Job Analysis

Job Analysis 

The Railway Labour Tribunal, 1969 has listed the following four methods of job-analysis:- 

(a) Rough assessment method; 

(b) Representative method; 

(c)Method of issuance of certificate by executive officer; and 

(d) Factual job analysis 

While the first three methods have the advantage of quickness, particularly when the requirement is to obtain temporary results, the last method is preferred by the Tribunal as the most suitable. The Tribunal does not rule out the employment of other three methods particularly when there is a huge back-log of classification work pending disposal. 

The method of factual job-analysis has been recommended by the Tribunal, when the employees concerned raise objections against the results obtained by other three methods and particularly when the job analysis results in down-gradation. 

As to the mechanics of the job-analysis the following points may be noted:- 

(i) The collection of data should be objective. 

(ii) The factual job analysis should be conducted for 72 hours. 

(iii) The days on which job analyses are to be carried out should be carefully chosen in order that normal workload and the normal time span in which duties are performed are taken into account. 

(iv) Duty list of staff carefully prepared should be consulted by the H.E.R. staff in-charge of job analyses. 

(v) Past records should be consulted with a view to ensuring that the results obtained are correct. 

(vi) The correctness of results obtained in the job analyses should not be vitiated by improper standardization or arbitrary and artificial reduction in periods of action. 

(vii) The association of Executive Officer and Accounts Officer in the final decision making process is un-exceptionable. 

(viii) The periods of action should clearly indicate those on sustained attention when a worker may not be physically active. 5. Besides the points made out, certain specific decisions have been given by the Tribunal in regard to:- 

(a) Machinery for classification; 

(b) Date of effect of job analysis; and 

(c) Rosters.

D. O. No.E(LL) 73HER/33 Pt. A. II, dated 28.06.1974

Mechanics in Railway Labour Tribunal

There are three crucial dates involved in any case of re-classification:- 

(1) The date of demand for reclassification made by or on behalf of the staff concerned, 

(2) The date of completion of job analysis,

(3) The date of decision regarding reclassification.

Time legs that may take place may relate to:- 

(1) The period between the date of demand for job analysis and the date of completion of job analysis; and 

(2) The interval between the date of completion of job analysis and the date of decision regarding reclassification.

The date of completion of the job analysis should normally be the date with reference to which the new classification should be made effective where it involves higher classification. However, they have also stated that where the delay between the date of demand and the date of completion of job analysis is more than six months, but less than a year, the competent authority may determine as to how much time lag for up-gradation of classification was necessary and inevitable and use his discretion as to from what point of time retrospective effect should be given to his declaration. However, where such delay is more than a year, the Tribunal have stated that retrospective effect should be given from a date not later than six months from the date of demand for up-gradation of classification.

The Board having carefully considered the Tribunal’s recommendations have decided as below:- 

(a) The job analysis should as far as practicable be completed within six months from the date of demand for re-classification and higher classification should be given effect to from the date of completion of job analysis, when the time lag between the date of demand and the date of completion of job analysis is less than 6 months. 

(b) In cases where are there is a time lag of six month but less than a year between the date of demand for up-gradation of classification and the date of completion of job analysis, after an examination of how much time lag was necessary on account of non-availability of inspectors to do the job analysis or other administrative regions, the date of effect of the retrospective classification may be fixed on the merits of the case, but not later than the date of completion of the job analysis. The decision in regard to the date of effect of classification should take into account also the extent of delay on account of staff whose work is being job analysed. 

(c) Where there is a time lag of a year or more between the date of demand for up-gradation and the date of completion of job analysis, retrospective effect should be given to the reclassification from a date not later than six months from the date of demand for up-gradation of classification, subject to the delay on staff side not exceeding 6 months. In case the delay on staff account exceeds 6 months, the instructions given in sub-para (b) above will apply mutatis-mutandis.

Example-I: A Ticket Collector, classified as ‘E.I.’ had made a representation for up-gradation of classification as ‘continuous’ on 08.01.1974. The job analysis of his work-load was completed on 15.03.1974 wherein justification was found for classifying the post as ‘continuous’. The reclassification should be given effect to from 15.03.1974, the date of completion of job analysis. 

Example-II: There was a demand on 10.08.1973 on behalf of a ‘continuous’ type for up-gradation to ‘Intensive’. The job analysis was completed on 10.03.1974 where in the classification of the post was found meriting up-gradation. The delay in job analysis was attributable to the following reasons. (1) Non availability of inspectors to conduct job analysis from August, 1973 to December, 1973 having been deputed to conduct special studies. (2) Non cooperation on the part of the staff concerned during the months of January and February, 1974. The reclassification should be given effective from 10th March, 1974, the date of job analysis. 

Example-III: A demand was received on 10.05.1973 from an ‘E.I.’ Ticket Collector for up-gradation as ‘continuous’. The job analysis was completed on 20th July, 1974, and it was found that there was justification for up-gradation. The reason for the delay was that the staff concerned did not co-operate with the team of job analysis for most part of this time. Effect should be given to the job analysis w.e.f. 20.07.1974, the date of job analysis. 

Example-IV: A Cabinman, classified as ‘E.I.’ made a demand for up-grading his post as ‘continuous’ on 08.03.1973. The job analysis was completed on 11.04.1974, wherein the up-gradation was found justified; the delay being purely due to administrative reasons. The classification should be given effect to from 08.09.1973 i.e. six months after the date of demand. 

Example-V: There was a demand on 1st January, 1973 on behalf of a railway servant classified as ‘continuous’ for up-gradation to ‘intensive’. The job analysis was completed on 10.02.1974 wherein the classification of the post was found meriting up-gradation. The delay in job analysis was due to non-availability of the job analysis team upto the end of May, 1973 and non-cooperation on the part of the staff concerned for about 8 months from the beginning of June, 1973 up to the end of January, 1974. The up-gradation may be given effect from 01.09.1973 i.e. 8 months after the date of demand. 

No.E(LL) 73HER/33, dated 05.12.1974