Legal advice please. Can a job description be changed without consideration of wider terms and conditions?

[BellaIsle]

Facing yet another consultation process regarding a change to a job description.

Will this process include consultation on terms and conditions - holiday entitlement, TOIL, pay grades etc.

Thanks.

here is no reason why consultation should include anything else, and no reason why is shouldn't; but you are free to raise anything you want in a consultation. Some industries have collective agreements where such things are linked by agreement - you would need to consult your union about that.

Thanks for your response. Concern is that this is an increased role with line management responsibilities whereas the current role doesn't have this.

I thought that this would include pay considerations.

It’s up to your employer what they want to consult on. If your job description is contractual and therefore needs consultation/consent to change, you can say you will not agree to the changes unless there is a corresponding pay increase or other changes.

Thanks. This is an advisory public sector role where the consultation is to change to job description so that in addition to advising other bodies the JD will include having to go and work for them/with them in the senior leadership role.

In this case, the senior leader role is higher paid with a greater amount of holiday entitlement than the advisory role. The senior role also includes line management of staff whereas the advisory role doesn't.

Ok so if you think the changes to the JD warrant a change in grade/additional pay and benefits, you should raise that during the consultation process.

Thanks Flowery, worth raising but as always I'm sure it will be discounted....

There is going to be the issue that for some colleagues the new JD is above their skill set and experience. Interesting times.

The other body, where we would be expected to lead, will be hose that are no effective and in crisis. Resulting public information would carry our name as the leader so of detriment to professional reputation.

What would we do about this? Is it reasonable to accept reputational damage? Can we expect some sort of recompense for this?

@BellaIsle

Thanks. This is an advisory public sector role where the consultation is to change to job description so that in addition to advising other bodies the JD will include having to go and work for them/with them in the senior leadership role.

In this case, the senior leader role is higher paid with a greater amount of holiday entitlement than the advisory role. The senior role also includes line management of staff whereas the advisory role doesn't.

In the public sector, whilst there are varying provisions, there are collective agreements, and significant changes to job descriptions would normally warrant job evaluation.

@BellaIsle

The other body, where we would be expected to lead, will be hose that are no effective and in crisis. Resulting public information would carry our name as the leader so of detriment to professional reputation.

What would we do about this? Is it reasonable to accept reputational damage? Can we expect some sort of recompense for this?

That would be very unusual. I assume you mean that your job is to turn around the organisation so that it is no longer underperforming? In which case that is the job, and you don't get paid extra for doing the job. If there is any reputational damage then that would seem to arise from your not doing the job. In such roles the progression route would be based on the positive reputation you garner based on succeeding in creating change.

That's my point, the current job isn't to replace leadership but to work alongside to advise them. The change is to make them have to lead the organisation.

As the named leader, in the failed organisation the adviser (interim leader) would have their name publicly on this organisation. We are talking about, in some cases, turning round the organisation in two or three weeks.

@BellaIsle

That's my point, the current job isn't to replace leadership but to work alongside to advise them. The change is to make them have to lead the organisation.

As the named leader, in the failed organisation the adviser (interim leader) would have their name publicly on this organisation. We are talking about, in some cases, turning round the organisation in two or three weeks.

Sorry but that doesn't change my understanding. You can't claim pay for potential reputational damage. If you don't think the job can be done, then what is what you need to say. Unfortunately, it probably won't get you very far. You have two issues here and you are conflating them.

Issue one is that your role is changing and that may warrant a job evaluation /pay increase for the change in responsibilities.

Issue two is that you may or may not be able to do the job you are asked to do, and some people might judge you on that basis. That is not your employers fault.

I'm not unsympathetic - been there, done that, got several T-shirts that no longer fit. It's tough. But nobody can control what people think - on this matter or anything else. And failing to correct poor performance isn't especially your fault (unless you are managed by the collective forces of MN, who often appear to think that managers who do their jobs are nothing but bullies) so nobody reasonable would think less of you.

But in all honesty, it is exceptionally hard to stop a change in job role - at best you can argue redundancy. At best. If this isn't for you, then brushing up the CV and getting on the jobs wagon seems to be the best thing you can do.

As you are public sector request the JD goes through formal job evaluation usually either JEGS OR JESP for Civil Service. This will show the appropriate grade/level for the role, including T & Cs.

Be aware if the job evaluation results in a regrading you may (probably will) have to apply for the new role/grade.

I would also talk to your TU as this type of change is usually a collective agreement negotiated with TU,. In my experience they would push for T & Cs to be aligned.

With regard to reputational damage, it is reasonable to be concerned about being publicly associated with a failing organisation. What you want is a job title to show you have been brought in as a troubleshooter. I’m sure someone can suggest a name.

Brought in as a troubles-hooter - you'll still carry the can for the failure as you would for the success. Rats and sinking ships - get out of there. Who advised the Education secretary through his dreadful performance and came out smelling of roses - Jo Saxton - bloody amazing how shit doesn't stick in Gov - particularly this one...you'll be fine, they take responsibility for nothing, why should you!

Trouble-shooter - sorry for the Specsavers moment!

With regard to reputational damage, it is reasonable to be concerned about being publicly associated with a failing organisation. What you want is a job title to show you have been brought in as a troubleshooter. I’m sure someone can suggest a name

So to be more specific the job is an education adviser. There is no line management responsibility.

The addition is that the adviser role will include having to be the headteacher of schools in crisis, including obviously the line management of staff (likely underperforming).
In such schools OFSTED would be imminent - with a possible judgement in the advisers name of inadequate or ineffective.

In a recent case, the intended scope of the job as the headteacher was to ensure this was effective at the due inspection three weeks later! Of course the inspection is a public document which doesn't go away. I advise on recruitment of headteachers and always advise governors to check previous inspections.

Then I would go with “Interim Headteacher”.

'Interim' doesn't quite cut it!
The report still lists the interim as the headteacher. Only reading into the detail would show otherwise.
Even as the interim there is an expectation - in the case above - three weeks to ensure the school is effective - completely unreasonable.

I have a similar job and I have taken many many schools through Ofsted in the absence of a substantive Head and never been on the Ofsted report.

Don't get put as the HT on Edubase. If there is a substantive head even if they are on long term sick it would be seen a prejudicial to remove them as the Head on Edubase (possibly constructive dismissal). They will be named on the Ofsted report if they are the substantive head even if they are not present in the building. It typically takes months to get someone off the payroll.