Unite reps update - How to write a job description
- Monday 22 June 2026
In April 2026 Unite held an online meeting for Unite health sector representatives (in England) that focused on annex 31, an important new addition to the NHS terms and conditions of service. You can see information about this session which includes a recording of the presentation and links to helpful resources - Unite in Health update on Annex 31.
A second session was also discussed, and, following feedback, that session was an update for reps on how best to write a job description with a focus on what is needed for (NHS Job Evaluation Scheme) job evaluation purposes.
At this event in June 2026, lead professional officer Dave Munday provided a presentation based on the previously published advice from NHS Employers. He was joined by Paul Smith (Unite representative on the NHS Staff Council Job Evaluation Group) during a question and answer session.
Watch the Unite reps update on the NHS job evaluation scheme
The Q&A session was not recorded but the topics covered are included in the list of FAQs below.
FAQs | How to write a job description question and answers from the Unite rep's session
Yes, you can access a copy on this webpage.
Yes, you can watch the presentation here:
Yes. You can access the online guide - Writing successful job descriptions (published in August 2020, reviewed in September 2025 and accessed on 6 July 2026).
Whilst we see it on job descriptions, it should not be the case. As we highlighted in the presentation, it is recommended that factor language is not used in job descriptions as it is for trained Agenda for Change panel members to make decisions on what levels should be awarded for each factor. If they do remain in job descriptions, panel members will need to appropriately interrogate the detail of what is required to perform the job. If reps are seeing this locally it may be worth raising the issue with colleagues in Human Resources to see if education sessions or support can be developed.
The AfC scheme already has a requirement to audit outcomes as part of the consistency checking process. The NHS Job Evaluation Handbook states in Chapter 11, section 6.1: “All job evaluation outcomes must be subject to consistency checking. Consistency checking should only be undertaken by experienced JE practitioners who have received relevant training. It must be conducted in partnership with at least two people, one from management side, one from staff side.” There is further guidance on this part of the scheme in chapter 14 of the handbook.
No. Consistency checking is a part of the AfC scheme and is a requirement in the same way that the other elements of the scheme are required.
There are a number of elements that should impact on the titles of jobs. We discussed examples including:
Would members of the public, who are received services from that employee, understand what the role is?
Are there any protected title issues? For example ‘registered nurse’ is currently a protected title so can only be used for someone registered with the Nursing & Midwifery Council (NMC), whilst nurse is not protected so could be used by anyone. We would however argue against it being used for any roles where the person does not require NMC registration.
If members are being asked to change job titles this should be discussed locally and preferably agreed in partnership. If members/reps have concerns this could be raised with their regional officer.
Yes, the NHS Job Evaluation Handbook can be downloaded directly.
The Job Evaluation Group provided additional guidance on factor 2 including a KTE escalator [PDF].
Not since the review was done 2-3 years ago but as far as we’re aware that should have resolved the issues that members were raising locally. If further issues have been raised Paul encouraged getting in touch.
The NHS job evaluation handbook (chapter 5, factor 2: Knowledge training and experience) states: “Where the training, qualifications and/or experience requirements for a job have changed over time, the current requirements should be taken as the necessary standard to be achieved, as it is the work carried out which is evaluated. Existing job holders with the previously required qualifications should be deemed to have achieved the current qualification level through on-the-job learning and experience.”
The organisation has to have a process in place for signing off job descriptions. It can be really complicated if this process in respect of particular roles is contested. A number of different areas should be considered, for example:
Who has asked an employee to perform particular tasks?
When did this request happen and how long have they been doing it?
It is probably important to discuss the issue with reps or your regional officer locally.
Budget constraints cannot be an argument for not honouring the Agenda for Change agreement and as we highlighted in the session on Annex 31, employees have a number of rights, and employers a number of responsibilities, inherent in the agreement which they must be afforded.
Annex 31 confirms that staff have the right to “have an up-to-date job description that reflects the full requirements of their role and that is reviewed at least every three years.”
There are no national requirements or templates for job descriptions should be written however it would seem sensible for organisations to have a way to know when job descriptions have last been reviewed/updated.
If you are enquiring about your own role it would be best to start enquiries with your line manager. If you are looking for details related to another role or a number of roles it may be better to start enquiries with human resource colleagues. If neither of them know, it maybe that a bigger discussion is needed about how the organisation is ensuring it is meeting its obligations, re. Regular review of job descriptions.
The NHS job evaluation handbook (chapter 3, section 3.5) states: “Disputes over whether a job has changed significantly should be resolved through the local grievance procedure or a local arbitration process.”
The NHS job evaluation handbook (chapter 3, section 3.2 and 3.3) states: “All posts change over a period of time. For most, the job evaluation outcome will not normally be affected unless there are significant changes. Some job outcomes may be close to band boundaries and consequently the banding for these jobs may change with only limited changes to job demands.
The decision about whether changes are significant and warrant a re-evaluation should be made in partnership by knowledgeable Job Evaluation practitioners.”
Staff side colleagues can state that they have a more immediate expectation that the work should be completed but if there is a big piece of work that’s needed across a large organisation, it may well not be possible to do this. One important aspect is that if any members feel their AfC outcome is not correct that they make a formal request for their post to be reviewed as soon as possible as this may be the date that is considered for any backpay.
Annex 31 confirms that staff have the right to “have sight of the JE report for their job on request.”