The grading review process is open all year therefore employees may apply at any time. Before doing so, employees should review their current job and, if there have been changes, consider the following questions: 

• Are the changes to my role permanent or ongoing?
• Has my role increased in responsibility or accountability for a task/process/resource?
• Have the changes been in place for at least 6-12 months? (We ask this to allow time for the changes to bed down and for the full impact of these changes to be correctly assessed).
• Have I been in this role for at least 12 months? (We ask this because the role will have been reviewed and graded at the time of advertising and major changes are unlikely)?
• Is this the only time in the last 12 months that I have requested a role review?

If the answer is ‘yes’ to all of the above, then the employee may request a role review.

Employees must discuss the changes in their role with their line manager and whether these may be grounds for a grading review application. This would normally be part of your annual Review and Development (RDS) meeting but can happen outside of this cycle. If the line manager believes there is a case, then this should be taken forward as outlined in the Grading Review Policy.

If the line manager is not supportive, the employee may confidentially approach the next line manager up and/or Head of School/Unit to discuss. If this is not appropriate (e.g. the immediate line manager is the Head of School/Unit or there are concerns about going over the immediate line manager’s head), then the employee should discuss the matter with their HR Business Partner.

The Workforce Planning Group (WPG) review all grading review applications to understand the rationale for the request and to provide consistency in approach across Schools/Units. WPG make no decision the grading of the post. 

If WPG believe there is a case, the line manager and applicant are informed and asked to submit a Role Outline Document within 6 months of approval.  If not approved, the line manager and Employee will be provided with the rationale for this and an opportunity to discuss their role with the Senior Role Analyst. It should be noted that in such instances, a further application would not normally be expected within 12 months.

Once approved by WPG, individuals will be asked to complete a Role Outline Document (ROD). The ROD forms the main part of the grading review application.  It essentially provides a detailed overview of the role, split into the 14 HERA elements. 

• Communication
• Teamwork and motivation
• Liaison and networking
• Service delivery
• Decision making processes and outcomes
• Planning and organising resources
• Initiative and problem solving
• Analysis and research
• Sensory and physical demands
• Work environment
• Pastoral care and welfare
• Team development
• Teaching and learning support
• Knowledge and experience

The ROD gives applicants the opportunity to describe what they do backed up with examples and the panels are very experienced in assessing this evidence against the HERA criteria to ensure that all roles are fairly evaluated. However, the employee may find it helpful to get someone unconnected to the role to read the ROD prior to submission to ensure it is clear and explains what they do.

If the panel does not understand something in an ROD, feels that they do not have enough evidence to make a decision in a particular element or cannot agree on a score for a particular element, they will ask the employee (or sometimes their line manager or Head of School/Unit) for clarification. The panel may also move evidence between elements to ensure that it is considered under the correct element, so employees do not need to worry about putting something in the ‘wrong’ place. 

Role Analysts examine the evidence in the ROD to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to 50 questions against which all roles are measured. They then assess the degree to which the activity is undertaken (in order to assign an appropriate response).

For example, the Communication element consists of six questions – three relating to oral communication and three relating to written communication.  The three oral communication questions are:

1. Does the role holder receive, understand and convey straightforward information in a clear and accurate manner?
2. Does the role holder receive, understand and convey information which needs careful explanation or interpretation to help others understand, taking into account what to communicate and how best to convey the information to others?
3. Does the role holder receive, understand and convey complex conceptual ideas or complex information which may be highly detailed, technical or specialist?

There are three possible responses to each of these questions:

• Essential – frequently use
• Essential – occasionally used
• Not relevant

The Role Analysts assess the evidence using detailed guidance notes (built up over the period HERA has been used at the University) and by looking at how other roles have been scored both in the School/Unit and across the University - within the grade, between different grades and across different Job families/Generic role descriptors.  This ensures that roles are being evaluated consistently.    

Once all 50 questions have been allocated a response, they are input into the HERA software  which produces a total score for the job and determines the grade in line with the HERA score ranges.

Role information is scored against the 50 questions under the appropriate element using the HERA scoring system and these scores are then combined to give an overall point score for the role. It is this score that determines the relative value/worth of roles, and ultimately the grade a role is assigned. The score breaks for each grade within the University's grading structure are:

Grading review panels are made up of 3 Role Analysts from within Human Resources and a representative from the appropriate trade union (UCU, Unison or Unite). All panel members are trained in the application of HERA and the grading review process.

Applications are initially assessed within Human Resources before being passed to the trade union panel member with a recommendation as to whether the role should be regraded.  The trade union panel member then assesses the application and approves the recommendation or discusses any areas of disagreement with Human Resources. Further clarification may be required from the employee or the manager before a final decision is made. 

There are 3 possible outcomes from a grading review application:

1. The role is ‘green circled’. In this case the application is successful and the role holder will move to the first point of the new grade backdated to the day the grading review application was approved by the Workforce Planning Group or the Role Outline Document was submitted (if not submitted at the same time as the Head of School/Unit’s paperwork).  
2. The role is ‘white circled’. In this case the application is unsuccessful because the role remains in the current grade.  The role holder will therefore remain on their current grade and scale point. 
3. The role is ‘red circled’. Although very unlikely, there may be cases where the application is unsuccessful because the changes to the role have placed the role in a lower grade than the current one. The role holder will be moved to the lower grade from the 1^st day of the month following submission of the ROD but will be afforded a period of pay protection (at the current grade and scale point) and support to reinstate the role to the original grade or find a post at the same grade elsewhere in the University.

Appeals must be based on procedural grounds only (ie the role holder believes that there has been a breach in the grading review procedures). Appeals cannot be on the grounds that an employee disagrees with the outcome.