Wesley Keller· Global Mobility Manager, Kestrel Aerospace
Asked in Job Architecture & Careers ·
Public university in New Zealand, about 3,200 professional staff. We finished mapping everyone to a new seven-level framework in August and committed, in the consultation with the union, to an appeals process. It opens in three weeks and I am still designing it.
I expect 200 to 300 appeals based on what colleagues at other institutions saw. Two things I cannot settle: whether the panel should include the people who made the original decision, and whether 'my colleague in another faculty does the same job and was mapped higher' is a valid ground.
I would also be grateful for realistic numbers on how many appeals succeed.
6 helpful · 3 insightful · 2 agree · 4 replies · 178 views · 4 following
Accepted answer· by Amara Larsen
We ran this at a UK university two years ago and I would suggest two stages. Stage one is an informal review by the HR partner and manager within ten working days, which resolved 45% of ours with no panel. Stage two is the panel, independent of the original mappers. Grounds were limited to three: wrong or outdated information about the role, criteria misapplied, or process not followed. Comparison with a colleague was not a ground on its own, but it was admissible as evidence that the criteria had been misapplied. Uphold rate at panel was 22% of 118 cases.
Read in the conversation ↓
Liam DelaneyWWP
Benefits Manager, Nordvik Energy
At an Australian university, 4,100 professional staff, we received 340 appeals and upheld 52, about 15%. Most successful ones were cases where the position description was out of date and the mapping had been done on the old document. I would make 'the information used was wrong or incomplete' your main ground.
Elif AlvarezCRP
Director, Total Rewards, Kestrel Aerospace
Keep the original decision-makers off the panel, but have one of them present the reasoning and then leave. Our panel was three people: a reward specialist not involved in the mapping, a senior manager from a different area, and a union-nominated staff member. The union seat was the reason outcomes were accepted.
Benefits Analyst, Silverline Media
Accepted answer
We ran this at a UK university two years ago and I would suggest two stages. Stage one is an informal review by the HR partner and manager within ten working days, which resolved 45% of ours with no panel. Stage two is the panel, independent of the original mappers.
Grounds were limited to three: wrong or outdated information about the role, criteria misapplied, or process not followed. Comparison with a colleague was not a ground on its own, but it was admissible as evidence that the criteria had been misapplied. Uphold rate at panel was 22% of 118 cases.
Global Mobility Manager, Kestrel Aerospace
Thank you, this has saved me a great deal of time. I'm adopting the two stages and the three grounds, with comparison admissible as evidence. The union has agreed to nominate a panel member. I will share our numbers here once the window closes.
