Here are some of the common myths you might hear from your colleagues:

• My manager doesn’t support a band 6 – They’re only confirming accuracy of submission – statement of fact.
• I haven’t got the time to apply – Please make the time! An uplift from band 5 to 6 could be worth up to £9k per year (when at top).
• I need to build a portfolio of evidence – The evidence required for job evaluation is in the form of an updated and agreed job description, person specification and any other appropriate job documentation.
• My job will change if I get a Band 6 – The review is assessing your role as it is NOW, any changes would be subject to further review.
• We’re just Band 5 nurses – Don’t devalue yourselves! Ask yourself whether a newly qualified nurse could do your job?

We want to empower members to understand, articulate and take action to get their job re-evaluated. To do this they'll need to understand the steps they'll need to take. It is a process that can take some time, but the rewards are well worth it. 

• For anyone that is currently on a band 5, we have a leaflet that explains why we are campaigning to uplift anyone who has been languishing with an old outdated job description while in reality doing Band 6 work.
• Remember that the Job Evaluation scheme is for everyone and anyone who feels that their current job description and banding needs review. 
• To take those next steps, we have a great simple online explainer at Seeking a Job Evaluation
• Working collectively can help members to feel empowered and sustain their energy through the process. Consider bringing people together for workplace meetings to raise awareness, plan next steps and seek support. 

Having face-to-face, one to one conversations is the most effective way to get involved with RCN members in your workplace. 

To get members active, here are some simple asks:

• Check your MyRCN account and update their work details (employer, job role)
• Check your job description is up to date
• Think about who else you work with who is on the same job description, and about getting together to review it
• Ask what is happening about the Band 5 review at staff/team meetings.

These are some common employer mistakes and blockers:

• Misuse of national profiles - National job profiles have been jointly agreed by NHS employers and trade unions and are designed to provide consistency and fairness across organisations. All jobs must be reviewed against the nationally agreed job profiles and matched to one where possible. Local evaluation should only be used where matching to a suitable national profile is not possible.
• Using incomplete or outdated job descriptions - The JE Handbook states that matching or evaluation should not proceed unless there is sufficient, accurate and up‑to‑date information about the job. Without this, the outcome could be challenged. 
• Delaying or blocking review requests - Although no deadline is imposed, the Job Evaluation Handbook stresses the importance of maintaining good practice and delays may be challengeable where months pass with no progression or update or panels are postponed repeatedly without explanation.
• Managers downplaying responsibilities, claiming staff don't need to do tasks or that they are only occasional. - What would happen if they stopped doing them? Frequency is only relevant in the 'effort' factors and not any others so should not used to erase tasks or responsibilities. 
• Budget constraints - Affordability is irrelevant. Job evaluation ensures equal pay for equal work. 

Remind the line manager of their responsibilities in the new Annex 31 of the NHS Terms and Conditions Handbook that states that line managers are expected to:

• review job descriptions annually as part of the appraisal process to ensure they are accurate and up to date
• agree your updated job description is accurate and submit to designated management job evaluation lead.

The manager's role is to agree to the job description as a statement of fact. The manager is not deciding to uplift the band.

Disputes in relation to accessing job evaluation, that cannot be resolved informally, can be resolved through local procedures such as grievance.

Job evaluation is crucial for maintaining fairness and equity in pay.It is about being properly remunerated for the role that you are required to do. As such, where it is agreed that a post-holders role has significantly changed and they are to be up banded; financial/budgetary concerns  should not impact this.

Where members are refused an uplift in banding based on financial/budgetary restraints this should be challenged through local process, e.g. grievance

The agreement of back pay is often a contentious issue in job evaluation cases. The NHS Job Evaluation Handbook is very clear that:

"If the banding outcome changes as a result of re-evaluation, that change should be backdated to when the post holder and manager agreed the job has changed."

Disputes about back-dating should be resolved through local procedures.

The use of third parties creates an inherent risk to the integrity of the Job Evaluation Scheme (JES).

• Guidance clearly states that outsourcing job matching, and job evaluation should be used as a last resort, be a temporary measure, and be a partnership decision. See Section 8.4 of the Job Evaluation Handbook
• JE must be delivered in partnership and there is no provision for staff side unions to accredit job matching or evaluation practitioners to work for private providers.
• This measure should be time limited with a plan to develop necessary capacity to maintain good job evaluation practice within the organisation.
• Where aware of outsourcing, this should be raised at local partnership forums.

Questions to ask:

• How was the decision made to outsource JE? Was it done in partnership?
• What steps have been taken to build management and staff side JE capacity?
• What is the plan for bringing JE back in house?
• How can the organisation ensure third-party panels have appropriate and up to date training?
• How will these panels be conducted in partnership?
• How will consistency checking be completed?
• Has this been added to the risk register as increases risk of equal pay claims

One case is a problem - a pattern is leverage

Try and move from individual cases to looking for patterns such as:

• Repeated under banding in specific job roles
• Delays
• Consistent downgrading of certain factors.

Challenging inconsistency - Don’t let repeated issues stay on a ‘case by case’ basis

Ensure Job Evaluation is part of the standing agenda at partnership forums so that you can review updates on:

• Local JE processes
• Banding outcomes by job family
• Delays or issues.

• Gather outcomes across departments/organisations.
• Identify inconsistencies in banding outcomes
• Gather member experiences

This can build and strengthen collective challenges.

Legislation provides that men and women are entitled to equal pay for:

• Like work
• Work rated as equivalent
• Work of equal value

Work of equal value means, different jobs that:

• Require similar levels of skill
• Involve similar levels of responsibility
• Demand comparable effort
• Operate under similar working conditions

The 16-factor framework measures these elements objectively and the Job Evaluation Scheme provides a defence against equal pay claims, but only if implemented properly.

Prior to Agenda for Change and the Job Evaluation Scheme, a significant case challenged historical NHS pay structures (Enderby v Frenchay, 1992)

The scheme could be described as an analytical scheme which:

• Breaks jobs into measurable factors
• Applies consistent scoring levels
• Produces defensible outcomes
• Provides legal robustness

Risk increases where:

• Panels are not properly trained or inappropriately comprised
• Documentation is incomplete
• Inconsistent scoring occurs
• Local ‘custom and practice’ overrides national guidance
• Financial pressures influence outcomes.

If job evaluation is misapplied, organisational risks include:

• Equal pay claims
• Back pay liabilities (potentially up to 6yrs)
• Significant financial costs
• Reputational damage

Consistent Job Evaluation application, aligned to the national Job Evaluation Handbook, reduces this exposure.

Potential bias risks include:

• Gender stereotyping of roles
• Undervaluing of responsibilities
• Assumptions about job titles

Panels must rely strictly on factor definitions and evidence

Partnership working is a core legal safeguard of the scheme. Partnership panels:

• Provide balanced perspectives
• Improve transparency
• Increase confidence in outcomes
• Strengthen local defensibility.

Legal defensibility depends on good documentation with:

• Clear job descriptions
• Recorded factor rationales
• Evidence-based scoring
• Properly documented panel decisions
• Formal review process.

If challenged, documentation becomes critical evidence.

Job Evaluation Reps are fully accredited RCN Reps whose role it is to:

• To communicate accessible and accurate information about the job evaluation scheme: the new nursing profiles, the band 5 employer-led initiative, and other related issues to RCN members in their workplace and wider employer
• To represent the RCN position on job evaluation, and champion the RCN’s standards for how employers should implement these initiatives, within their workplace and wider employer and organise members around this as needed
• To signpost individual members to RCN and employer information, guidance and resources about job evaluation initiatives
• To encourage, support and coordinate collective member activity, both proactively and reactively, to obtain successful job evaluation outcomes for members
• Participate in Job Matching & Evaluation within the employer structure as appropriate.
• To recruit nurses and nursing support workers to the RCN by maximising the opportunities of the job evaluation scheme
• To work with RCN staff, other RCN reps and other active members as appropriate to pursue effective and successful job evaluation outcomes in their workplace and employer.
• To act as professional advocates for the RCN and for career progression for all RCN members in their workplace and wider employer.

An RCN ambassador:

• is often the first point of contact and keeps their direct team and colleagues, whether in the RCN or not, up to date on RCN activities, campaigns, support and services
• promotes RCN events and campaigns by distributingleaflets, adding posters to noticeboard, etc
• signposts colleagues to relevant RCN services and campaigns, if approached
• acts as a local link for RCN reps and RCN officers.

They can really help spread the word and encourage members to take action. 

All RCN reps can support job evaluation in their workplace.

[add when we have clarified this]

Add to to this