Hay evaluation (FOI)
Hay evaluation (FOI)Produced by the Freedom of Information office
Authored by States of Jersey and published on 13 December 2018.
Prepared internally, no external costs.
I request a copy of the original HAY evaluation (the grading) for the position of Visitor Reception Advisor at the States of Jersey Police, which was created in November 2016.
The Hay evaluation process is complex and depends on a good understanding of the scheme and an ability to be analytical and strictly objective. It requires detailed formal training, observation and induction to operate effectively – therefore we do not release the final evaluation scores.
Article 39 (Employment) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied
The summary in the PDF below has been designed to provide a guide and general overview of the mechanics of the Hay scheme and may be useful in demonstrating the complexity of the evaluation criteria.
Job evaluation – the Korn Ferry Hay Group scheme
Article 39 Employment
Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice pay or conditions negotiations that are being held between a public authority and –
(a) an employee or prospective employee of the authority; or
(b) representatives of the employees of the authority.
Article 25 Personal information
(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018.
(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –
(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and
(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.
The Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) decided to withhold this information as it believes that to release it could prejudice ongoing evaluations which take place as part of the day to day management of employment conditions within the States of Jersey. The SPA would also be concerned that any future evaluations may be affected due to the release of information.
Article 39 is a qualified exemption, which means that a public interest test is required to be undertaken by the SPA. It is therefore necessary for the scheduled public authority to examine the circumstances of the case. Following assessment the SPA has to decide whether, on balance, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Although there is a need for transparency, accountability, and good decision making by public authorities this information relates to specific evaluations and negotiations between the States of Jersey and their employees and has very little wider public interest.
Risk of prejudice to either the States of Jersey or to the role holder is increased by the nature of Jersey as a small island. The States of Jersey is the largest employer on the island and must be mindful that there is a greater risk of prejudice than in a larger community. The States of Jersey’s duty of care to its employees is increased as a result of this.
On balance, it is our view that the public interest does not outweigh the potential prejudice of release.
Article 25 is an absolute exemption and therefore does not require either public interest or prejudice test.
However it should be noted that whilst the requester may have a private interest in the information, the private interests of a requester are not deemed to outweigh the obligations of the SPA in relation to fair handling of the information. Providing HAY evaluations for one job role is exceedingly specific information which would carry little interest to the general public and could breach the personal data of the holders of that role. It is therefore considered that release of the information is not in the public interest as the rights of the affected individuals outweigh the limited public interest in the information.
It is also noted that any grading outcome, which an employee disagrees with, can be appealed via the internal appeals process which is part of the Job evaluation procedure