Equal pay reviews: designing and implementing a non-discriminatory job evaluation scheme

Section 5 of the Personnel Today Management Resources one stop guide on equal pay reviews. Other sections.

An analytical job evaluation scheme should be at the heart of any equal pay review. It is the only reliable way of ensuring that men and women are receiving equal pay for work for equal value. However, even an analytical scheme will not safeguard against or help employers defend equal pay claims unless it is free of sex bias itself. The following guidance, based on EOC advice, should ensure that you to design and implement such a scheme.

1. Ensure your factor plan is fair

A job evaluation scheme is based on 'factors' or demands of the job, to each of which a value is added. This can range from communication skills to manual dexterity, responsibility for people to emotional demands. In order to be fair, a scheme factor plan must include all significant demands of the jobs included, and must attach a fair value to each one. The factors to be included should be clearly defined and described in detail.

The factor plan could be discriminatory if it includes factors that tend to favour men, such as physical strength or working conditions, or if it attaches an unjustifiably high value to them, but excludes or unjustifiably under-values others that tend to favour women, such as manual dexterity or caring skills.

To check this, you could either analyse job descriptions and specifications from a sample of typically male and female jobs, and see whether all the job features are covered by factors in the job evaluation scheme; or check the scheme factors against a list of frequently overlooked factors and a list of factors that favour typically male or female jobs.

2. Ensure different factor levels reflect measurable steps in job demand

The steps should be significant and measurable, and appropriately scored. The number of levels for each factor should also be checked to ensure they are objectively justifiable. For example, a male-oriented factor may have five levels, with scores increasing in multiples of five. A female-oriented factor may have five levels, with scores increasing in threes. This means the maximum score for the male factor is 25, whereas it is 15 for the female factor. This means the male factor is effectively weighted in the job evaluation scheme and could lead to indirect discrimination.

3. Ensure the rationale for weighting and scoring the factors is as objective as possible and documented

Weighting is intended to reflect the relative importance of the various factors to the organisation as a whole. This is usually done on a 'felt fair' basis, and it is easy for bias towards predominantly male or female jobs to creep in to the process.

The EOC advises employers to avoid giving very high or low weightings to factors usually or exclusively found in predominantly male or female jobs. You can check for bias by comparing the ranking of jobs resulting from simply adding up raw scores (one point per level per factor) with the ranking obtained by applying the weighting. If female-dominated jobs are affected more than male-dominated jobs, the weighting may be biased.

4. Get job descriptions right

Write job descriptions to an agreed format that clearly reflects the factor plan. Ensure they are gender neutral, so the sex of the job holder is concealed. They should be assessed to a common standard and should be as consistent, realistic and objective as possible. It is often a good idea to include job holders and trained job analysts when writing job descriptions. Provide guidance notes containing a comprehensive list of factors in the jobs to be assessed.

5. Select benchmark jobs carefully

Benchmark jobs are used as a standard because they are considered typical of a grade or group of jobs. Discrimination can take place if they do not represent a fair spread of work done in the organisation. Benchmark jobs are often used to come up with the factors and weights to be used in the evaluation scheme, so it is vital that jobs done primarily by women are included and adequately represented.

6. Involve jobholders, assisted by job analysts, in evaluating jobs

If job questionnaires are completed by line managers or personnel staff without the input of those actually doing the work, there is a danger that certain job demands may be omitted or understated. It is good practice to use analysts trained in equality issues to help workers provide the information required to an adequate standard, as this helps prevent inconsistencies and bias.

Ensure the job questionnaire follows the job evaluation scheme factor plan to avoid evaluators making any assumptions about job demands. It is a good idea to keep staff fully informed of the progress of the scheme.

7. Use a job evaluation panel representative of the workforce and trained in equality issues to evaluate jobs

A panel with broad knowledge of jobs across the organisation, representative of sections of the workforce and aware of how sex bias can taint evaluation will ensure the exercise is as fair and objective as possible.

8. Maintain records including the reason for each factor assessment

This ensures the scheme is as transparent as possible, allowing evaluators to be consistent, their reasons to be explained to jobholders and appeal panels, as well as to tribunals if challenged legally.

9. Place grade boundaries carefully

Ensure the positioning of grade boundaries under the new scheme does not discriminate against female employees. Can the placing of the boundaries be justified by reference to factors such as the even size of grades, or natural breaks in the scores? Can it be justified by some reason other than the sex of the job holders? Cut-off points between grades that act to segregate jobs done mainly by men and those done by women could lead to discriminatory pay and status differentials. Can the positioning of the boundary be justified by reference to objective business reasons?

10. Take care with red-circling

Where the job evaluation scheme shows anomalies in the pay system, some people may be on pay rates above the new rates for their grade. In this case they may be allowed to keep their current package but when they leave the job it reverts to the new rate. Alternatively, their pay may be phased into line by restricting or withholding subsequent rises. However, red-circling that results in men receiving higher pay than women doing work rated as equivalent could itself result in an equal pay claim. The tribunal may accept red-circling as a defence against such a claim depending on how long it has been in operation, whether the initial reason for the pay discrepancy remains justifiable and whether the employer acted in accordance with best employee relations practice. But the EAT has held that red circling cannot be used as a defence if past sex discrimination is the cause of the difference in pay.

11. Assess the impact of the job evaluation scheme on job rankings

Compare the order of job rankings resulting from the scheme with the one that existed before, either under a previous job evaluation scheme or implicit in the pay structure. Where the previous grading structure was not based on analytical job evaluation and few jobs have changed position in the rank order, you will need to re-check the scheme for hidden bias.

Identify the jobs that have moved up and down the rankings - are they jobs done predominantly by one sex? If mainly male jobs have moved up the rankings, can you justify this by reference to increased job demands? If not you need to review the scheme design and implementation. Likewise where female-dominated jobs have moved down the ranks, can this be justified by reference to job demands?

There should be a formal appeals procedure to deal with cases where the employees believe their jobs have been unfairly evaluated. This should include a representative appeals panel trained in job evaluation and equality issues. Staff should be aware of the appeals procedure and how to use it and everyone should have equal access to the procedure.

12. Maintain and monitor the scheme on a regular basis

Responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the scheme should be clearly allocated at the outset. A scheme will need to be revisited where, for example, there are claims for re-grading, reassessments due to changes in job content or the introduction of new jobs. Where a revision results in more downward revisions of women's jobs than men's, make sure this can be justified on grounds other than the sex of the jobholders or the previous pay structure. Comprehensive records will need to be kept.

Review the job evaluation scheme periodically to ensure that discrimination has not crept in. This should involve analysing the number of employees by gender, job title, grade and salary for both the existing pay structure and the previous one. If gender imbalances arise, get more detailed information to find out where the problem lies.

13. Ensure all jobs within the relevant workforce have been evaluated

Holders of jobs that fall outside the scope of an analytical job evaluation scheme could make an equal pay claim and the scheme will not provide a defence.

14. Where you have more than one job evaluation scheme in operation, make comparisons between the schemes.

You can do this either by using both schemes to evaluate a small number of jobs from each scheme that are closest in nature to each other, and comparing the results; or by undertaking equal value checks on a sample of predominantly male and female jobs from each scheme to test for vulnerability to equal pay claims.

Find out more

Good practice guide - job evaluation schemes free of sex bias - EOC, www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/advice/good_practice_guide_-_job_evaluation_schemes_ free_of_sex_bias.asp

How biased factors can produce biased rankings for two jobs