|
AfC review statistics
The following ‘unofficial’ statistics have been revealed about the AfC review outcomes notified in January.
Reviews: 2485
No change in pay band: 60.4%
Increased pay band:
14.2%
Quality Assurance panel disagree with review panel: 15.4%
Quality Assurance panel unable to reach consensus: 9.1%
Job analysis questionnaire recommended: 0.9%
As previously reported, the AfC Review Group are examining each of the reviews where QA have disagreed with the review outcome or been unable to reach a decision and the first two
percentages will change.
(posted 18/02/2010)
Top of page
AfC successful reviews: GG&C predicted costs
In preparing the Board’s Financial Plan a modest provision has been made for the possibility of successful appeals with a recurring cost of
up to £3 million per annum provided for. The Board has now reached the stage where it is considering appeals which have been made against Agenda for Change gradings, Several thousand appeals have
been submitted, considerably more than had been originally anticipated and therefore there was a risk that the number that would be upheld would be higher than originally assumed. In recent weeks the
Board has been working to assess the likely impact of Agenda for Change appeals on the 2009/10 financial out-turn. This work has confirmed that the recurring cost impact of successful appeals is
likely to be some £2m to £3m higher than originally estimated and this has been reflected in the analysis of the Board’s recurring position. However, there remain a number of posts where review
panels could not agree on a grade. These may be subject to further review and depending on the outcome of this review may generate a further cost pressure of between £1m to £2m in
2009/10.
(extract of NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Mid Year Review of Financial Plan)
(posted 18/02/2010)
Top of page
Unions meet HR Director about AfC reviews
Following the angst about the outcomes of the review process, the Staff Side of the AfC Review Group, and a number of union Full-Time Officers active around the Area Partnership Forum (APF),
met informally with the Director of Human Resources (Ian Reid) on Thursday 11th February. The purpose of the meeting was to explore how we might, in partnership, address the issues arising from the
recent AfC Review outcomes (and the outcomes that will emerge on conclusion of the entire review process). A report of this meeting will be given to the APF on Wednesday 17th. Unite members will be
kept updated on any progress by means of the group reps mailing list and the Branch website.
(posted 15/02/2010)
Top of page
Advice on Agenda for Change review outcomes
Members that have requested and submitted review evidence following assimilation should have received a letter in the week beginning 25th
January informing them of the outcome of that review.
Depending on the outcome of the review, staff will have received one of three letters:
a) Your review has resulted in a higher pay
band;
b) Your review has confirmed the original pay band; or
c) The outcome of your review has still to be determined.
The current position is as follows
a) Most of
those whose outcome led to a higher pay band should have already been paid on that band in January and any arrears of pay due will follow.
b) For those whose review confirmed the
original pay band, then that is the end of the agreed AfC process. For these posts it is worth noting that the post will have been reviewed at least 3 times, by different panels.
c) The
posts whose outcome has yet to be determined are those where the Quality Assurance (QA) panel disagreed with the review outcome or where the QA Panel itself failed to agree an outcome. These are now
being considered in partnership by the AfC Review Group and the aim is to determine the outcome as quickly as possible.
Members who have not received their letter after having submitted review
evidence should contact their line manager in the first instance or contact the AfC Team at Tara House (0141 278 2620 / 2621). Members who requested a review but have not had the opportunity to
submit evidence for review should urgently contact the Group Secretary (ian.forbes@ggc.scot.nhs.uk).
The Union recognises that for those with an unsuccessful outcome there may be a limited
number of members with grounds to lodge a grievance with regard to the process that produced an unfair result. Members considering this require to understand that it must be concerned with the
misapplication of the process - it is not possible to challenge the pay band outcome or the level awarded for any of the 16 factors only that the job evaluation rules were not properly applied (e.g.
a biomedical scientist post being matched to a nursing profile). Members should in the first instance consult their local Unite representative if considering this approach.
Unite is of the
opinion that there will undoubtedly be a very small number of obvious anomalies following the completion of this exercise. The Union is working closely with other unions in seeking a partnership
solution with management to address these issues. This should provide a limited opportunity for some outcomes to be reconsidered. Further advice for members will follow when the process with
management is established. Meanwhile members should discuss with their manager whether this could be appropriate given the results in their area or profession.
(posted 12/02/2010)
Top of page
AfC review outcomes disappoint many
The majority of staff who received a review outcome letter last week were disappointed with the result. The overall statistics for the Health Board have not yet been revealed, but within the Diagnostics Directorate only around ten percent of reviews have resulted in staff being informed of an increased pay band. The majority, around sixty percent, have been told that there is no change to their AfC banding, with the remainder receiving the news that the result of their review is not yet finalised. This means that within Diagnostics only 29 people so far have been successful in their review submission.
The AfC Review Group are currently working their way through all of the not finalised group, but it is not known when this will result in final outcomes.
(posted 31/01/2010)
Top of page
Lab OoH agreement ready to be signed
At a meeting held last Friday (29th January), laboratory group representatives were given a copy of the draft agreement that has been presented to management for signature. The representatives were asked to take the agreement back to their laboratories and inform the Group Secretary (Ian Forbes) by Friday of any areas of implementation that require to be clarified by means of a jointly agreed with general management Q & A sheet. Meanwhile, representatives and members should continue with local discussions in partnership on shift/on-call rotas etc arising from the agreement.
(posted 31/01/2010)
Top of page
AfC review letters
NHS GG&C members of staff who submitted a request to have their Agenda for Change (AfC) pay band outcome reviewed should receive a letter (to be posted to their home address on 25th January) informing them of the status of their review. The letter will inform them that:
a) the review has resulted in a higher pay band; or
b) the review has not resulted in a higher pay band; or
c) the outcome of the review has yet to be determined.
There a number of reasons why members might receive the third letter - the main ones being that the review outcome has been deemed unsafe by the Quality Assurance panel or there has been a failure to agree by the panel. The AfC Review Group (which is a sub-committee of the Area Partnership Forum) will decide how to proceed with these reviews.
It is hoped that staff whose reviews have resulted in an increase will be paid on their new pay band at the end of January.
The above information is based on the meeting of the AfC Review Group meeting held on Tuesday 12th January.
(posted 15/01/2010)
Top of page
NHS pension choice
Members of the NHS pension scheme in Scotland should be receiving a pack from the Scottish Public Pensions Agency (SPPA) in February. The pack will contain a guide to the options being offered i.e. whether to remain in the 1995 scheme or transfer to the 2008 scheme. For most people the pack will also contain a personal illustration of the benefits at age 60 and age 65 for each of the schemes, based on your current information on salary and length of superannuable service. Some staff may receive a generic statement if their records do not have enough information to produce a meaningful personalised statement.
Members can access detailed information about the pension choice at:
http://www.sppa.gov.uk/nhschoice.htm
and a pension calculator is available at:
www.sppa.gov.uk/documents/ChoiceWebFinalv1191109_000.xls
A video presentation by Alvin Hall is also on the SPPA website
(DVD copies of the presentation will be supplied to Group Reps at the February Group Committee)
Members should note that whilst the SPPA are able to answer queries about the details of each of the
schemes neither they nor the union are able to offer advice on which of the schemes is most suitable for any individual.
(posted 15/01/2010)
Top of page
|
