Standards › Standard 2E › Standard operating procedures (SOPs)
Standard operating procedure (SOP) · WRK-SOP-009 · Version 1.0 · Approved by the ASF Expert Committee
Supports: 2E.8
At a glance
- Record equity data for recruitment, work allocation, scheduling and promotion each quarter.
- Compare outcomes across groups.
- Investigate any unexplained difference.
- Report the findings yearly and act on them.
- Stop and get help straight away if: equity data is not collected for recruitment or promotion.
1. Purpose
To check that recruitment, allocation, scheduling and promotion are fair, and to correct any unexplained pattern [EC].
2. Scope
| Applies to | All recruitment, allocation, scheduling and promotion decisions |
| Locations | All services |
| When | Quarterly data collection; yearly report |
| Does not apply to | Individual pay, which is governed by the pay policy |
3. Definitions
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Equity monitoring | Recording outcomes by group to see whether they differ without a clear reason |
| Unexplained difference | A difference in outcome that cannot be explained by role, skills or hours |
4. Background
Unfair allocation of unpopular shifts or missed promotion drives staff away. Monitoring finds these patterns early, before they become a complaint.
5. Responsibilities
| Role | Responsibility | Competence |
|---|---|---|
| Human resources lead | Collects the data and runs the analysis | HR analysis |
| Chief executive | Receives the yearly report and agrees actions | Executive |
| Line managers | Make allocation and scheduling decisions consistently | Management |
6. Materials and equipment
| Item | Requirement | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Workforce equity register (WRK-REG-003) | Current | Updated quarterly |
7. Safety
- Data is held confidentially, reported only for groups of 5 or more, and used only for fairness.
8. Before you start
- Confirm the groups to be monitored are agreed and lawful under local rules.
9. Procedure
Step 1. Record the data.
- Enter each decision in WRK-REG-003 with the group and the outcome.
Key point: Data is only useful if every decision is recorded.
Step 2. Compare outcomes.
- Compare outcomes across groups for each area.
- Check the difference against role, skills and hours.
Key point: Compare like with like.
Step 3. Investigate.
- For each unexplained difference, review decisions with the manager.
- Record the finding.
Key point: An investigation is not an accusation.
Step 4. Act and report.
- Agree actions and report them yearly.
Key point: The yearly report shows the change over time.
10. Decision points
- If an unexplained difference is found in promotion, the chief executive decides on a review of the process.
11. Special situations
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Small team | Results are combined across teams so that no individual can be identified. |
12. Escalation
- An unexplained pattern that is not resolved within 3 months is reported to the chief executive.
13. Monitoring
| Measure | Target | Frequency | Owner | If not met |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quarterly data recorded for all four areas | 100% | Quarterly | Human resources lead | Escalate to chief executive |
| Unexplained differences investigated | 100% | Each quarter | Human resources lead | Escalate to chief executive |
14. Records
| Record | Kept in | Retention |
|---|---|---|
| WRK-REG-003 Workforce equity register | HR files | Employment plus 6 years |
15. Training
- Managers are trained in fair allocation and recording decisions.
16. Related documents
| ID | Title | Use |
|---|---|---|
| WRK-REG-003 | Workforce equity register | Source data |
| WRK-POL-004 | Working hours and rest policy | Scheduling rules |
17. Evidence
| Reference | Note |
|---|---|
| E-006 | ASF Policy Framework v1.2. Adapted. |
| E-009 | ASF Expert Committee consensus. Groups set by the ASF Expert Committee under local law. |
18. Change history
| Version | Date | What changed | Approval |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | the date of approval | First version | set Expert Committee approval |
E-learning for this document
No e-learning course is linked to this document yet.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)