.

These jobs represent a fair sampling of the positions held by women and men in the organisation.

Due consideration was given to ensure that this sample fairly represents mixed-gender jobs, the full range of job types and features in the organisation, jobs with unique characteristics and any jobs where gender or job sizing concerns may have arisen. #3.6.2.2(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)

• Research Director
• National Action Manager
• Communications Manager
• Senior Researcher
• Manager Finance & Admin Svcs
• National Fundraising and Events Coordinator
• Regional Manager - North
• Regional Manager - Central
• Regional Manager - Midland
• Regional Manager - South
• Project Coordinator
• Action Team Leader
• Promotion Team Leader
• Maori Team Leader
• National Campaigns Coordinator
• Policy Analyst
• Communications Coordinator
• Psychotherapist
• Project Analyst Midland
• Project Analyst Auckland/Northland
• Health Promoter Pacific Peoples
• Health Promoter WTN
• Health Promoter AKL
• Health Promoter AKL
• Health Promoter WTN
• Health Promoter CCH
• Health Promoter HAM
• Health Promoter AKL
• Counsellor - HAM
• Counsellor - WTN
• Counsellor - CCH
• Counsellor - National
• Counsellor/Promoter Pacific
• Librarian/Network Administrator
• IT and E Technology Coordinator
• Administration Coordinator - NO
• Administration Assistant - AKL
• Administration Assistant - HAM
• Administration Assistant - WTN
• Administration Assistant - CCH
• Administration Assistant - NO
• Administration Assistant - NO

Dibble job evaluation and gender bias

Dibble Associates Limited is an advocate of equal opportunity in employment. The principles of equal employment opportunity are integral to our consulting processes. In particular, Dibble Associates has examined one of its key consulting tools, its job evaluation system, to ensure that it is not only the most effective way of valuing jobs, but that it is essentially gender neutral.

Traditionally, job evaluation has been perceived as effective in determining the value of a combination of job responsibilities within an organisation to help explain internal job relativities, pay differentials and career opportunities. In recent years, however, there have been dramatic changes in jobs and in the workforce, including the influx of women into professional and managerial roles. In addition, jobs continue to evolve from a production to a service orientation, with a proliferation of job types and employees at all levels handling vastly more sophisticated equipment, systems and tasks. These changes have exposed some inherent weaknesses in conventional job evaluation methods.

There is no evidence that traditional job evaluation systems have been deliberately built on a gender-neutral basis. Concerns are now widely expressed about their potential for undervaluing women's work. Repeatedly, three aspects of the job evaluation process have been criticised as inherently gender biased: the choice and weightings of factors against which jobs are evaluated, job data collection techniques and the evaluation process itself.

If it is to be a useful job analysis tool, it is essential that job evaluation is a gender neutral process. Both the process and the technology of the Dibble approach comprehensively address the issue of gender bias.

Internal Memorandum

TO: Clients of Dibble Associates Limited and Dibble Consultants

FROM: Joshua Dibble, Senior Consultant

REF: Gender-inclusiveness of Dibble system - Attestation

Date: 1 May 2007

At the request of the directors, I was asked to review the Dibble job evaluation system, including the manual, with regard to its compliance with the new Standard for Gender-inclusive Job Evaluation as drawn up by Standards New Zealand.

I went through the Dibble manual line by line, reviewing it for 'vulnerabilities' with regard to gender-inclusiveness issues.

In particular, I searched for words, phrases, examples, etc. that could potentially be identified as "vulnerable to discussion" as regards gender-inclusiveness issues.

In my memo of 29 January, I pointed out my belief that the manual needed some grammatical editing and that a few examples that seemed to refer mainly to particular client groups needed to be replaced.

I subsequently edited the manual wherein I substituted some examples and tidied up the grammar. I can now state unequivocally that the latest version of the manual has no problem when examined for gender-inclusive issues. The system and the manual now comply with all of the "Requirements" clauses of the Standard for Gender-inclusive Job Evaluation.

I would be absolutely confident in allowing interested parties to examine the Manual for purposes of ascertaining the verity of my statement.

I would be happy to respond to any queries in this regard.

Gender-inclusion considerations in job evaluation

Compliance with Gender-inclusive Job Evaluation Standard #3.4.3.2(c)

Through all stages of the project, the consultant monitored and review project proceedings to ensure compliance with the Standard in ensuring gender-inclusiveness. This included informing client staff on the potential for gender bias creeping into the process at various points as well as giving examples from other projects where such bias was detected.

In the case of the Dorfox Foundation project, the cultural makeup of the organisation played a key role in support of the Gender-inclusive Standard. By the very nature of the organisation, gender is not considered an issue for internal matters of employment or for more external matters of image and public relations. The issue of ethnic background is a far more critical issue for the organisation.

The consultant made it clear that all processes and issues relating to gender-inclusiveness apply equally to matters of ethnicity. No issues or problems relating to any of these aspects of inclusiveness were encountered in this project.

The evaluation process #4.2.1.2(a)(b)(c)

Evaluations were conducted initially by the consultant whose credentials in gender-inclusiveness are established elsewhere. In the course of the review of provisional evaluations by the management team, the consultant reminded participants of the relevance and importance of gender-inclusiveness throughout the process.

In the course of the review of the provisional evaluations, all members of the management team were encouraged to voice their opinions and express and concerns they may have had over any particular factor evaluations. Each manager was particularly requested to consider the relativities among positions reporting to them. Participation and contribution to the process by the management team was full and equal.

The consultant ensured further that the evaluation process and all commentary and discussion were applied to all positions equally and consistently.

The factor by factor evaluation table produced at the end of the project provides a written record of the evaluation decisions made by the consultant and confirmed by the review group. Written statements of the five factor evaluation statements are available to serve as a record of the decisions made and the language that supports these decisions.

Monitoring and checking evaluation outcomes #4.3.2.2(a)(b)(c)

Following completion of the job evaluation exercise and agreement on all scores and the overall ranking, the consultant analysed the results in terms of gender.

While it is difficult to undertake detailed analysis of any great length with a small sample of positions, the following was noted.

Band A includes the female Chief Executive role alone.

Band B includes three jobs filled by males. Any gender issues at this level would be a function of employment practices, not job sizing.

Band C includes two jobs. The male Researcher role scored higher in Work Complexity and Expertise while the female Finance/Admin Manager role scored higher in Accountability and Responsibility for People. Due to the lower weighting of the Responsibility for People factor, the female role was scored lower overall (478 points to 458 points), but both roles were placed in the same band.

Band D includes five jobs, two filled by males, two by females and one vacant. Due to a higher requirement for Relating to People, the male Fundraising role scored higher, while the remaining Regional Manager roles all scored equally. The jobs are all in the same band, and the Fundraising role is seen as one that could equally be filled by a females.

Band E includes seven jobs, one of which is vacant and all the others filled by males. Due to the unique requirements of Dorfox, these are all roles that are appropriately filled by males, with the exception of the Communications role, these are Team Leader roles that scored higher than the following Band due to greater Accountability and Responsibility for People.

Band F includes 21 jobs, 9 of which are filled by females. This is the only band with enough jobholders to identify different 'kinds' of jobs. The three main 'kinds' of jobs in this band are Psychotherapists (3 out of 4 female), Health Promoters (3 out of 7 female), and Counsellors (3 out of 5 female). In each of these cases, the females were scored the same as the males, and the role with the highest proportion of females (Psychotherapists) was scored the highest. The male Kaimahi role was scored in the middle of the group and the male Librarian received the lowest score of the band.

Band G includes 2 jobs. The male IT role scored higher in Work Complexity and Expertise while the female Administration role scored higher in Accountability and Responsibility for People. Due to the lower weighting of the Responsibility for People factor, the female role was scored lower overall (236 points to 249 points), but both roles were placed in the same band.

Band H includes 6 jobs, 3 held by males and 3 by females. Four of these roles scoring at a higher level (168 points) were filled by 2 males and 2 females. The two lower scoring roles were filled by a male and a female.

This analysis shows that any differences between job evaluation scores of male and female roles, few as they may be are justified in the different requirements of the roles. The distribution of female jobholders and female roles throughout the organisation and their distribution across the resulting job size bands is unremarkable in this regard.

Appeal process - Preparation #4.4.1.2(d)

Requests for review of job evaluation outcomes were received from the following jobholders.

Communications Coordinator

Health Promoter Hamilton

Librarian/Network Administrator

Administration Assistant - National Office

Requests were first reviewed by the consultant for completeness and relevancy of the case made by the jobholder. The same standards of gender-inclusiveness as noted previously were applied in this process.

Appeal process - Committee #4.4.1.2(f)

Requests deemed complete were then considered by the review committee consisting of the following senior staff representing both male and female employees.

The review process began with a reminder by the consultant of the continued applicability of the gender-inclusive training provided previously.

Appeal process - Documentation #4.4.1.2(e)

Following consideration of the submission of each review applicant, a written report was provided to each jobholder detailing the findings of the Review Committee. These reports form the documentation for the Review process.

Outcome of appeal process #4.4.2.2(a)(b)(c)

The outcomes of the review process were monitored for gender issues in the same manner as the initial outcomes of the job sizing process.

The review committee agreed that the following differences were justified. Further, the committee submits that any of these jobs could be filled equally by male or female employees and that, therefore, even these detectable differences can not be seen to be a result of gender bias.

The documented review process forms part of the overall project report and establishes a procedure through which jobs may be reviewed in the future.

Slotting of future jobs #4.5.1.2(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)

As an alternative to the committee process applied in the job evaluation of the first 46 jobs in the organisation, a slotting process will be used for the sizing of one off roles as required in the near future. The slotting process will be applied only as single jobs are required to be sized, and management will undertake to complete a wider, more formal job evaluation process whenever any substantial number of jobs require reviewing.

Slotting will be undertaken by an external consultant familiar with the jobs, the organisation and the job evaluation methodology.

The consultant will demonstrate understanding of gender-inclusive job evaluation as required.

Slotting will be based on information comparable to that used in the initial project, i.e. position descriptions and completed supplementary job questionnaires.

The consultant will apply the same analytical job evaluation process in sizing new roles and will document the outcomes of that process.

The slotted jobs will be validated by the Management Review Committee.

Slotted jobs will be identified as such in the records relevant to the job evaluation process.

The slotting will be checked against the outcomes of the initial job evaluation process to ensure all applicable principles are applied equally.

Jobholders of slotted jobs will have access to the same appeals process as that used initially.

Memorandum to staff

TO Staff

FROM Human Resources

REF Job evaluation exercise

DATE

The evaluation stage of the job evaluation project has now been completed. This work was completed by a job evaluation committee working with a consultant from Dibble Consulting.

The project committee would now like to share the results of that work with you. Firstly, it is important to remember is that no individual salaries will be reduced as a result of the job evaluation exercise.

Accompanying this memorandum are the following documents.

• Results of the job evaluation exercise in band list form which indicates which all jobs have been evaluated as being broadly the same size.
• Clarification of some aspects of the job evaluation process to assist your understanding of how it works.
• Notes on the job evaluation band list explaining its meaning and how decisions were reached as well as the relationship of these bands to the remuneration setting process. While the job evaluation exercise comes to an end when the bands are assigned and accepted for each position, staff are often concerned with how the exercise and resulting points scores might affect their individual remuneration. These notes are provided to cover some of the relevant points in this regard.
• Sample "Request for review" form - should you feel your position has been placed in an inappropriate band.

The job evaluation committee studied position descriptions along with the questionnaires jobholders completed and made its decisions carefully using the job evaluation manual. We would like to re-emphasise that we looked only at the job and not at any individual jobholders or their performance in their jobs.

If you have any questions about the process or outcomes, please contact your manager.

Memorandum to staff

Memorandum to staff

Job evaluation project

Compliance with Gender-inclusive Job Evaluation Standard #4.7.1.2(a)(b)(c)(d)

This report will compare the pre and post job evaluation outcomes, including in the comparison an analysis of mixed jobs and jobs mainly held by women or men

This report will monitor and review the final pay outcomes including analysis by gender

This report will analyse by gender the final pay rates for jobs evaluated as being equal or substantially similar in size

This report will discuss the reasons for remuneration differences when occupations with jobs mainly held by women or men are the same or substantially the same size