Human Resources Division

Procedure and timetable

3.1 Please note that the term ‘Head of Institution’ (or ‘Head’) used in this guidance means the Head of the department, Chair of the faculty board (if the faculty is not organised into departments), or Head of other Institution, as appropriate. In large Institutions the Head may wish to delegate some or all of the actions outlined below to a nominee. Heads of Institutions should consider the potential effect/s of any upgrading on other posts in their Institution in the interests of fairness. Heads of Institutions will also need to manage the expectations of staff whose posts are put in for regrading.

3.2 The role of the appropriate authority (eg Chair of the School, Registrary for the UAS and Council Institutions with non devolved budgets) on receiving regrading applications is to:

  1. identify any matters that require discussion with the Head of Institution before submission
  2. consider the wider ramifications for Institutions within their remit
  3. note and pass on the budgetary implications to the appropriate person responsible for managing budgets, normally the School Finance Manager

3.3 The HR Division manages the scheme and the appeal process:

Stage 1: Preparation of regrading application

Potential regrading applications may be identified by the postholder or by the Institution. Line managers should be involved in this process if they are not the instigators.

The member of staff concerned will complete an up-to-date PD33, which must be approved and signed off as accurate by the postholder, the immediate manager, and the Head of Institution. The revised and agreed PD33 will automatically supersede the previous version with effect from the implementation date, regardless of the grading outcome.

The regrading application is submitted to Grading and Reward via the appropriate authority, either by e-mail to or as hard copy to the Old Schools, Trinity Lane.

Stage 2: Evaluation of the regrading application

(Within eight weeks of receipt of the application by Grading and Reward.)

The PD33s will be assessed by a trained role analyst using the HERA methodology following interviews (as necessary) with the postholder, their line manager and the management of the Institution. Verification of the assessment will then be undertaken by analysts collectively.

Where appropriate, the role analyst may consult specialist staff with expertise in the area of work under evaluation for advice on how to interpret specialist and/or technical information included in a PD33. Those consulted will not play an active part in determining the grade of the post.

HR will notify the appropiate authority and Heads of Institutions of the outcomes, both successful and unsuccessful.

Stage 3: Notification of outcome to the postholder and appeal submission

(Within five weeks of receipt of outcome.)

Heads of Institutions should notify staff within two weeks of receipt of the outcome, using the appropriate model letter.

Feedback to staff should also be provided if requested. That feedback should help staff gain a clear sense of what factors were relevant to the outcome, and how these might be addressed for the future. Grading and Reward will provide Heads of Institutions with feedback for regrading applications on request.

Within three weeks of the postholder being notified of the outcome, regrading appeals should be submitted to Grading and Reward and must include a jointly signed appeal form. See Section 5 for more information about the appeals process.

Stage 4: New grade implementation

HR will:

  • write to successful applicants with new salary scale and scale point
  • implement pay increases from successful applications
  • compile data on gender, ethnicity and disability from records in the HR Division
  • manage the appeals process