I have read with interest all of the above with regard to AfC banding and the "fairness/unfairness" of it. I would like to relate my own experience and the conclusions that I have drawn as a consequence:
The post was advertised pre-AfC and was banded on a reasonable MTO scale (4***). When the job description was submitted for AfC banding it came back at Band 6 and my manager's came back at Band 8a !!! His job description is the same with regard to duties with the addition of managerial responsibilities for two people and organisational skills.
After appeal, my role still came back as Band 6 but had moved up 2 whole points in the weighting!!!!!!
After 12 months, the job was reviewed and a revised job description was submitted for AfC banding. Guess what?? It came back at Band 6. After appeal I was asked to submit a JAQ and surprise, surprise it still came back as Band 6.
I had a meeting with the Head of Service and the Senior HR Manager to discuss this and found out the following:
1. The AfC team will not release information regarding the National Profile used or the actual scores achieved on the Weighting.
2. Under a Freedom of Information Act request, the information is not available for release.
3. The budget for a department dictates the Bands that are available for personnel.
3. It is necessary to score in the top half of a Band for that Band to be awarded. If you score in the bottom half, then a review of the scoring is undertaken to make sure that the final outcome drops them into the lower Band.
4. AfC is biased towards clinical staff.
5. Any clinical or managerial responsibility automatically scores higher irrespective of the other duties.
As a result of the above points I am very cynical of the AfC process and its interpretation by Trusts. To my mind it was construed as a way of keeping the nurses quiet with regard to parity and pay whilst penalising everyone else in Trusts that are hell bent on saving money.
Rant over!!!
Last edited by Kawasaki; 05/10/07 12:12 PM. Reason: spelling
