The challenge

A food and drink manufacturer operating across three UK sites had identified concerns with the way pay was determined across the organisation.

Without a formal methodology for assessing the relative value of different roles, inconsistencies had developed. Some employees had begun raising informal concerns that they were carrying out work of equal value to colleagues in other roles but were being paid less.

The organisation recognised that this created a potential equal pay risk, alongside wider concerns around employee morale, recruitment and retention.

The client needed a fair and consistent way to evaluate roles and determine pay, while ensuring any new approach would be practical enough to use for future pay and grading decisions. 

How we helped

We began by carrying out detailed job analysis across 25 roles, covering around 130 employees, to establish the skills, knowledge and competencies required for each position.

Because many of the roles were highly specific to the organisation, an off-the-shelf job evaluation scheme would not have been suitable. We therefore developed a bespoke scheme and factor plan, providing clear criteria against which each role could be assessed.

Our HR Consultant then worked alongside a panel of four managers to evaluate each role. Panel members scored roles independently against each factor before discussing any differences and agreeing a final score, helping ensure decisions were made consistently and objectively.

Using the results, we developed a new pay and grading framework consisting of multiple grades with defined salary bands. Each role was placed into the appropriate grade according to its job evaluation score.

The process identified existing pay anomalies, including roles that were being underpaid and others that were being paid above the appropriate salary band.  

We then supported the organisation through consultation with its workforce and the introduction of an appeals process, giving employees an opportunity to raise concerns about the evaluation of their role. Underpaid roles received a pay increase, while overpaid roles were red circled. 

The outcome

Within three months, the organisation had introduced a new pay and grading framework covering around 130 employees across its multiple sites.

The new approach gave the client a clear and consistent methodology for determining the relative value of roles and making pay decisions, reducing its exposure to potential equal pay claims.

The framework was broadly well received by employees, who had been asking for greater clarity around pay. Where individuals were unhappy with the evaluation of their role, a formal appeals process provided a structured way for their concerns to be considered.

The client was particularly pleased with the level of workforce engagement and having a robust, legally defensible framework that remained straightforward enough for managers to use in practice.

Importantly, the framework continues to be used by the organisation when evaluating roles and making future pay decisions. 

The impact

  • 25 roles analysed and evaluated.
  • Around 130 employees covered by the new framework.
  • Pay grading structure introduced across the company’s different sites.
  • Existing pay anomalies identified and addressed.
  • A consistent methodology established for future role and pay decisions.
  • Reduced equal pay and employee relations risk.
  • Greater transparency and consistency around how roles are assessed and rewarded. 

Lessons for employers

Without a clear and objective methodology for determining pay, inconsistencies can develop over time and become difficult to explain or defend.

In this case, employees were already questioning why roles they considered to be of equal value were being paid differently. Creating an objective job evaluation process gave the organisation a way to assess those concerns consistently, identify existing anomalies and make informed decisions about how they should be addressed.

Introducing a new pay structure can itself create employee relations challenges, particularly where the process identifies both underpaid and overpaid roles. Clear evaluation criteria, meaningful workforce consultation and a defined appeals process helped the organisation introduce the new framework in a way that employees broadly accepted.

Crucially, the client was left with more than a one-off review of existing salaries. It now has a practical framework it can continue to use when roles change or new positions are created, supporting fairer and more consistent pay decisions over the longer term.

Need support with a similar challenge?

Talk to our HR and employment law team about how we can help.

Speak to our team