Job matching and evaluation matters because they:

• promote equal pay for work of equal value
• ensure transparency
• provide organisational consistency
• reduce equal pay risk.

The key principles:

• The focus in on the job content, not job title.
• The decision is based on evidence from the job information provided.
• The process demonstrates equity and consistency.
• Underpinned by a 'partnership approach' with equal staff side and management involvement.
• Nationally agreed framework delivered locally.

1. Joint ownership of the scheme

• Nationally agreed between NHS Staff Council which includes unions and employers
• Locally, employers and unions are responsible for ensuring the scheme is implemented properly

2. Joint panels

• Job matching/evaluations are carried out in partnership.
• Decisions are made collectively, not solely by employer.

3. Trade union involvement

• Union reps are trained in the JES
• They partake as equal partners in all JE processes locally

4. Consistency and fairness

Partnership working helps ensure:

• Jobs are evaluated objectively using the agreed factor plan.
• Bias is reduced.
• Staff can have confidence in the outcomes.

5. Partnership handling of disputes and reviews

• If staff disagree with a banding outcome, reviews are undertake in partnership by union and employer side representatives.

1. Mutual respect and trust

• Both sides recognise each others legitimacy
• Union reps are treated as partners
• Commitments are honoured

2. Clear communication

• Honest, regular dialogue (not just when problems arise)
• Transparency and access to the relevant information.
• Enable unions to engage constructively rather than speculatively.

3. Early and meaningful engagement

• Consultation happens before decisions are made
• Unions input genuinely influences outcomes
• Union reps can represent and defend members’ interests
• Partnership working does not mean agreeing with everything management proposes

4. Joint problem-solving approach

• Focuses on ‘How do we fix this together?’
• Willingness to negotiate

Jo Evaluation Leads are essential to maintaining the integrity, fairness and transparency of the JES within their trust. They:

• play a vital role in ensuring the fair and consistent application of the NHS Job Evaluation Scheme
• are appointed in partnership, ensuring a collaborative approach to job evaluation
• oversee JE processes, ensuring compliance with good practice guidelines
• advise employees, managers and staff side representatives on the correct procedures and best practices
• support managers and employees who need guidance on job evaluation.

Panels ensure:

• National profiles are correctly applied
• Factors are interpreted consistently
• Bias is minimised
• There is consistency checking which supports compliance with equal pay legislation.

By doing this, local panels mitigate risk of:

• Equal pay claims
• Discrimination
• Gender pay disputes

Local panels protect:

• Organisations legal position
• Staff confidence in fairness
• Assurance on equal pay

Without robust local governance, the integrity of the Job Evaluation Scheme erodes.

Local panels demonstrate strong partnership working. They are comprised of management & staff-side.

The best practice is to have four trained panel members (two of each side). If circumstances occur that a practitioner cannot attend, the panel can continue with three so long the rest of the panel agree to continue. The panel can also be adjusted to five panellists to support development of new practitioners. 

No one panel member has the deciding vote; panels must reach a consensus. 

All panel members will have undertaken accredited JE training delivered by NHS Employers or their employer. As part of that training, they will develop a strong understanding of

• equal pay and identifying and addressing bias
• documentation and record keeping
• transparent communication 

Panels rely on strong sources of evidence including:

• Agreed job descriptions
• Person specifications
• Job Analysis Questionnaire (full evaluation only)
• Organisational charts
• Clarification questions

Panels assess the job as it is required to be performed – not performance, potential or individual capability.

The submission will need to provide:

• An up-to-date job description (as agreed between post-holder and manager)
• Person specification
• Organisational chart
• Effort and environment information

Profiles can include a range of levels in some factors to allow for variation in duties, responsibilities, and other demands to be considered when matching jobs.

• There can be up to five variations - where there are multiple variations, this may indicate another profile may be more suitable.
• Variations must not take the overall job score above or below the band boundary.
• Variations are not permitted in two critical factors: 'Knowledge, training and experience' and 'Freedom to act'. If these factors do not match, this indicates the need to look at a different profile, perhaps at a different pay band, or a full local evaluation may be needed.
  
   

There are three possible outcomes:

• Match
• No match - The job significantly differs from profiles
• Full evaluation required - The matching process triggers a full job evaluation by way of completing a job evaluation questionnaire.

The 16 Factors can be grouped into three themes:

Knowledge and skills factors

1. Communication & relationship skills
2. Knowledge, training & experience
3. Analytical & judgement skills
4. Planning & organisational skills
5. Physical skills

Responsibility factors

6. Patient/client care
7. Policy & service development
8. Financial & physical resources
9. Information resources
10. Human resources
11. Research & development
12. Freedom to act

Effort and environment

13. Physical effort
14. Mental effort
15. Emotional effort
16. Working conditions

Each factor will have an overarching factor definition.

Example: Knowledge Skills and Training

"This factor measures all the forms of knowledge, training and experience required to fulfil the job activities and responsibilities satisfactorily. The level of knowledge, training and experience required for the job should be determined by considering how this is applied in the role rather than how the knowledge was acquired and will include theoretical knowledge; practical knowledge; professional, specialist or technical knowledge; and knowledge of the policies, practices and procedures associated with the job. There are eight levels of skill associated with this factor."

Each factor has 'levels' and 'scores' which determine the overall banding.

A 'level' is a descriptive statement explaining the type, depth, or intensity of responsibility, skill, effort, or knowledge required in the job.

Example: Knowledge, Training and Experience has 8 levels

• At level 5 it is expected that there is: "Understanding of a range of work procedures and practices, which require expertise within a specialism or discipline, underpinned by theoretical knowledge or relevant practical experience."
• At level 6: "Specialist knowledge across the range of work procedures and practices, underpinned by theoretical knowledge or relevant practical experience."
• At level 7: "Highly developed specialist knowledge across the range of work procedures and practices, underpinned by theoretical knowledge and relevant practical experience." 

Each level has a nationally agreed score. 

Example: Example: Knowledge, Training and Experience

• Level 5: 120
• Level 6: 156
• Level 7: 190

The score across all factors is added together to create an overall score which will determine the banding. 

It is important to note that the levels do not relate to bands. Bands are determined by the overall score when all factor scores are added together. 

The bandings: 

• Band 1:  0-160
• Band 2: 161-215
• Band 3: 216-270
• Band 4: 271-325
• Band 5: 326-395
• Band 6: 396-465
• Band 7: 466-539
• Band 8a: 540-584
• Band 8b: 585-629
• Band 8c: 630-674
• Band 8d: 675-720
• Band 9: 721-765

Download the score chart and view the bandings at Chapters 7 and 8 of the  NHS Job Evaluation Handbook. 

NHS job profiles are designed to make pay banding simpler and more consistent. They are based on the idea that many NHS jobs are broadly similar. Job evaluation uses a common language to describe and compare jobs, and profiles apply this approach to groups of similar roles.

Most roles can be matched to nationally evaluated profiles using job descriptions, person specifications and supporting information, rather than being evaluated from scratch. Profiles are also used to check that local job evaluations are consistent now and in the future.

The RCN worked in partnership with the NHS Staff Council to develop nationally agreed profiles for nursing.  Each profile has a level, descriptor and score for each factor and an overall score and banding. The profiles do not have titles, but are instead linked to the band. 

During the Job Matching/Evaluation process, the panel will read the job description, person specification and any other job information in order to select appropriate national profiles. The information does not have to be exactly the same as that from the profile, but should be equivalent to it.

Explore all the nursing job profiles

Completed matching forms and evaluation reports should be reviewed for both consistency and quality and should be supported by good documentation.

Outcomes should be checked for:

• Other matches within the job family/hierarchy
• Other matches completed by same and other matching panels
• Other local matches within same occupational group
• Other local matches within the same pay band
• National profiles for same occupational group and band
• Check total weighted score.

Quality check considers:

• Application of the scheme
• Profile selection
• Factor levels & rationale.

Documentation includes:

• A clear audit trail
• Recorded rationale for decisions
• Comparison notes
• Documentation that protects against legal challenge.

Any apparent inconsistencies in matching should be referred back to the panel with any queries or comments. Consistency checkers should not substitute their own decision.

The original panel should review the match/evaluation in question and answer any queries as appropriate.

Note: Concerns about local consistency checking should be raised with Job Evaluation leads in the first instance. If concerns cannot be resolved locally, they can be referred to country Job Evaluation Leads or the Job Evaluation Group secretariat for advice. 

Consistency checking happens:

• Before final banding confirmation
• Separate from formal review requests

Effective consistency checking is:

• Partnership based
• Evidence driven
• Transparent
• Recorded
• Strengthening organisational fairness and governance

Without robust consistency checking:

• Banding inequalities occur
• Equal pay risks increase
• Appeals and reviews increase.

Once the outcome letter is received, the post-holder must:

• Must request review within 3 months of notification of originals panel decision
• Provide evidence stating grounds for review

The review panel is then convened. It will usually a fresh panel and they will operate in the same way as the original panel and follow the procedure for job matching/evaluation.

They will consider:

• The agreed job description
• Original matching/evaluation documentation
• The stated grounds for review
• Any factual clarifications

They will then reach an outcome and, as with the original panel, there will be:

• A consistency check
• Confirmation and communication of the outcome.

Strong review submissions:

• Identify specific factor(s) in dispute
• Reference specific role duties/responsibilities
• Explain why the level descriptor does not fit and propose the correct level
• Focus on evidence, not opinion (e.g., Instead of stating ‘My job is more complex’ – explain how duties meet the next level descriptor)
• clarify the suitability of the profile and/or propose an alterative

Accurate job descriptions are incredibly important and a review outcome relies on:

• Whether the job description reflects actual duties
• Whether responsibilities are clearly described
• Whether accountability is accurately recorded.

After review, the outcome may be:

• Confirm the same match/evaluation outcome
• Confirm a match to a different profile
• In the case of matching reviews only, refer the job for local evaluation

If the band increases:

• Pay is normally backdated to when the post-holder and manager agreed the job has changed.

If unchanged: 

• The written rationale explains why.

If the post-holder is still not accepting of the outcome:

• The jobholder has no right of appeal beyond the review process if their complaint is about the banding outcome.
• If the job holder can demonstrate a misapplication of process, they may pursue a local grievance.

Step 1: Job description

A new job must have a clear, accurate job and robust job description which reflects the job as required. This is the foundation of job evaluation and it is a clear and accurate job description. It must include:

• Purpose of role
• Key responsibilities
• Accountability
• Reporting structures
• Scope of responsibility

Step 2: Matching or evaluation

There are then two routes:

• Job matching - Used when the job aligns to an existing national profile
• Full job evaluation - Used when job cannot be matched to an existing profile. This should be carried out by trained panel members in partnership.

Step 3: Banding is confirmed

Step 4: Recruitment

Step 5: Bed down period

• Period of time for the job to ‘bed down’ up to 1-year.
• Once the full demands of the job are clear, the postholder and/or their manager should review the job description
• Where a job description changes, a reassessment should be conducted through the nationally agreed JE process.
• The outcome could remain the same or go up/down.
• It would be backdated to the start date of the post.
• The post holder would have a right to review.

A significant change means:

Increased responsibility:

• Supervising staff where they didn’t before/it is not part of their JD
• Managing resources or budgets
• Greater accountability for patient outcomes

Higher-level decision making

• More autonomy
• Clinical/professional judgement at a higher level
• Less supervision, more independent responsibility

Knowledge & skills shift

• Requirement for additional qualifications
• On the job learning/experience
• More complex or specialist work
• Broader scope of practice
• Caseload holder/shift leader

Role expansion

• New duties that were not previously part of the role
• Taking on work from higher band roles

1. Compare now JD to the last version assessed by a JE panel to identify changes

2. Consider whether those changes could affect any factor level scoring

3. If levels may change, consider whether this could affect the overall banding - 

• If yes, changes are significant - send to fresh matching process
• If no, changes not significant - confirm original outcome remains, post-holder has right to review

Job evaluation will be required when:

• A jobs audit identifies inconsistencies
• A new job is created
• A role’s duties significantly change
• Responsibility levels change
• Role substantially redesigned
• Two or more roles are combined into one
• Need to demonstrate a significant change

Significant change usually involves:

• Increased accountability
• Greater autonomy (freedom to act)
• Higher level of knowledge requirement
• Additional responsibilities for staff, finance, policy or service.
• Sometimes, what appears a minor change can be significant under job evaluation.

Step 1: Conduct a jobs audit

• Audit of all jobs in the merged organisation
• Compare JDs across similar work areas
• Identify roles that are the same or broadly the same and whether there are any inconsistencies within their evaluation
• Rationalise job titles for review purposes, ensuring consultation with staff and TU reps
• Update job descriptions to support matching/evaluation of changed roles.

Step 2: Design a common jobs structure

• After completing a jobs audit, organisations must design a common job structure
• Structure should reflect the organisations future needs and strategic objectives
• May require significant changes to existing roles
• Undertaken in partnership with trade unions

Step 3: Implement the common jobs structure

Two sequencing options:

1. Implement new job structure first, then conduct matching/evaluation of new or changed jobs.

• Advantages: May reduce need for a second round of matching/evaluation.
• Disadvantages: Time consuming to implement; higher risk of equal pay claims if inconsistencies exist; potentially destabilising for staff.

2. Review and update existing matching/evaluations first, then implement the new structure and re-match/evaluate where needed.

• Advantages: Minimises equal pay risks; existing roles that remain unchanged may not need re-evaluation unless outdated; allows phased restructuring and evaluation
• Disadvantages: Longer overall timeline; more administrative effort upfront; potential duplication of work.

Step 4: Matching/evaluating new jobs

• Nationally agreed JES is applied locally.
• Consistency checking should occur as per the national guidance.
• Employees have the same contractual right to review of matching/evaluations of new and changed jobs.

During mergers:

• similar roles across organisations must be evaluated consistently
• historical band differences require careful review
• documentation must support decisions
• equality impact assessment may be necessary.

Failure to manage this properly increases equal pay risk.

During mergers:

• Partnership working from outset
• Plan Job Evaluation implications early
• Avoid retrospective band pressure
• Ensure accurate job descriptions
• Provide staff briefings
• Maintain clear review processes
• Keep full documentation.