Job Evaluation Policy

Client Name

Document Control

1. Policy Statement

Client Name is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, equitable, and well-governed job evaluation system. The purpose of this system is to evaluate the relative size of roles objectively and consistently, and to provide a defensible basis for grading, role alignment, benchmarking, and broader reward decisions.

2. Purpose

This policy sets out the principles, governance, roles, responsibilities, and process requirements for evaluating and re-evaluating jobs at Client Name. It is intended to ensure that all grading decisions are made consistently, on the basis of role content and organisational requirements, and not on the basis of the individual currently occupying the role.

3. Scope

This policy applies to all roles within Client Name, including newly created roles and existing roles that may require re-evaluation because of a material change in scope, complexity, accountability, or organisational context.

4. Policy Ownership and Document Responsibilities

4.1 Process owner

The Group Chief People Officer, or delegated Group Head of People Operations, is the owner of this policy and is responsible for ensuring that only controlled and current versions are used, that the policy remains aligned to legislative and organisational requirements, and that the policy is reviewed and updated when necessary.

4.2 Line management responsibility

Line managers are responsible for ensuring that they and their teams are familiar with the policy where relevant, and that any grading requests are supported by accurate, current, and approved documentation.

5. Guiding Principles

• Jobs are evaluated, not people. Individual performance, tenure, scarcity, or retention concerns are not valid job evaluation criteria.

• The process must be fair, transparent, and consistently applied across the organisation.

• All evaluations must be based on approved role information and relevant organisational context.

• Grading decisions must be documented and supported by appropriate governance and approval.

• Job evaluation is part of the wider remuneration and governance framework, but grading alone does not determine what an individual should be paid.

• Job evaluation should be maintained as a living organisational process and not treated as a once-off exercise.

6. Quality Assurance, Review Frequency and Regrading Principles

The job evaluation process will be administered on a regular basis as business needs arise. As a general rule, formal evaluation and re-evaluation sessions should be scheduled at planned intervals, but not more frequently than every three months unless there is a justified business requirement.

An existing role may ordinarily be submitted for formal re-evaluation three years after its last evaluation. This interval may be shortened if the role has changed materially due to restructuring, technological change, changes in business strategy, significant expansion of scope, or other substantial changes in accountability.

Where a re-evaluation results in a change in grade, the outcome must be presented to the Validation Committee for approval before implementation.

7. Triggers for Job Evaluation

A job evaluation request may be initiated by line management or Human Resources where there is a legitimate organisational need. Typical triggers include:

• Newly created roles that did not previously exist in the organisation;

• Material changes in role size, scope, complexity, accountability, or reporting relationships;

• Mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, or significant organisational changes;

• Creation of new business lines, major functions, or portfolios;

• Significant expansion in management or leadership accountability;

• A demonstrable increase in technical complexity or breadth of accountability.

8. Factors Excluded from Job Evaluation

The following factors do not in themselves justify a job evaluation or re-evaluation request:

• Temporary or seasonal increases in workload;

• The performance, conduct, capability, or personal attributes of the incumbent;

• Abnormal or temporary circumstances, such as acting responsibilities during leave cover;

• External market scarcity, location, or geographic premium considerations;

• Anticipated future changes that have not yet materialised;

• Retention concerns or resignations;

• Tenure or length of service;

• New ways of working that do not fundamentally change the nature of the role.

9. Job Evaluation Process

9.1 Request submission

A formal grading or regrading request must be submitted to Human Resources, supported by an approved role profile or job description where applicable, an approved organisation structure, and a written motivation explaining the business reason for the request.

9.2 Review of documentation

Human Resources will review the submission for completeness and confirm whether the request meets the policy criteria for evaluation or re-evaluation.

9.3 Committee evaluation

The Job Evaluation Committee will evaluate the role using the approved job evaluation methodology and any relevant supporting information. Where clarification is needed, the committee may request an interview with the line manager, subject matter expert, or role incumbent.

9.4 Validation

All evaluations that result in a grade movement, and any other evaluations identified for oversight, will be submitted to the Validation Committee for review and approval.

9.5 Final approval

The Group Head of People Operations will approve grading requests in line with the approved governance structure and will ensure that any deviation from the committee recommendation is recorded in writing.

9.6 Implementation and recordkeeping

Once approved, Human Resources will implement the outcome, update role records and the engage role library, and retain all supporting documents and approvals.

10. Appeals Process

Where the outcome of an evaluation is not accepted by the line manager or job holder, a formal appeal may be lodged in writing within 14 calendar days of the result being communicated. Appeals must be submitted to the Group Chief People Officer and must clearly set out the basis for the appeal.

The Group Chief People Officer will review the appeal, gather the relevant information, and determine whether there is sufficient basis for the matter to be referred back to the Job Evaluation Committee and, where required, the Validation Committee for reconsideration.

11. Roles and Responsibilities

11.1 Human Resources / People Operations

• Acts as custodian of the job evaluation process and supporting records.

• Ensures that grading requests are submitted with the required documentation and motivation.

• Maintains complete records of all evaluations, recommendations, approvals, and implementation actions.

• Maintains an up-to-date role library on the engage system.

• Implements approved outcomes and records any deviations from committee recommendations in writing.

11.2 Line management

• Develops or updates job descriptions and role information in line with the approved organisation structure and actual role requirements.

• Ensures that role documentation is accurate, current, and reflective of the role as it exists, rather than future-state aspiration.

• Provides the approved organisation chart, signed role profile, and motivation for evaluation where required.

• Ensures that the job description is communicated to and understood by the incumbent.

11.3 Job Evaluation Committee

• Evaluates and re-evaluates roles using the approved methodology.

• Applies the methodology consistently and objectively.

• Meets in person or virtually; a quorum of 70% representation will apply.

• Submits evaluation recommendations to the Validation Committee where required.

11.4 Steering / Validation Committee

• Provides final validation and approval for evaluations that result in an increase or decrease in grade.

• Approves the organisational areas that will be recognised as Functions, Major Job Areas, and Job Areas where applicable.

• Ensures consistent and business-relevant application of grading decisions across the organisation.

11.5 Group Head of People Operations

• Approves all requests for grading or re-evaluation of roles in line with this policy.

• Oversees quality, governance, and policy compliance across the process.

12. Approval Matrix

13. Broad Criteria for Functions, Major Job Areas and Job Areas

For the purposes of consistent role evaluation and organisational mapping, the Validation Committee may approve the areas that will be recognised as Functions, Major Job Areas, and Job Areas. The following broad criteria should be applied:

The area should have a tactical or strategic impact on the business and help position the business for long-term success or competitive advantage.

The area should not be purely administrative in nature unless failure in that area would place the business at significant risk.

The area may represent a core part of the organisation’s product, service, operational delivery, or critical support capability.

14. Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed every 24 months, or earlier if required due to material changes in legislation, organisational design, remuneration governance, or the approved job evaluation methodology.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Job Evaluation Committee

Organisation: [Client Name] Version: Final Effective date: [Insert date] Review cycle: Every two years or earlier if required

1. Background

[Client Name] is undertaking a structured job evaluation process to support internal equity, organisational clarity, and alignment with market practice.

To support this, the organisation will use the Engage Job Evaluation Methodology, a modern factor-based approach that evaluates the contribution, complexity, accountability, and impact of roles in a structured and transparent manner. The methodology focuses on the role itself, rather than the person occupying the role.

To ensure appropriate governance, consistency, and long-term sustainability, [Client Name] will establish a Job Evaluation Committee (JEC). The Committee will work with the implementation partner during the project phase and will progressively build the internal capability required to assume custodianship of the methodology after project close-out.

2. Purpose of the Committee

• oversee and guide the implementation of the job evaluation methodology

• evaluate roles in a fair, objective, and consistent manner

• build internal capability to apply the methodology independently over time

• support transparency, governance, and quality assurance in all job evaluation decisions

• review and confirm job evaluation outcomes and proposed grading decisions

• act as custodian of the methodology once the formal implementation phase has concluded

3. Scope

• endorse the methodology, evaluation framework, factor definitions, and evaluation criteria

• validate the list of roles to be evaluated as part of the project or ongoing process

• ensure that sufficient role information is available to support evaluation, including role purpose, outputs, reporting lines, and organisational context

• conduct job evaluations collaboratively during the implementation period and independently thereafter

• review and confirm factor judgments and resulting job grades

• participate in calibration and sense-check sessions to support internal consistency and equity

• maintain clear documentation and an audit trail for all evaluation decisions

• support the integration of evaluation outcomes into the broader grading and remuneration structure where required

4. Composition and Membership

4.1 Committee composition

• Chairperson: Senior HR representative (for example, HR Director or Head of HR)

• HR Business Partner(s)

• Reward / Compensation representative, where applicable

• Line management representatives from key business areas

• Committee Secretary or designated administrator

4.2 Specialist support

• A specialist job evaluation consultant or implementation adviser may support the Committee during the implementation phase.

• The specialist is not a permanent member of the Committee.

• The specialist supports methodology setup, factor interpretation, capability building, calibration, and quality assurance.

• The specialist participates during the implementation and handover period only.

4.3 Term of membership

Internal members serve for the duration of the project and may continue thereafter as methodology custodians.

External specialist support is time-bound and concludes at project close-out or handover.

4.4 Quorum

• at least 50% of appointed internal members

• the Chairperson or formally nominated delegate

• where the organisation is still in the implementation phase, specialist technical support should be present during formal grading sessions

5. Responsibilities of Committee Members

• act in the interests of fairness, consistency, and organisational integrity

• apply the methodology objectively and without bias

• prepare adequately for meetings by reviewing evaluation material in advance

• maintain confidentiality in all deliberations and documentation

• disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest

• participate actively in training, calibration, and evaluation discussions

• support the organisation’s understanding of the methodology and its outcomes

• contribute to building internal trust in the process

6. Meeting Frequency and Operating Procedures

6.1 Meeting frequency

• formal grading of new roles

• regrading of materially changed roles

• calibration and sense-check discussions

• review of appeals or governance issues where applicable

6.2 Meeting format

• in person

• virtually

• or through a hybrid format

6.3 Agenda and materials

The agenda and supporting documentation should, where practical, be circulated at least five working days in advance of each meeting.

6.4 Records

Minutes, evaluation records, decisions, and supporting notes must be maintained for each session to support auditability and continuity.

7. Evaluation and Decision-Making Approach

7.1 General approach

• based on the requirements of the role

• with reference to available evidence and organisational context

• independently of the current incumbent’s performance, personality, tenure, or market concerns

7.2 During implementation

• the Committee will evaluate roles jointly with the implementation partner or methodology specialist

• the specialist will provide technical guidance, support in interpreting factors, moderation of calibration discussions, and quality assurance and knowledge transfer

7.3 After implementation

• the Committee will apply the methodology independently

• the Committee will become the internal custodian of grading decisions, evaluation records, calibration discipline, and ongoing consistency of application

7.4 Decision-making

The Committee should aim to reach decisions by consensus wherever possible. Where consensus cannot be reached, the Chairperson may request further clarification or evidence, defer the matter for further review, or call for a simple majority vote. Where formal voting is required, the outcome and rationale must be recorded.

8. Governance Principles

• roles are evaluated independently of the person occupying them

• decisions are based on evidence, structured judgment, and role context

• consistency and internal equity are prioritised across the organisation

• all decisions must be documented and auditable

• confidentiality must be maintained at all times

• transparency of process should be supported through appropriate communication and governance

• the methodology must be applied in a disciplined and sustainable manner

9. Resources and Support

9.1 The organisation will provide

• administrative and logistical support

• access to organisational structures, role information, and relevant context

• a secure and central repository for evaluation documentation

• time and availability of appointed committee members

9.2 During implementation, specialist support may provide

• methodology training

• facilitation of grading sessions

• calibration support

• tools and templates required for evaluation

• handover materials and capability transfer support

10. Key Deliverables

• a functioning and governed job evaluation process

• a trained and competent internal Job Evaluation Committee

• evaluated and graded roles using the agreed methodology

• an internally consistent grading structure

• a complete audit trail of evaluation decisions

• a sustainable internal process for future evaluation and regrading

11. Review of Terms of Reference

• at the end of the implementation phase

• thereafter every two years

• or earlier where there are significant organisational, structural, or methodological changes

• any amendments must be approved through the organisation’s normal policy or governance approval process

12. Approval