Following the introduction of jobsizing, the SNCT produced a Circular relating to the re-jobsizing (SNCT/28(Revised)) and guidance on the jobsizing of posts for the first time (SNCT letter of advice of 4 November 2003). The Circular is now subsumed within the Handbook of Conditions of Service.


With regards to re-jobsizing the Handbook is very prescriptive as to when and how re-jobsizing should take place. It must be recognised that the request that re-jobsizing should take place may be initiated by the employer or by the teacher. A request, however, is not sufficient. The relevant criteria laid down in the Handbook must be met. These involve the recognition or view that a category A change or two category B changes or 4 category C changes or stated combination thereof should exist before the re-jobsizing can be undertaken.

Such changes should be matters of fact in the majority of cases. As example, the school roll (albeit an "authority" input) or an increase in the number of classes in a PT's subject area are generally matters of fact. There will be, however, matters which may be more contentious. Such an example would be responsibility under the heading "To lead or work with colleagues in the same establishment" (section 5.2 of the jobsizing questionnaire). It is the view of the Association that such a change can be supported only when accompanied by a formal change to remit or to contractual terms. Such a change should always be clarified in writing. It is not acceptable that such a change is "informal". The written statement of change should be expressed in such a way as to make it clear that the jobsized score for the post should be checked. Where there are any disputes as to whether changes in responsibilities within a school should result in a re-jobsizing, the members concerned should contact the General Secretary.

It may be that an Authority would wish to have an "automatic check" help perhaps annually. While this might be done, it must be noted that for a formal re-jobsizing to take place, the Handbook criteria must still be met.

Any re-jobsizing must involve the Jobsizing Co-ordinators in their normal role. This would include any agreed role in cases of disputes (see later section).

The Jobsizing of "New Posts"

The criteria involved here are clear.

Where it is obvious that the post is genuinely "new", the procedures must be adopted.

Jobsizing "Checks"

A number of Authorities may be prepared to admit that the initial jobsizing exercise undertaken in 2003 might have been undertaken inaccurately. There is no reason why a "check" should not be undertaken via a mechanism agreed at the LNCT and involving the Jobsizing Co-ordinators. It must be noted, however, that no reduction in salary could apply. (There might be an increase but any reduction is unacceptable.) The Authority has the right to carry out a check on a hypothetical basis (e.g. what would the score be if x happened) but this should not be reported to the teacher.

Manipulation of Jobsized Scores

It is rare that manipulation takes place with the intent of discrimination against an individual. The Association will examine each case of this nature and advise accordingly. It is likely that the Association will require to advise members not to undertake certain work which might generally be undertaken by postholders of that grade if it is clear that an Authority has deliberately omitted the task from the remit with the sole intent of lowering the jobsized score.

Much more usual are generalised "manipulations". The most common of these are:

  1. Restriction of the remits of former APTs and Senior Teachers in such a way as to arrive at a score resulting in the post being at PT1 level.
  2. Attempts to introduce "generic" remits (or individually tailored remits) to ensure that all the postholders at that grade in the same school or Authority are awarded the same salary grade.

Cases of type (a) are now well established and members will be advised individually on this matter. Again, our advice is generally that such members do not require to undertake any promoted task outwith the jobsized remit.

There have been a number of cases of type (b). In some cases, the employers' attempts may have been no more than misguided attempts at some form of "equalisation". Most obviously, attempts to pay all DHTs in the same school at the same grade. This ploy meets the obvious obstacle that the "real" Depute should, perhaps, be paid more.

Also within this category are the PTs (Guidance) whose remits were subjected to some form of "equalisation" procedure. As example, one Authority wished to make all PT(G) appointments at PT3 level. (Such an approach does rather contradict the whole principle of jobsizing.) Where, however, the remits are properly adjusted and where appropriate conservation is applied, this mechanism may be allowable but the remit adjustment must be real. What is not allowable is the blanket "All PT(G)s are paid at PT3 level regardless of any jobsizing exercise". This is a clear breach of the salary regulations.

Further advice on these issues can be obtained from the General Secretary. Such cases tend to be complex. It is preferable that members write to the General Secretary in the first instance. (It is helpful to email.)