|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
The COUNCIL and the GENERAL BOARD beg leave to report to the University as follows:
This consultative Report of the Council and General Board contains some of the most radical proposals about the pay of the staff of the University which the Regent House will have considered for many generations. These proposals will enable the University to:
The proposals in the Report arise out of the culmination of national negotiations over a number of years, including acceptance by the trades unions nationally of a framework agreement to facilitate pay reform, and consideration given by the Personnel Committee to changes to existing arrangements that would better suit the needs of the University.
Highlights in the proposals are:
The major changes to existing arrangements are as follows:
|Numerous grades of variable lengths on
||Replace by basic 7-grade structure on a single salary spine||5, 6, Appendix 6|
||Replace by standard 3% steps on single spine||2.3, (8)|
It should also be noted that, following the conclusion of national negotiations, there is limited time in which to reach agreement on the way forward in the University. The Framework Agreement requires the completion of implementation of new arrangements by 2006 and funding from HEFCE under the Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative, which will meet much of the cost of implementation of the new arrangements, is contingent on completion by 2006.
Comments to the Director of Personnel are welcomed (see 1.1 below) on any of the proposals described in the Report, especially those relating to:
The comments will be taken into account in preparing a second Report to the University. This will contain the final proposals which, if approved, will be implemented by January 2006.
1.1 This Report sets out in general terms proposals for a new pay and grading structure for non-clinical staff. The Report is put forward for consultation. It explains the current state of the Council's and the General Board's thinking on key matters and invites comments from all members of staff, their unions, and from all University authorities. The Report is published on the University's website at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/reward. Comments should be sent to the Director of Personnel in the Personnel Division, The Old Schools, Trinity Lane, CB2 1TT, or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org, no later than 15 October 2004. A Discussion will also be held on 12 October 2004. The Council and the Board will review their thinking in the light of the comments elicited from this consultation and bring forward detailed proposals for implementation in a second Report.
1.2 The Report addresses the following matters:
|(i)||current arrangements and the need for change (paragraphs 2.1-3.4)|
|(ii)||proposals for change:|
|(iii)||procedures for promotion, grading, and discretionary awards (10.1-10.3)|
|(iv)||recruitment and retention incentives (11.1-11.3)|
|(vi)||associated matters (15.1-15.7)|
The opportunity has also been taken to include further proposals relating to salaries for senior academic staff (12.1-12.8) and equivalent academic-related staff (13.1-13.4).
2. Current arrangements
2.1 The University uses five different pay scales for the major groups of non-clinical staff, which are usually uplifted by nationally negotiated inflationary increases:
Across the pay scales there are numerous grades. Appendices 1 (officers and analogous staff) and 2 (assistant staff) illustrate the complexities of the present grading system, indicating the main categories of staff and the present grade structures.
2.2 Appendices 1 and 2 also show the number of staff on each grade point. Staff cluster in certain grades and on particular grade points; for example, in the ten technical grades 39% of staff are allocated to one grade. Within the academic-related grades there is a lack of headroom, with stipend step 31 acting as a barrier to career growth. Grades vary in length; the University Lecturer grade has twelve steps and the Assistant Registrary grade has fifteen steps, while that for Reader has one step and Senior Assistant Registrary has two steps. Those grades that are short can give rise to a perceived lack of career structure. Conversely, those grades that are long tend to reward service rather than contribution.
2.3 The steps on the stipend scale for unestablished research staff and on the assistant staff scales are broadly similar to but do not exactly replicate national spine points. The average incremental step on the University's stipend scale is 4%, while for assistant staff it is 3%. Appendices 3 and 4 show the step sizes on the stipend scale for officers and unestablished research staff and on the assistant staff scales. The proposed national single pay spine consists of 51 equally spaced steps, set at 3%, and ranges from £10,250 to £44,935 at 1 August 2003 pay levels.
2.4 For all mainstream academic offices, regardless of grade, duties comprise principally teaching and research. Performance in these areas is recognized by promotion to a more senior academic grade via the annual senior academic promotions exercise. For academic-related staff, grading depends primarily on the size of the responsibilities and duties of the office/post assessed by an annual 'feels fair' process of evaluation. Grading for assistant staff is dependent upon job size as assessed by one of three different job evaluation schemes according to staff group in an annual regrading exercise. Contribution may also be rewarded by payments additional to salary. In the case of Professors this is by means of supplementary payments (12.2); in the case of other staff (mainly academic-related and assistant staff below stipend step 31) by means of discretionary increments.
3. The need for change
3.1 The University's Human Resources (HR) Strategy1 recognizes that the University:
|(i)||must compete effectively in local, national, and international labour markets for staff of the highest quality in academic and support functions if it is to maintain its current pre-eminence;|
|(ii)||along with the HE sector at large, it must have in place pay and grading structures that will stand up to challenge on equal pay grounds.2|
3.2 With regard to equal pay, the Government has made it clear that it wishes to see the sector make progress in this area and also in relation to performance review, contribution pay, and market forces. In respect of possible equal pay claims, it is essential to have in place for all staff an objective, analytical methodology for determining basic salary and a non-discriminatory pay reward system. The potential financial liability on an institution, whose arrangements are shown to be discriminatory under an external assessment ordered by an Employment Tribunal, is substantial. It should be noted, however, that equal pay considerations do not preclude differential rates of remuneration (11.2).
3.3 Some commitments in the University's HR Strategy have been implemented already, such as the abolition of age-related salaries and revisions to promotions procedures. Progress on the introduction of a common grading methodology and revised pay structures had been delayed by protracted national negotiations. However these have recently been concluded and have resulted in the acceptance by the trades unions nationally of a framework agreement which is intended to facilitate the introduction into institutions of new pay arrangements and common grading methodologies.
3.4 For some time the Personnel Committee have recognized that the grading structure for the University should be simplified and that the Higher Education Role Analysis scheme (HERA) should be adopted as a common grading methodology. Local discussions on the framework agreement have begun with the trades unions about implementing new pay arrangements (with a target date for completion of implementation of January 2006).
4. Grading methodology
4.1 There are two grading methodologies which, realistically, might be utilized in the HE sector: HERA and Hay.
4.2 The HERA scheme has been developed by the sector for the sector with the capability of being applied to all staff groups, while further work by the Russell Group institutions ('Project Scholar') has adapted the scheme to suit the large research-intensive universities.3 The HERA methodology produces a points score for each role, which is built up from weighted scores for fourteen elements (Appendix 5). A role analyst trained in using the methodology scores each role and a panel of role analysts then verifies that initial score.
4.3 Considerable experience has now been gained in the use of HERA within the University. There is currently a database of over 400 evaluated roles covering all types of staff. Representatives from all trades unions have received awareness training, including an introduction to the operation of the scoring system. The scheme has also recently been used to corroborate the assessment of grades in the 1 January 2004 regrading and discretionary incre-ments exercise and will be used in the same way in the 1 January 2005 exercise.
4.4 Hay-based schemes, which are used primarily in the private sector, have been adopted and are being operated in a similar fashion to HERA by a minority of institutions within the sector, including a few in the Russell Group. Some groundwork was done in Cambridge on the use of Hay, however, it was clear that considerable adaptation would be required to tailor it for use in the University, which would be time-consuming and expensive. Nationally and locally, the assistant staff trades unions have expressed opposition to the use of Hay methodology.
4.5 In the light of these considerations, the Council and the General Board have agreed that HERA, as modified by 'Project Scholar', should be adopted by the University. Further information on the HERA scheme and the Hay methodology is available at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/reward/hera.
5. A new pay spine
5.1 The need to reform pay structures in the HE sector featured prominently in the Bett Report in 1999. In 2002 a nationally negotiated interim common pay spine was introduced,4 while a national single pay spine is an element of the recently agreed two-year national pay settlement (August 2003 and August 2004).5 Under the settlement, institutions are free to bring in variants or alternatives to the national pay spine.
5.2 The steps on the national single pay spine have been set deliberately at 3% as affordable by the sector. Staff would be assimilated onto the new spine at the point equivalent to or higher than their existing salary. However, potentially a pay spine with 3% steps could disadvantage staff in grades where incremental progression is currently greater than 3% (see Appendices 3 and 4). This is addressed further in paragraphs 9.3-9.5. If the national single spine were adopted by the University, it would need to be extended both up and down to cover the full range of salaries currently paid by the University.
6. Grading structure
6.1 The evaluation of roles by a common grading methodology and how those evaluations cluster along a line of best fit facilitates the plotting of grades on the single spine. The number of grades will also be influenced by factors such as:
|(i)||the diversity of functions,|
|(ii)||the need to provide career progression,|
|(iii)||the need to control costs.|
6.2 Experience suggests that to cover all staff there would need to be at least seven grades on a single spine in order to give sufficient flexibility. Too few grades would mean that service-related progression would lead to increased costs; too many could lead to an undesirable lack of opportunity for progression within grades. Appendix 6 illustrates how points scores might be translated into a seven-grade structure and how that compares to the existing grade structures in the University.
6.3 Grades may be either end-on or overlap. Many existing grades overlap and the Council and the General Board favour the adoption of overlapping grades provided that overlap is not greater than the discretionary range of points at the top of the lower grade: a greater overlap would obscure transparency in respect of career progression. Overlapping grades allow greater scope for individuals to be rewarded for their contribution at lower cost to the institution than would be the case with end-on scales.
7. Pay progression within grades
7.1 Within grades there are three forms of pay progression:
|(i)||progression through service up to the contribution threshold6 in each grade,|
|(ii)||accelerated incremental progression up to the contribution threshold,|
|(iii)||discretionary progression beyond the contribution threshold.|
7.2 In dealing with such forms of progression a number of matters require consideration, including:
|(i)||the extent to which central guidance (for example, with regard to criteria) is required in the determination of awards,|
|(ii)||the respective roles of Heads of institutions, Councils of Schools, or their equivalents in the process of assessment,|
|(iii)||whether there should be an annual round as at present (see 10.2),|
|(iv)||whether there should be provision in respect of all staff to withhold progression in cases of demonstrably poor performance as is currently the case with assistant staff.|
8. Protection of existing interests
8.1 It is clear from paragraph 3 that the present arrangements for the grading and regrading of offices and posts must be replaced by objective and more transparent systems. However, the University will try to ensure that existing members of staff do not suffer loss as a result of the reforms. Such an approach must be compatible with the achievement of a legally robust pay and grading structure. Absolute and indefinite protection of existing interests runs the risk of undermining the effectiveness of new arrangements and exposing the University to legal challenge on equal pay grounds. On the other hand, measures taken to protect existing interests, which are considered to be insufficient, would be unlikely to secure the approval of the Regent House. However, inevitably, protection measures have cost implications. A balance must therefore be struck between the imperatives of safeguarding existing individual interests, affordability, and ensuring that the University has legally robust pay and grading arrangements in place as soon as possible.
8.2 The Framework Agreement recommends that the maximum period of protection should be four years. The subsequent Memorandum of Understanding between the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) and the Association of University Teachers (AUT) indicates that the pay arrangements that institutions adopt will be designed with the intention - as far as practicable and foreseeable - of avoiding detriment to existing pay progression expectations.
9. Matching of roles and assimilation into new grades - non-academic staff
9.1 As a result of the work done using HERA, generic role descriptors have been produced which exemplify those non-academic roles commonly performed across the University. The role of each individual would be compared to these descriptors by institutions with the assistance of a role analyst. Where there is a match, the individual would be allocated to the grade ascribed to the descriptor. Where a role cannot be matched, it would be evaluated using HERA. In some cases interviews would be necessary to provide any additional information that would be required to assign a role to a grade.
9.2 Assimilation of existing staff into the new grades would depend on how an individual's current salary relates to the grade of their office/post as determined by job evaluation. The framework agreement recommends that:
|(i)||Where current pay matches pay for the grade:|
|(ii)||Where current pay is lower than pay for the grade:|
|(iii)||Where current pay is higher than pay for the grade:|
9.3 For individuals who would be disadvantaged by incremental steps of 3%, the Council and the Board have considered the following possible courses of action:
|(i)||buying out existing arrangements;|
|(ii)||providing for progression by double increments;|
|(iii)||making an additional pensionable payment to supplement the difference between the annual incremental uplift of 3% on the single spine and the incremental uplift they would otherwise have received for a period of up to four years (see paragraph 8.2).|
9.4 Although (i) has the advantage of allowing all staff to move onto new arrangements at the same time, not all staff might be willing to be bought out, and some of those who would choose this option might leave the service of the University in the relatively near future. Alternative (ii) would be expensive. Although alternative (iii) would be complex for the Personnel and Finance Divisions to administer, in the view of the Council and the Board it represents the best way forward for achieving the most acceptable balance between the interests of individual members of staff and the University.
9.5 Appendices 1 and 2, which give the number of staff on each point of each existing grade, show that the great majority of existing academic-related staff will reach the top of their current scale within four years, thereby achieving full and indefinite protection. In the case of University Lecturers the proportion is less but is in excess of 75%. As with academic-related staff, this percentage takes no account of promotion and would therefore be likely to be higher after four years.
10. Procedures for promotion, grading, and discretionary awards
10.1 Promotion for academic staff would continue to be considered under the senior academic promotions exercise. Current arrangements whereby discretionary increments may be awarded to University Lecturers and University Senior Lecturers for the purpose of retention would also continue.
10.2 For all other staff the current transitional scheme for regrading and the award of discretionary increments is being run once more, with effect from 1 January 2005. Beyond 1 January 2005, it is hoped to replace the transitional scheme by new arrangements as informed by the consultation exercise. Regrading would continue to be assessed by role analysts (with the input of relevant technical expertise by senior staff where appropriate) in order to ensure equity across the University as a whole. However, other parts of the process could be reconsidered, for example whether to:
|(i)||continue with an annual regrading and discretionary increment round as at present;|
|(ii)||dispense with an annual round and allow regrading requests to come forward at any time;|
|(iii)||have a mix of an annual round with provision for out of cycle requests.|
Additionally, provision would be made for appeals for both academic-related and assistant staff (replacing the existing provision for assistant staff). The existing practice, whereby staff benefit by a salary increase equivalent to two increments on promotion or on regrading, would continue.
10.3 The HERA process would also be used as the sole methodology for determining grades for new non-academic offices/posts. The authority for implementing HERA decisions will continue to rest with the Council and the General Board, as appropriate.7
11. Incentives to assist recruitment and retention
11.1 The University makes incentive payments in order to assist recruitment. The scheme for professorial-level appointments is operated by the Vice-Chancellor. Another scheme is targeted at officers and equivalent unestablished staff in non-professorial grades with operation devolved to Schools and the Council. These recruitment incentive payments are additional to basic salary and are not pensionable. It is proposed that these schemes be retained.
11.2 There may be cases where market pressures indicate that in order to recruit and retain individual members of staff a salary supplement above the grade determined by role analysis should be paid. As transparency is essential, such payments should only be paid where there is firm evidence to support the case (for example, salary survey information) and the need for their continuation should be periodically reviewed.
11.3 Although subject to review, such market supplements are pensionable to make them more attractive. The authority for making pensionable (and non-pensionable) payments to University officers rests with the competent authority (Regulation 1 of the regulations relating to payments additional to stipend (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 655). The specific purposes for which pensionable payments are made are specified in Regulations 2-8. It would be necessary to include in those regulations specific mention of pensionable payments in respect of market forces.
12. Senior academic staff
12.1 There is a national minimum professorial salary (£42,246) but no recommended national scale. For Readers there is no national point or scale; in Cambridge they are paid at the equivalent of the top discretionary point of the national Senior Lecturer scale (£44,549).
12.2 The University has in recent years introduced significant change in this area:
|(i)||Professors may be recruited above the professorial standard stipend (step 31, £51,394). The Vice-Chancellor, assisted by an advisory panel, is able to award supplementary payments at four levels - 13% of the standard stipend (£6,681); 26% (£13,362); 39% (£20,043); and 53% (£32,406) - on the basis of an assessment of individual performance. The payments are pensionable but subject to review every six years. The Vice-Chancellor may also offer a supplementary payment at one of these levels, in addition to the standard stipend, to Professors on appointment.|
|(ii)||The facility exists to recruit from outside the University at Readership level.|
|(iii)||The facility exists to recruit at University Senior Lectureship level once the Privy Council has approved the relevant amendment to Statute D in relation to probation.|
12.3 However, the University lacks competitiveness in the salaries that it is able to offer at the top end of the professorial range; Oxford is able to offer higher awards, exceptionally up to approximately £90,000 a year. Conversely, the Cambridge standard professorial stipend is above the national minimum. Although professorial appointments are likely to be made at this standard professorial stipend because Cambridge seeks to recruit outstanding individuals, the University may wish to introduce greater flexibility by having a range of salary points below the standard professorial stipend and above the equivalent of the national minimum. In making this proposal the Council and the General Board have no intention to implement any measures which might undermine the present internationally accepted status of the University's Professorships. Neither is it the intention of the Council and the General Board to propose titular Professorships. However, this flexibility might allow affordable, rapid advancement of academically able staff to senior offices (see also paragraph 12.7 in respect of Readers) at a younger age than is normally the case. It might also allow for more promotions in circumstances where financial constraints continue to prevent all applicants who achieve the minimum evaluation threshold from being recognized.
12.4 Existing arrangements are the result of ad hoc adaption over time and the General Board believe that it is appropriate to give further thought to the structure of academic offices and salary progression for senior academic staff. Accordingly, the General Board propose the following:
|(i)||The introduction of a minimum stipend at £44,935 (point 64, Appendix 6) which is above the equivalent of the recommended national minimum (currently £42,356, point 62, Appendix 6).|
|(ii)||The introduction of a grade, applicable to Professors (Grade 7, Appendix 6 where Grade 7a relates to academic-related and Grade 7b to academic staff).|
|(iii)||The addition of two further levels of supplementary payment - 65% of the standard stipend and 78% - thereby enabling the University to offer starting salaries of up to c. £92,000.|
|(iv)||Progression within Grade 7 from point 64 to point 69 (the point nearest to the current level of Cambridge standard stipend) would be service-related. Above point 69, progression would be to points on the new spine which are the nearest equivalent points to current levels of supplementary payments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Progression to these levels would continue to be through the supplementary payments scheme.|
|(v)||Salaries on appointment8 and progression after appointment to salaries above point 69 would be determined by the Vice-Chancellor, after appropriate consultation, which shall include the Chair of the relevant Council of the School.|
|(iv)||Such awards would continue to be permanent subject to a six-yearly review.|
12.6 Consideration is being given by the Personnel Committee to relating the stipends for senior roles such as Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Chairs of Councils of the Schools to the proposed professorial structure.
For the reasons given in paragraph 12.3, the present spot stipend for Readers (£44,549) might be replaced by a scale with a maximum equivalent to the existing spot stipend. An appropriate range would be steps 11-15 on Grade 6b (Appendix 6). The place on the scale, whether on appointment or promotion, would be determined by current salary. Progression within the grade would be service-related.
12.8 University Senior Lecturers and University Lecturers
The current University Senior Lecturer and University Lecturer stipend scales would translate to points 7-13 and 1-9 respectively on Grade 6b. This restructuring would preserve the current maxima for these grades. Place on scale on appointment would be determined in accordance with current policy and incremental progression would be service-related.
13. Academic-related staff at or above the equivalent of the professorial standard
13.1 Under current arrangements the stipends of senior academic-related staff are determined by:
|(i)||the Regent House in respect of offices in Schedule I of the regulations for stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 650) - for example Registrary, Directors in the Unified Administrative Service, University Librarian;|
|(ii)||the Council if the offices are included in Schedule II - for example Development Director, Secretary and Director of the Careers Service Syndicate;|
|(iii)||the General Board if they are included in Schedule III - for example Director of the University Computing Service, Director of the Institute of Continuing Education.|
13.2 Recently the Regent House approved proposals relating to the stipends of Directors in the Unified Administrative Service (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 864ff), which set the salary range within which Directors are appointed at step 31 (£51,394) to step 41 (£78,634) (the nearest equivalents on the new spine being point 69 (£52,092) to point 83 (£78,794)). Under these arrangements the Council determines, in the light of the requirements of the office and the prevailing market forces, the specific point to be offered to newly appointed Directors. With regard to other academic-related offices, with the exception of the University Librarian, the salary is determined by the relevant central body. It is open to that body to adopt arrangements similar to those applying to Directors in the Unified Administrative Service but without reference to the Regent House.
13.3 In the course of employment, salary progression is determined by periodic review, which takes account of evidence of outstanding contribution to the work of the University and furtherance of its aims, and development of an officer's role as a result of effective commitment and effort. The payment is an addition to stipend and is a percentage of the standard professorial stipend (5%, 7.5%, 10%, 13%, 20%, 25%, 26%, 30%, 39%, 53%). For example, in respect of a Director appointed at step 31 (£51,394) the allowable additional payment would be from 5% (giving a total stipend of £53,964) up to a maximum of 53% (£78,635); for a Director appointed at step 41 the allowable additional payment would give a stipend of £78,634 up to a ceiling of £105,874.
13.4 These arrangements are not based on an objective assessment of the size of the job and may therefore be open to challenge on equal pay grounds. In respect of academic-related staff it is proposed that the existing arrangements be replaced as follows:
|(i)||the HERA methodology would determine the salary range applicable on appointment and where changes occur subsequently in the size of the job;|
|(ii)||progression after appointment within the salary range would be based on an assessment of individual performance;|
|(iii)||where salary is supplemented by an additional pensionable payment for reasons of retention, clear evidence, for example in the form of market pay data, would be required to support the application of such a supplement;|
|(iv)||by adding two further levels of supplementary payment, as for Professors, thereby extending the ceiling on salaries.|
14.1 The one-off cost of assimilation onto the single spine is estimated to be around 1.2% of the pay bill. This cost would be met from the carry over of funds unspent in Phase 1 of the HEFCE's Rewarding and Developing Staff (RDS) initiative.9 Typically the cost of implementation of a new grading structure and job evaluation (including regradings and salary protection) can be expected to be a further 3%.10 Until implementation is completed, it is impossible to calculate precise costs for the University, but, given the proposals made in this Report, it is likely to be of the order of £5m. It is anticipated that about half of this cost can be met from the additional funding provided by the HEFCE under the RDS initiative.
15. Associated matters
15.1 In due course it is hoped to introduce titles for particular offices and posts which more accurately indicate the nature of the office or post held. Such a change would take time as it would involve considerable amendment of existing regulations in Statutes and Ordinances.
15.2 If adopted, the new grading would necessitate a review of the qualifying criteria for membership of the Regent House. Such a review would be likely to result in the need to amend Statutes. In the meantime the current criteria (Statute A, III, 7) would continue to apply.
15.3 At present different appointing arrangements apply to the holders of University offices and unestablished posts, on the one hand, and to assistant staff on the other. These would have to be reviewed in relation to the new grades 4 and 5 shown in Appendix 6 to which both the University offices and assistant staff would be assimilated. As a transitional measure, current arrangements would continue to apply to existing staff (e.g. for decisions on probation in relation to academic-related staff). If a vacancy arose, the appointing arrangement for the office or post would be determined by whether it had fallen vacant as an office or assistant post. In the case of newly established offices or posts, the appointing arrangement would be determined by the nearest most appropriate comparator.
15.4 Currently the University offers the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) to officers and the Cambridge University Assistants' Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS) to assistants, each with different contribution levels and benefits. For new staff eligibility for USS would continue to be based on whether a particular post is an office (or comparable unestablished post) specified in Statutes and Ordinances.
15.5 For those staff with a defined working week, consultation is being taken forward, initially with Heads of institutions, regarding proposals to adopt a common working week across the relevant new pay grades.
15.6 Holiday entitlement would, as now, depend on grade and staff group.
15.7 There is a commitment under the Human Resources Strategy to undertake equal pay audits. A full equal pay audit for all staff would be undertaken after assimilation into the new grading structure was completed and thereafter at appropriate intervals.
The Council and the General Board would particularly welcome comments on the following proposals as described in this Report:
|1.||the adoption of the HERA scheme, as modified by 'Project Scholar', as the University's grading methodology (4.1-4.5);|
|2.||the introduction of a single pay spine with 3% steps (5.1-5.2);|
|3.||the introduction of a new grading structure (6.1-6.3 and Appendix 6);|
|4.||the arrangements for pay progression (including market forces) (7.1-7.2);|
|5.||the arrangements for the protection of existing interests (8.1-9.5);|
|6.||the proposed arrangements for senior academic (12.1-12.8) and equivalent academic-related staff (13.1-13.4).|
|19 July 2004||ALISON RICHARD, Vice-Chancellor||D. A. GOOD||JAMES MATHESON|
|Z. BARANSKI||DAVID S. INGRAM||MARTIN REES|
|RICHARD BARNES||IAN LESLIE||G. A. REID|
|JOHN BOYD||A. M. LONSDALE||JOAN M. WHITEHEAD|
|WILLIAM BROWN||D. W. B. MACDONALD|
|16 June 2004||ALISON RICHARD, Vice-Chancellor||H. A. CHASE||MELVEENA MCKENDRICK|
|JOHN BELL||JESSICA CHILDS||ROGER PARKER|
|TOM BLUNDELL||M. J. DAUNTON||KEITH PETERS|
|WILLIAM BROWN||PETER LANDSHOFF||S. J. YOUNG|
|N. O. A. BULLOCK||D. W. B. MACDONALD|
2 Employers must give men and women equal treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment contract if they are employed on:
(i) 'like work' - work that is the same or broadly similar,
(ii) work rated as equivalent under a job evaluation study,
(iii) work found to be of equal value.
It is for the employer to show that there is a genuine reason for any difference in this 'like work', which is not based on the sex of the individual. Individuals may complain to an employment tribunal under the Equal Pay Act 1970. Normally, they may claim arrears of remuneration (which includes sick pay, holiday pay, bonuses, overtime, as well as 'pay') for a period of up to six years (five years in Scotland) before the date of their tribunal application.
3 Using the methodology employed to determine the original standard weighting exercise, seven research-intensive universities have collaborated in asking a sample of their staff to value the importance of the HERA elements. The results allowed a different set of element weightings to be developed which more accurately reflected the views of staff within research-intensive universities. These 'Project Scholar' weightings would be those used by the University.
4 See Reporter, 2002-03, p. 263.
5 See Reporter, 2003-04, p. 490.
6 Above the contribution threshold, progression would be solely on the basis of contribution, while below the threshold progression, progression would be service-related. In either case, an individual might be given accelerated incremental progression to reward performance.
7 Statute K, 9(b)(iii) provides that, subject to any contrary provision of Statutes or Ordinances a body might not delegate powers relating to election or appointment to a University office. Regulation 2 of the General Regulations for University officers (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 644) provides that appointment to a University office arising from a regrading review shall be made by the competent authority.
8 See paragraphs 29-40 of the General Board's Report on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804ff.
9 Carry over of unspent funds from RDS Phase 1 is subject to approval by the HEFCE and will be contingent on completing the implementation of the new grading structure by 2006.
10 Source: UCEA and Bett Report.
Appendix 1: Selected offices and posts with stipend scale and number of office- or post- holders [PDF, 79Kb]
Appendix 2: Assistant staff pay scales with number of post-holders [PDF, 71Kb]
Appendix 3: Distance between stipend steps [PDF, 63Kb]
Appendix 4: Distance between assistant staff grade points [PDF, 61Kb]
Appendix 5: The HERA elements [PDF, 59Kb]
Appendix 6: Illustrative seven-grade structure using the national single pay spine [PDF, 49Kb]
|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
Cambridge University Reporter 21 July 2004
Copyright © 2011 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.