Here in the west we have been subjected to A4C. I have come off OK ie my salary has increased slightly (MTO3 to grade 6).

We, as MTOs, are in the A4C T&C handbook as a type of post for which there is prima facie evidence that a premium is necessary.
"the premium must be sufficient to ensure no loss".
Surely that is NOT
I have been granted RRP - to the grand total of £1 per annum. ie so that I am no worse off.

Has anyone else received this insult?

Sue, where in the South West are you?
We in Taunton haven't had our results, yet.
Has anyone from Barnstaple, Exeter, Weston SM or Yeovil had their results yet?

Cheers
Mark

Mark,
I'm in Bath but what I am really interested in is the RRP!

Sue,

As a group we have been listed, nationally, as requiring RRP - the amount of RRP being determined locally...I think.

My original reply to your post was to try and get information from my neighbouring EBME depts (South West interest only) because, no doubt, our employers will be looking close to home to determine what they choose to pay us.

Cheers
Mark

Sue,
Are you EBME or other?

Exeter reporting

No results............yet!

Torbay have theirs (posted elsewhere on this site)

Andy

has anyone else qualified for recruitment and retention premia?

Not yet. I have been asking about this as we have been banded but no R&R. Supposedly a meeting of our local R&R team was held last week,butI am not holding my breath for any good news to come out of it.Will post as soon as I hear.

Hello Sue 2465.
Two of our technicians have not faired so well and been graded as band 5(afc) for MTO3 having specialist skills including ventilators and anaesthetic equipment.
We have been shifted from the top of the MTO3 to the top point of the band 5 (afg)in which we will be facing stagnation.
Would it be possible to have a copy of your Job description as this may help us with our appeal.

Hi Tony, on a completely different subject, Why are you flying the Angolan Flag ??? Regards to all at PAH. Tony.

Hello Tony,

does your MTO3's carry out some manegerial duties? apparently sepcializing in vents and anaesthetic equipment is not enough to be placed in band 6. From the tour that we had in the department from the AFC team, what would score you the most points would be having autonomy and managerial tasks.

Hi Sue, our RRP has come to the grand total of £7,000 which may sound rather good. Unfortunately we were also put into Band 4(!!!)

MTO3s were banded a 6 here as I ensured that the job description highlighted the fact that we were specialist technicians working in anaesthesia delivery and patient ventilation systems. Also emphasised in the knowledge and training factor that we were graduate equivalent with specialist training through short courses, + 5 years experience.
No decision been made about the R&R premia yet but as lead Amicus rep on site I will be negotiating with the SMT here very soon.

Have just received the outcome of the R&R meeting here.The good news, we will be getting it, the bad news, not untill sometime next year. Apparently finance (bless their little souls) can't cope with all the extra workload A4C has given them!

Dicky,
What level of R&R have you been awarded

That's part of the bad news, finance can't work it out yet! Cynical view from the old timers here is that it will the bare minimum necessary to be able say it has been awarded ie £1 per year.

(waves to Sue)

Close to Sue we have at long last gained our AFC bands....
MTO5*---->band 8a
MTO4---->band 7
MTO3*---->band 6
MTO2---->band 5
MTO1---->band 4

word of mouth is that R&R is not required, which seems reasonable.

Hi Stew, Is the £7000 you have been awarded RRP or pay protection? If its pay protection I presume it will cease to be paid after 5 years (Oct 2009). Is there any chance a review will help your cause?

Trunky,

Are your MTO4's Team Leaders?

I ask because we have some MTO4's who are not Team Leaders, and some who are.

no, they are not team leaders, they have responsibility for conducting IDPR's of MTO 1's.

Actually, I was incorrect earlier when I said 'no R&R'. in fact, I was supposed to say to no 'payment protection' we await R&R....

more interestingly, for (certain factors) which were common to all pay bands (mto 1--> mto 5) where the same terminology was used in the JD/person spec, we saw variatons from level 1 to level 4 in our 'matched' profiles. None of the discrepancies are likely to change a banding, but who the feck knows that the 'important' factors have been matched correctly?

T

Trunky,

Perhaps this could be due to the fact that on different bands certain factors have different weightings hence scoring potential? For lower bands the maximum weighting, therefore level that can be attained for some of the factors, appears to be "capped" as far as I've looked into it.

So what on the face of it, in a job description, appears to be the same terminology for a factor will obtain a lower level and score for an MTO1 than an MTO4 when two hypohetical individuals are initially matched onto these profiles (initial matching is based on the knowledge/experience and freedom to act factors in the job specification/job description/organisation chart, primarily, I believe).

Factor levels and hence points are the same whichever band is being matched to. They relate to the criteria set out in the Job Evaluation Handbook.If the points are 42 for a particular factor on band 3 they are still 42 on band 8.

Actually I meant when I said:

I.e. the maximum level associated with some factors, for example "Analytical Skills" that is applied at MTO1 (matched initially to Band 2) for a particular factor may be 2, for example and for the same factor applied to an MTO5 (matched to Band 7) may be 4. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "weighting".

In response to Trunky's comment:

I'm assuming that the same statement in the MTO1/MTO5 job description/person specification would result in the associated factor being given a lower level on a lower band, than that on a higher band, due to this "capping" or "weighting" as I called it. The maximum level, therefore score, is limited at lower bands compared to higher bands for some factors.

Thus for the same statements in the JD/JS the maximum points attained for an MTO1 who is likely to be matched to a lower band initially are less, for some factors, than that attained by the MTO5, who's initially matched to a higher band I assume. Banding is based on some key factor for initial matching, such as required knowledge/skills/freedom factors, I assume.

Richard

I see what you are getting at. I shall have to think carefully to the reply to this, so it'll probably be Monday before I get back. Weekend tasks and all that (Goats with a flooded shelter with all our lovely liquid weather).

David

actually, the case is that, in some instances, people matched to a higher payband have scored lower on a given factor than those matched to a lower band, which is not what you are suggesting.

It works both ways depending upon the factors you're considering - we must remember that the JD/JS is being matched to existing profiles wherever possible and that for each factor the appropriate levels have been defined for matching panels already - for instance on the job profiles for a Medical Engineering team manager (in charge of an EBME site or group of technicians) at Band 7 may have a lower level in the factors associated with physical effort than a Band 2 medical Engineer (perhaps standing and sitting for long periods but not handling/moving/carrying equipment like the medical Engineer, for example).

The band 2 Engineer has the potential to score higher for the factor "Physical Effort" than the Band 7 Medical Engineering Team manager. I suspect that even given a similar statement in the JD/JS the maximum level that can be applied to each band is "capped" and what you attain relative to the maximum level attainable depends on what's been written in the JMQ for the post. If you look at the Medical Engineering profiles and the levels that are pitched for different factors, for the same factors on each band, then you'll probaby see what I'm getting at. I'm just trying to think of possible reasons for the differences you raised, not give a definitive answer.

Richard,
If your JD does not match and you have to go the JAQ route then the outcome is based on a simple points total of all the factors. As you are not being matched to a national profile, it would be impossible to 'cap' the scores as it would not be known what level of 'capping' to apply. The band for the job would not be known until all the factor points were totalled up therefore 'capping' the points would not be possible

Reading the AfC evaluation handbook and looking into the process a few weeks ago I had the impression that if the majority of factors outlined in the JD/JS match to the job profile then the panel would try to match to an appropriate profile using the JMQ to assist in this.

Only then if a match could not be made then the JEQ route would be considered if local matching were unsuccessful. This is not what I'm discussing - I was talking about the local matching process, based on established profiles, not Job Evaluation that applies in your case, I believe, Ken.

The Job Matching Questionnaire (JMQ) is used to assess the levels once you've been matched to an initial band, hence the matchers should be aware what the factor levels are likely to be for the initial profile considered (based on tangiables, i.e. knowledge/skills, etc). This is a "benchmark" I suppose.

If you exceed the factor "levels" for the band you're initially matched to then the panel considers awarding more points, i.e. increasing a level, or possibly moving you up a band, if the majority of the factors in the JMQ indicate this, or vice-versa if your JMQ factors are very poor relative to the initial profile chosen.

That's the way I remember reading the local job evaluation process and I believe this is the process that has been applied to our matching. Only when this process fails to give a match is the JEQ route considered, I believe. Could be totally wrong and nowhere near the mark since I've only discussed the process breifly (and locally) with individuals who're involved in the process.

Points do have to be capped for each factor, for a job profile in a particular band , otherwise a really good score in one factor only could lift you into a higher band if the potential score were not limited - this would make a mockery of having other factors and establishing "benchmark" levels for particular job profiles - hence I do not believe this is how "profiling" works.

Richard
I can't find any reference to the Job Matching Questionnaire on the AfC website. Is this something being used by your trust or is it a national proceedure. The situation I am in is that the JD did not match the national profile, and therefore a JAQ was required which has now been assessed and I am awaiting the outcome. I still don't see how they can 'cap' the factors in my case if the panel do not know the outcome until all the factors have been scored.

Section 8 - NHS Job Evaluation Handbook (2nd Ed) Oct 2004. The name of the questionnaire is not mentioned explicitly. I call it JMQ but it's probably a JAQ.

Section 10 "National Protocol for Local Evaluation" Job Analysis Questionnaire (JAQ) is mentioned, extensively (for matching jobs where no Profile/Match exists) but we used different terminology for the questionnaire used to provide supplementary information (JD/JS/Org Chart/Questionnaire) in the matching pocess outlined in Section 8 "Matching Procedure". Locally, this questionnaire gave us the opportunity to expand on 6 factors in the profiles.

I suspect we may have gone through the " Hybrid matching/evaluation procedure" that uses the JAQ but I'm not sure and have lost interest in it all to be honest. For JMQ read as JAQ in my previous postings.

Not so much a case of losing interest but being totally p****d off by it. It is now over a year since our job descriptions were submitted and we are still awaiting the outcome.

For those whom had received recruitment and retention.. is there anyone who is from a London hospital? Please let me know

Has anybody actually been paid pay protection and not RRP? Apparently pay protection isn't pensionable and doesn't count for overtime so I'd be suprised if anybody actually gets pay protection.

as someone facing pay protection, where abouts can i read information with regards to RRP?

Not very happy as i am the only person facing this within my department, waiting for scores to be returned, then hopefully getting an "upgrade" but wont hold my breath

Try the "final Terms and conditions handbook"
Annex R paragraphs 5,6 and 7

or "final agreement" annex H para h5,h6,h7
Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/09/94/23/04099423.pdf

HTH Paul

Anyone else received the Amicus RepsDirect newsletter No 454 - 4th January 2006 ?

Page 6 refers to Annex R: Guidance on the application of nationally agreed recruitment and retention premia: Paragraph 13.

Q. Are Trusts that employ maintenance crafts persons and Qualified Maintenance Technicians required to pay the specified amount of National Recruitment and Retention Premia or can this amount be varied to a lower rate or not paid at all ?

A. The amount specified in Annex R should be paid to all staff so designated. RRP cannot be paid at less than the agreed national rate (£2,899).

It then goes on to say that Trusts can pay more if local conditions warrant it.

When I asked if Estates Officers were covered by this agreement I was told that it only applied to craftsmen. But I remember seeing Medical Physics and Medical Electronics Technicians on the list of jobs which had been identified nationally as requiring RRP - along with Estates Personnel.

Does anyone know if we got a nationally agreed rate for this premium payment ? - and has anyone actually received anything ? ?

Roy

Roy,

I thought the uplift of £2899 uplift for maintenance craftsmen was agreed between management and the unions, nationally, so that this would bring prospective AfC earnings in-line with EIB/EITB rates? As for RRP, generally speaking, I think it's down to local conditions and left to the discretion of HR in consultation with the SHAs?

Roy

Med Physics and EBME R&R to be set locally acording to the Terms and Conditions handbook.
We were banded here in September, still waiting to hear about R&R payments.

Ah Richard, I see you got there before me
.

I heard the following comment about R&R payment for maintenance craftsmen which if true will not go down well.
When the unions negotiated the R&R payment, the national profile was band 3 for a maintenance craftsman. Now that the national profile is band 4 the trusts are saying that the original argument for R&R is invalid and they will be asking for it to be removed.
The unions had originaly argued that band 3 plus R&R payment would make the pay levels at a rate that would ease recruitment and retention problems. The trusts are now saying that band 4 is more than band 3 + R&R payment therefore the unions argument is no longer valid and R&R should be withdrawn.