Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Carol Could we ask for a little more supporting info about your actual question? Whose is the comment re "Challenges: varies but solutions can be right/wrong with no grey areas"? Is the "Challenges" topic a standard on all evaluations? In what context was it written? Is there any other info that may reduce the number of possible ways that the comment could be interpreted? Does it have to relate exclusively to H&S or could it be relating to a different aspect of the job? I'm really trying to say that despite what you may feel as someone who has a greater insight into the expected focus and functions of the evaluation there is insufficient conclusive evidence provided to give a meaningful answer here. However, I'm also positive that others will do better than me at giving a definitive answer. Frank Hallett

Posted By Coshh Assessor In the past I've been involved in doing job evaluations through the Hay scheme and it looks to me as if your job has been misunderstood. It reads as if they think your job is to follow H&S policies and procedures, not to write them! The grey areas criterion usually applies to senior jobs where judgements are made. Have you had sight of the detailed Hay criteria? Based on that you would see how to appeal against this by matching them against what you do. Either they haven't understood your job or they haven't applied the criteria correctly.

Posted By Carol Slater Thank you for your response Jane, and interesting reading on your thread. I will keep you updated on the outcome as I'm in with the Director this morning to appeal. Cheers Carol

Posted By Diane Thomason Hope this isn't too late but: Problem Solving: Policies and Principles of H&S are clearly defined, ready and available to follow. - RUBBISH. NO SAFETY ADVISERS JUST FOLLOW PROCEDURES WRITTEN BY OTHERS. AND WHY DO SAFETY ADVISERS HAVE TO ADVISE MANAGERS ETC ON H&S IF IT'S SO SIMPLE? The majority of the policies and procedures were either written by me or updated. PRECISELY! Challenges: varies but solutions can be right/wrong with no grey areas. RUBBISH. JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THIS FORUM! IS THIS RIDDOR YES/NO?, DO WE HAVE TO PROVIDE TRAINING ON THIS?, ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?.... THEN TAKE A LOOK AT THE ANSWERS FROM LOTS OF EXPERIENCED H&S PEOPLE. Magnitude of Risk: Financial impact of Role. There is direct impact on a small number. Potential Risk to Company. no response - BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T SUSSED THE POTENTIAL LOSSES. REFER TO "GOOD HEALTH IS GOOD BUSINESS" PUBLICATION. Moral issues. no response THEY PROBABLY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD "MORAL" MEANS!! Legal issues. no response AGAIN THEY HAVE NOT SUSSED THE POTENTIAL HORRORS IF "IT ALL GOES WRONG". ARE THEY AWARE OF ALL THE H&S LEGISLATION THE COMPANY HAS TO COMPLY WITH? Freedom to Act/Accountability: Directed. Reports to Board via Financial Director. BUT I'M SURE THIS DIRECTOR DOESN'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO TELL YOU HOW TO MANAGE H&S; IN THIS RESPECT, YOU DIRECT THEM! Sorry about the caps but wanted to make the responses stand out, didn't mean to shout. As the other Hay victim pointed out (sorry, forgotten your name) there is a misunderstanding in the management world of the H&S role. Best of luck and do let us know how you get on. Diane

Posted By Coshh Assessor I'm not so sure that an appeal on the grounds of "grey areas" will succeed. It's true that reasonable practicability, risk assessments etc involve judgement but what Hay mean by "grey areas" is things like deciding the goals and direction of an organisation, rather than the day to day decisions that would be made by most managers and which can be judged to some extent by their results (eg someone gets injured or not). So health and safety jobs are unlikely to have grey areas in the Hay sense except at an extremely senior level. You really have to have the full criteria (it's a whole booklet) to be able to match your job to them. But most importantly, if the person who did it didn't fully understand the role they won't have got it right. Were they working just off a job description that doesn't tell the whole story or was there an interview?

Posted By Jane Ling Congratulations Carol I'm glad things worked out for you, fortunately your Finance Director obviously has a good grasp of the health and safety role. Maybe some day my Director will have a similar understanding. Jane

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Carol As a Fellow of the CIPD as well as a RSP and chartered occupational psychologist, I've become reasonably familar with organisations where the HAY system of job evaluation seriously fails to do just to the complexity of competencies increasingly required in specialist roles such as safety management. Unfortunately, telling the HR Specialist she's wrong is unlikely to enable you to achieve your goal, even with the support of a FD. Until she understands how alternative ways of really appreciating how your role contributes to both strategic and operational objectives of the business, you can't reasonably expect her to champion your cause. So, why not educate her in the strategic competencies of your role? On the basis of what you have written, the root problem appears to be that the HR role (as well as yours) requires levels of strategic undertanding and action that nobody in the company currently understands.

Posted By Carol Slater Merv, totally agree that Hay should be talking to IOSH about updating their standards. Yes, a difficult one due to the many possible variations in our levels that no one set of criteria will suit, although a conversation with IOSH could assist in the banding levels? "Freedom to Act/Accountability: Directed. Reports to Board via Financial Director. Sure, the Director doesn't have H&S expertise, but he and the Board do appreciate that they do have the final decision, and I constantly remind them to have their `tooth brush ready!` due to the fact that the final decision is theirs, therefore they always agree with me. My role certainly does includes convincing them, in a rational manner, that I'm giving valuable advice they would be wise to follow. In addition, I do respect their higher knowledge, and in return they respect my advice due to the fact that I acknowledge to them my competency and seek expert advice myself on ocassion. Sorry to hear it's raining! I've had a wonderful two hours in the sunny south doing a spot of gardening maintenance. Now down to preparing notes for IS Director and his team for managing their contractors!

Posted By J Knight Sorry to hear about your experiences of Hay; I left my previous employer in part because of the iniquity of this system. It wasn't so much the absolute level at which my job was graded, it was its relative position within the organisation. H&S Advisers came out on Level 2, about the same as a Care Service Manager, which is not so bad, but there is always a but. Personnel Managers, Training Managers and Fundraisers were mostly on Level 3 (this is a difference of up to 5K), with some of them on Level 4. This was my basic issue. I couldn't understand why Trainers got more that H&S Advisers, especially since we were all qualified as trainers anyway as a requirement of the post (and in my experince a large number of H&S people are). We went to a regrading and three appeals before being fobbed off with much the same misapprehensions as have been quoted here, such as 'You just do what the law says'; well, what do Personnel Managers do? Make it all up? They as legally bound as we are, with the difference that the penalties for getting eg the Equal Opportunities Act wrong are risible next to the possibility of a 15 million quid fine or a fwe years at her majety's pleasure. The process is biased towards those professions which are well understood by senior managers, and it is not the equitable system it is cracked up to be, John