Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on arrangements for the regrading of certain offices and posts, and for the award of discretionary increments

The COUNCIL and the GENERAL BOARD beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. Introduction

1.1. In paragraph 20 of the Appendix to the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on a Human Resources (HR) Strategy for the University (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 777) it was stated that existing HR policies and procedures were being reviewed to ensure that they are up to date; to assess the scope for harmonization between staff groups; and to ensure that they do not lead to unlawful or less favourable treatment. It was also indicated that a working group on recruitment, reward, and retention had been charged with rationalizing the various arrangements for regrading and discretionary awards for non-academic staff.

1.2. The relevant current schemes are:

(i) The annual temporary upgrading procedure for University officers in Council and General Board institutions. This procedure is run over the period June to December each year, the date of the upgrading taking effect from 1 January of the following year.

(ii) The annual exercise for the award of discretionary increments to non-clinical academic and academic-related University officers and comparable unestablished staff. This procedure is run over the period June to December for Council institutions and December to March for General Board institutions, awards taking effect retrospectively from 1 October.

(iii) The bi-annual regrading and the annual discretionary increments exercises for assistant staff. Under this scheme applications for regrading are submitted by the end of February (successful regradings being effective from 1 July of the same year); and by the end of August (effective from 1 January of the following year). The annual exercise for the award of discretionary increments for assistant staff is launched in the Michaelmas Term of each year, with awards being effective from the following 1 January.

1.3. This Report brings forward proposals for a single scheme which rationalizes the current arrangements and under which regradings and discretionary increments will take effect from a single date, that is 1 January. The detailed guidance relating to the proposed new scheme is set out in the Appendix to this Report. If the scheme is approved, the timetable of the procedure (Appendix, Section 6) in the first year of operation may require some revision depending on the date of approval.

1.4. The arrangements described below are in some respects necessarily transitional. In bringing forward the proposals in this Report, the Council and the General Board are especially mindful of a number of developments. These include the HEFCE Human Resources Strategy initiative, the Government White Paper on the Future of Higher Education, and the introduction nationally of a single pay spine together with pay structures that are capable of adaptation to local requirements. Another aspect is the introduction of a common objective grading methodology which is expected to lead to the elimination of the role of Appointments Committees from the regrading of academic-related officers.

2. Main features of the proposed new scheme

Coherence, economy, and flexibility

2.1. The proposed scheme provides a more coherent approach to rewarding academic-related and certain academic officers, holders of comparable unestablished posts, and assistant staff. Although the arrangements for the first exercise will necessarily be transitional (see below, Section 4), it is expected that, in due course, it will be possible to streamline them further.

2.2. University institutions should experience economies of effort from the time of first exercise. The new arrangements should also be beneficial to staff in that they call for a systematic review on a regular basis of all the staff that come within the scope of the scheme.

2.3. The proposed scheme is flexible in that it allows for proposals to be considered, exceptionally, outside the annual timetable.

Applicability (Appendix, Section 3)

2.4. The proposed scheme applies to all members of staff whose basic salary is below step 31 (currently £49,685) on the University's general scale of stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 663), who hold non-clinical academic-related established and comparable unestablished appointments, and assistant staff. It also applies to holders of a few academic offices (see below, paragraphs 2.6 - 2.7). It does not apply to contract research staff for whom there are separate arrangements.

2.5. Eligibility for consideration of regrading or of discretionary increments will be subject to completion of a qualifying period of twelve months' performance of duties in the current office or post.

2.6. There has been in recent years a major development of senior academic promotion arrangements, including the introduction of the University Senior Lectureship. Cases for promotion are assessed against performance criteria. In the General Board's view, it is no longer appropriate for academic staff to be able to apply also for discretionary increments in respect of their contribution to teaching, research, and general contribution when promotion schemes allow for such recognition of achievement through an annual promotion scheme.

2.7. The holders of certain academic offices do not currently have access to the University Senior Lectureships promotions since eligibility is restricted to the holders of University Lectureships, which can only be established in Faculties and Departments and not other academic institutions. A proposal has recently been put to the University to establish University Lecturers in other institutions under the supervision of the General Board (see the Report of the General Board on the structure of academic offices in the University (Reporter, p. 618)). The stipend scale of the offices of Assistant Director of Development Studies and of Assistant Director of Studies in International Relations is equivalent to that of the office of University Lecturer and, once the necessary change in Statutes is approved (see paragraphs 20-21 of the Appendix to the above Report), it will be possible for the holders of these offices to have their offices converted to University Lectureships at no additional cost, thereby making them eligible for promotion to University Senior Lectureships. With regard to other academic offices such as Assistant Directorships of Research, the current arrangements should continue to apply whereby a proposal for upgrading to University Lectureship may be made, subject to the General Board, on the advice of the Resource Management Committee, meeting the additional recurrent cost involved. Pending changes in the Statutes, it is desirable that the new arrangements should also allow the present access to discretionary awards to be maintained.

Method of making a proposal and documentation required for regrading or discretionary increment(s) (Appendix, Section 5)

2.8. The Head of Institution will be responsible for making a proposal for regrading and for the award of a discretionary increment(s). The Head of Institution will inform all members of staff that a review is being conducted. Where individuals request that a regrading submission is made and the Head of Institution does not support the case, the individual may ask the Head of Institution to forward her or his application for consideration in accordance with the scheme. In the case of discretionary awards, individuals may make a case for consideration by the Head of Institution. Where the Head of Institution does not support the case it will not proceed further.

Criteria (Appendix, Section 4)

2.9. For regrading, in the case of academic-related officers and assistant staff, pending the introduction of a common role analysis methodology, evaluation will be through existing methods of role profiling/job evaluation and criteria therein.

2.10. For discretionary increments, including permanent consolidation of discretionary increments to University officers awarded under the old (now abolished) scheme, the criteria will be as set out in paragraphs 4.2 - 4.3 of the Appendix.

2.11. The maximum number of increments that may be awarded will be three. Individual proposals would be made on the basis of paragraph 5.6 of the Appendix.

3. Funding (Appendix, Section 7)

Regrading

3.1. In the case of UEF (University Education Fund) and Chest-funded offices and posts, the Council and the General Board expect that the cost of positive regrading recommendations will be met automatically, subject to the University's general financial situation. (For the holders of certain academic offices, see paragraphs 2.6 - 2.7).

3.2. In the case of non-centrally funded offices and posts, the Council and the General Board expect institutions to meet the cost of regrading from non-central sources. Heads of Institutions should accordingly support only those cases where they are clear at the outset that funding can be identified to meet the cost of a regrading.

Discretionary increments

3.3. The Council and the General Board will determine each year the budget for expenditure on discretionary increments and will allocate the funds to the respective authorities in proportion to the number of eligible members of staff. Although they expect that decisions on applications for discretionary increments under the scheme will continue to be made primarily with reference to the criteria, the number of awards that it will be possible to approve in a particular year may be influenced by the University's general financial position.

Details of the annual allocation to each of the Awarding Committees of the Councils of the Schools, the Council, the Unified Administrative Service (UAS), the University Computing Service, the University Library, and the Institute of Continuing Education will be notified respectively to the Chairs and Secretaries of Councils of the Schools, and to the Registrary in respect of Council institutions and the Unified Administrative Service, and to the Heads of the University Computing Service, the University Library, and the Institute of Continuing Education.

Non-UEF and non-Chest funded offices and posts

3.4. Some offices, unestablished posts, and assistant staff posts are funded from non-central sources. The cost of any discretionary increment(s) should be met from the same source or sources from which the office or post is funded. If this is not possible, the Head of Institution should look to other sources of funding to meet the increase in recurrent cost.

3.5. Some officers will be in receipt of a discretionary payment, the cost of which is not met from central funds. The cost of the permanent consolidation of the discretionary payment should be met from the same source from which the office is funded. If this is not possible, the cost of the discretionary increments should be met from other sources available or, where this is not possible, from the allocation provided to the Awarding Committee.

Process (Appendix, Section 6)

3.6. The Head of Institution will review each member of staff eligible for consideration in order to decide whether there is:

(i)	either a case for regrading,
(ii)	or a case for a discretionary increment or increments,
(iii)	no case for either regrading or a discretionary increment.

The process to be followed is described in detail in Section 5 of the Appendix.

Notification of outcome (Appendix, 6.17)

3.7. The Personnel Division will refer the list of successful regrading proposals to the General Board or the Council, as the case may be. After formal approval by these authorities, letters of appointment will in due course be sent to the individuals concerned. The Secretaries of the Awarding Committees will inform Heads of Institutions of the outcome of consideration in relation to proposals for discretionary awards. Heads of Institutions will then inform the individuals concerned.

Consideration of proposals outside the timetable (Appendix, Section 9)

3.8. Occasionally, a case will arise where the Head of the Institution may consider that it is in the interest of the institution that a regrading or additional increment proposal is considered outside the annual timetable. For example, it may be in the interest of the institution that a proposal for additional increment(s) should be considered in order to retain a member of staff who may otherwise wish to accept an offer of employment elsewhere. Such proposals will require the approval of the Chair of the relevant Council of the School or other relevant authority before trying to proceed (see paragraph 3.10 below).

3.9. Where approved, the cost of regrading will be met in accordance with the policy stated in paragraphs 3.1 - 3.2 above. The cost of additional increments will be met as a first charge on the School's (Council's) or the institution's allocation for the following year.

3.10. Proposals made outside the annual timetable will be submitted in the first instance to the Personnel Division via the relevant Personnel Consultant. The Personnel Division will consider the proposal for a regrading. If there is a positive recommendation for regrading the procedure outlined in paragraphs 2.8 - 2.9 will be followed on an ad hoc basis. If the proposal is for a discretionary increment or increments, the Personnel Consultant will forward it to the Secretary of the relevant Council of the School or other authority.

Resolution of difficulties

3.11. Should any difficulty arise in the course of the operation of the scheme that cannot be resolved by the Director of Personnel or Assistant Director of Personnel, the Chair of the Personnel Committee will rule on the matter.

4. Transitional matters

Regrading

4.1. In the case of the regrading of University officers covered by this scheme, appointment to a more senior grade may only be made by an Appointments Committee under the University's existing Statutes and Ordinances unless otherwise specified. This Report proposes an amendment to the general regulations for University Officers (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 658) so that the competent authority can, in due course, determine promotion without referral to Appointments Committees, as in the case of promotions to University Senior Lectureships under the new single promotions exercise. For the academic officers listed in paragraph 2.7 Appointments Committees will necessarily continue to make the appointments in the light of the documentation and the grading evaluation determined by the Personnel Division.

Discretionary increments

4.2. At present, allocations are made to the Councils of the Schools and to the Council and Awarding Committees appointed by these authorities determine the awards to be made from the allocation available. A few large institutions, viz the UAS, the University Library, the University Computing Service, and the Institute of Continuing Education receive their own allocations and have the authority to make their own awards. Councils of the Schools (and the Council) may wish to consider whether they would wish to devolve the operation of the scheme to larger institutions within their scope so that these may be given their own proportionate allocation from the allocations available and the Schools (or Council) thereby decide awards in relation to their own members of staff in accordance with the requirements of the scheme.

4.3. If it should be necessary to run the existing arrangements again in the event of a delay in the approval of the Report's recommendations, there should be a single funding allocation for both officer and assistant staff discretionary increments.

5. Recommendations

5.1. The current arrangements for additional discretionary pay awards to non-clinical academic and academic-related offices in non-professorial grades and to the holders of analogous unestablished posts were implemented following the approval by the Regent House of the proposals of a Joint Report of the Council and the General Board (Reporter, 1999-2000, p. 240 ff).

5.2. The Council and the General Board accordingly recommend:

I. That the discretionary payments scheme approved by Grace 8 of 22 March 2000 be abolished and replaced by the arrangements described in this Report and Appendix.

II. That the Council and the General Board be given authority to make such changes in the arrangements of the scheme as they consider necessary in the interest of its good management and efficient operation.

III. That the general regulations for University Officers (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 658) be amended by adding the following words to the beginning of Regulations 1(b) and 1(c) 'Save as otherwise provided in Regulation 2 below,' and by inserting a new Regulation 2 so as to read:

IV. That Regulations 5 and 6 of the Regulations for Faculty and Departmental Librarians (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 715) (renumbered 4 and 5 following approval of Grace 6 of 11 December 2002) be rescinded.

Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page

Cambridge University Reporter, 26 March 2003
Copyright © 2002 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.