Job Evaluation and Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value
| Pages | 27-31 |
| Published date | 01 January 1984 |
| Date | 01 January 1984 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055492 |
| Author | Joyce McNally,Sylvia Shimmin |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Job Evaluation and Equal Pay
for Work of Equal Value
by Joyce McNally and Sylvia Shimmin,
Department of Behaviour In Organisations, University of Lancaster
Introduction
In July 1982 the European Court of Justice ruled that the
United Kingdom's Equal
Pay
Act infringes Directive 75/117
of the European Economic Community, which provides for
equal pay for men and women where the
same
work, or
work
of an equal value is being performed. The ruling of the
European Court has necessitated changes to the Equal Pay
Act in order to give effect to the principle of "equal value"
and attention has focused, therefore, on how to give the
concept practical expression. To date, the most commonly
used method of measuring value
is
job evaluation, which is
said to measure the demands a job makes on a worker. This
raises the question as to whether a job evaluation scheme in
itself,
is an effective instrument for ensuring equality of
treatment in assessing the value of men's and women's
jobs.
In June of last year the authors completed a research
project on the use of job evaluation and its potential in
securing equal pay for women.* Initially, some optimism
was felt with regard to the scope of job evaluation in
removing anomalies and inequities in pay based on sex.
Gradually, however, it became apparent that it has
considerable limitations in a work-place setting. In abstract
terms job evaluation, with its emphasis on objectivity and
systematisation has considerable potential. In practice,
however, it has a tendency to reflect all those attitudes and
practices which collectively subvert women's position in the
labour market.
The project consisted of
case
studies carried out in a total
of 19 different organisations including manufacturing and
mail-order firms, clearing banks, the finance sector and
local authorities. All the major job evaluation schemes, both
analytical and non-analytical, were represented in the
sample. The aim of the research was to assess the effect of
job evaluation on the grading of women's jobs by examining
the reasons for installing or up-dating job evaluation
schemes, the principles and practices followed in such
exercises, their outcomes and the views of those responsible
concerning equality and the use of job evaluation for equal
pay purposes.
Initial access to an organisation was usually gained
through personnel managers with special responsibility for
job evaluation and/or job evaluation officers who were
willing to talk at length about the history of the schemes in
use,
their introduction and maintenance. The amount of
documentary material which they were prepared to offer
varied, but there was a marked reluctance to part with data
*The authors acknowledge the support given to this research by the Equal
Opportunities Commission/Social Science Research Council Joint Panel
on Equal Opportunities Research but the
views
expressed are their
own
and
should not be taken to represent those of the Panel.
showing women's position in the pay structure and the
distribution of
women
across job
grades.
Similarly details of
red-circled jobs were apt to be withheld. From the start of
the investigation, it was apparent that women's pay and
women's job grades were "sensitive" issues. In other words,
to study job evaluation schemes was one thing, but to link
these with the position of women in the pay structure was
another matter on which informants were extremely
reticent. Trade union views were sought by means of a
questionnaire, circulated to 14 of the major unions with a
substantial female membership; through interviews with
officials of the unions representing employees in the
organisations studied and where possible by interviewing
lay representatives in the firm concerned. Other data were
obtained from members of the major consultancy firms
about their own schemes and their experiences with clients.
The results may be highlighted by comparing what is the
conventional wisdom about job evaluation (myths) with
what was found in practice (realities),
as
summarised below.
Myth Reality
The Equal Pay Act has stimulated In only one out of 19 organisations
the wider use of JE for equality had JE been used expressly to
purposes reassess women's jobs
Choice of scheme follows analysis Preferred scheme and/or consultant
of available techniques in relation often selected in advance by senior
to the jobs in question managers
Job-holders, directly or through Key judgments in the early stages of
their representatives, participate a JE exercise tend to be unilateral—
in the conduct of a JE exercise made by management and/or
consultants
A JE exercise is an objective JE is a subjective exercise, open to
method of determining the relative manipulation, and to reaffirmation
worth of
jobs.
of the status quo.
The supporting evidence for these differences was as
follows.
Why Organisations Use Job Evaluation
By far the most common reason given for introducing or
revising an existing job evaluation scheme was to
"rationalise" an unwieldy pay structure and to overcome
problems associated with the erosion of differentials. Not
infrequently, the current job evaluation scheme has been
introduced to replace a previous one which was no longer
effective. For example, the previous scheme has deteriorated
over time with the allocation of merit payments above and
beyond job-holders' grades or an old scheme had been based
on a large number of grades and there was a perceived need
to render the situation more manageable by reducing the
number of grades. Managers described a number of
developments predisposing their organisations to streamline
PR 13,1 1984 • 27
To continue reading
Request your trial