|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
1. The Council have received the remarks made at the Discussion of the above Report on 21 June 2005 (Reporter, p. 940).
2. Following extensive consultation throughout the University, the Council and the General Board believe that the proposals in the Second Report command wide acceptance and that it is now essential to proceed with their implementation.
3. In their Notice of 7 March 2005 (Reporter, p. 530), the Council and the General Board set out their response to the remarks made at the Discussion on 12 October 2004 of the Consultative Joint Report on a new pay and grading structure for non-clinical staff (Reporter, p. 84). The Council had requested the Personnel Committee to consider these remarks together with the other submissions received during the consultation process and to take account of the views expressed when they prepared the Second Joint Report. The Notice indicated that the Personnel Committee would take the following actions to assist in the preparation of the Second Report:
4. The Personnel Committee have confirmed to the Council and the General Board that the action specified above has been undertaken and that it has informed the development of the proposals now contained in the Second Report.
5. Although some speakers at the Discussion of the Second Report expressed concerns about some of the proposals, the thrust of the Discussion, supported by feedback received from the University-wide consultation, indicates that the proposals appear to be broadly acceptable to the great majority of the staff and authorities of the University. Indeed, several speakers, who were seriously critical of aspects of the 2004 Consultative Report, including Heads of certain large Departments, expressed support for the proposals of the Second Report.
6. Some of the speakers at the Discussion wish the Council to call a ballot. The Council believe that there would be significant practical disadvantages in doing so. The formulation of the proposals contained in the Report and the implementation stage have had to be planned and undertaken against a tight national timetable which leaves little room for manoeuvre if the deadlines set by the Framework Agreement, agreed nationally by the University and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) and the trades unions, are to be met. If the Council were to call a ballot now there would be uncertainty until well into the Michaelmas Term at a time when necessarily much work will have to be undertaken in institutions and Schools (for example, completing PD33 forms and commencing matching). For this reason, and because they believe the proposals have broad acceptance within the University, the Council, with the agreement of the General Board, wish to provide the Regent House with the opportunity to approve the proposals as soon as possible.
7. The Council wish to emphasize that, in bringing forward the proposals for the approval of the Regent House, they recognize that there must be monitoring of the implementation, followed in due course by adjustments that appear to be necessary in the light of experience and additional information obtained. The Council will, if necessary, report to the University on these matters and on any subsequent amendments.
8. Turning now to the remarks made at the Discussion, the Council and the General Board have agreed to comment as follows:
9. Introducing the Discussion, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Personnel) drew attention to potential conflicts of interest in the light of the fact that the proposals of the Second Report affect the remuneration of all the University's employees (except clinical staff) and that nearly everyone stands to gain by some amount if the proposals are approved. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor also made a personal declaration of interest insofar as his own salary is concerned.
10. Professor N. Boyle also drew attention to this matter, underlining the need for publicly funded charitable institutions such as the University to have impeccable standards of conduct in their decision-making procedures, especially where individuals involved in those procedures might benefit from the decisions made. The Council note that this issue also attracted comment in the course of the Discussion on 7 June 2005 of the Third Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the ownership of intellectual property rights (Reporter, p. 821). The Council will give further consideration to these issues during 2005-06.
11. Concern was expressed by the Board of Scrutiny and several other speakers about possible removal from the printed version of Statutes and Ordinances of information relating to grade and salary, and to the lack of HERA point ranges for senior administrative staff. A suggestion was made also that HERA role descriptors and their point ranges should be published.
12. The information currently contained in Statutes and Ordinances relates to the grades and salaries of academic and academic-related offices; it does not relate to unestablished and assistant staff posts. Also much of the information published at present will cease to be appropriate once the new arrangements are implemented. The Council and the General Board have, however, decided that information, including that for professorial staff (see paragraphs 6.5-6.7 and Annex 7 of the Second Report), should continue to be published in a form that is appropriate to the new arrangements. They also recommend that, in so far as publication is consistent with the provisions of the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts, HERA point boundaries and base salaries for senior academic-related staff should be published. Additionally, anonymized statistical data relating to market supplement awards will be published annually. Role descriptors and their point ranges will also be made available.
13. The Chair of the Board of Scrutiny and Mr M. J. Gray, representing the Cambridge Association of University Teachers (CAUT), suggested that the HERA point boundaries specified in Annex 2 of the Report should be treated as provisional until further statistical information became available. It was also suggested by the Board of Scrutiny that HERA point ranges should be approved by Grace. Dr M. R. Clark and Dr S. J. Cowley asserted that the Statistical Laboratory data was not made available to the central bodies.
14. The information obtained from individual HERA assessments across a comprehensive range of the University's jobs is a building block, but not the only consideration in the design of the new grade structure. The statistical analysis shows that in practical terms most of the information available is adequate for this purpose. It is acknowledged that in relation to some jobs more information would be desirable.
15. It must be borne in mind that the grading structure proposed has had to take account of current realities and, inevitably, contains compromises. Statistical information is a necessary component but not, of itself, a sufficient basis on which to design a pay structure. The reforms proposed must be politically acceptable. They have been developed in partnership with the trades unions (see footnote 13 to the Second Report) and have taken account of the considerations in the Framework Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding and of the remarks made in the Discussion of the Consultative Report. The structure must also be affordable so that account has to be taken not only of HERA sampling but also the relationship of existing grades to the new spine and the numbers of staff currently occupying scale points on those grades. A further factor in designing the new structure is the exacting time constraints within which the development and implementation of the new arrangements must be completed. These have been explained in both the Consultative and the Second Report and are mentioned elsewhere in this response.
16. Some further improvements, including adjustments to HERA point boundaries, may be necessary. These will be informed by the outcomes of the implementation process and by information arising from the resumption of the academic-related and assistant staff annual regrading round in 2006-07 and arising from the grading of new offices and posts. The new arrangements will also be monitored through equal pay audits which may provide indications of the need for adjustments in specific areas.
17. For these reasons, and in order to ensure that the central bodies are able to act promptly and flexibly, the Council and the General Board do not believe that adjustments of grade boundaries, generic role profiles and role descriptors, and point ranges should be subject to the approval of the Regent House. They propose that, following consultation with institutions and the trades unions, such changes should be considered by the Personnel Committee and approved by the Council and the General Board, and that the changes should be published as a Notice and on the Web.
18. With regard to Dr N. J. Holmes's query as to whether the spine ends at point 92 or is extendable, point 92 represents the current maximum point on the proposed University single salary spine for grading purposes; changes to the spine will require Regent House approval.
19. Several speakers questioned the availability of the information produced by the Statistical Laboratory. Members of the Personnel Committee and central bodies were made aware at every stage of the involvement of the Statistical Laboratory in the pay and grading project. No attempt was made at any time to conceal such information from these committees.
20. Dr M. R. Clark contended that the final structure was rushed through the central committees. As noted above, the formulation of the proposals had to be undertaken against a tight timetable. Notwithstanding this, the Personnel Committee and the central bodies were kept informed of the development of the proposals on a regular basis. The 'final' structure to which Dr Clark alludes does not differ substantially from versions discussed by the Personnel Committee and the central bodies. A particular issue arose in the course of negotiations which led to the insertion of an additional grade and some necessary minor consequential adjustments.
21. Mr N. M. Maclaren described HERA as a scheme 'designed by administrators' and asserted that it does not work for specialist staff. He also suggested that there is a lack of clarity as to whether members of staff or roles are graded. HERA was developed nationally through a consortium of 100 institutions in HE (the Education Competences Consortium) specifically for use in the sector. The role descriptors that are being generated for use in the matching process take account of specialist aspects of roles. Both the Reports on pay and grading made it clear that roles, not individuals, are graded.
22. Dr S. D. Martinelli complained that there had been no direct communication between the unions (JUNC) and the central committees and Heads of institutions. The mechanisms for local negotiation and consultation were agreed with the trades unions at a meeting on 9 February 2005. Remarks made by other speakers indicate that the University's partnership with the unions is working well.
23. With regard to points made by several speakers to the effect that the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was not adequately addressed, it was known and accepted at the time of the publication of the Second Report that further discussion relating to MoU issues would be necessary. Further discussion has now resolved the issues specified by Dr Martinelli and the Council and the General Board provide assurances as follows:
24. Dr Holmes raised a number of points about the assimilation of Professors to the new structure, the running of the supplementary payments exercise, and the determination of movement within the proposed contribution bands.
25. It is intended that Professors will be assimilated on the same basis as all other staff, that is to the nearest point on the spine that most closely equates without detriment to their current salary. The General Board have agreed to defer the 1 October 2005 professorial supplementary payments exercise, and, instead, to run an exercise in 2006 under the new arrangements (as described in Annex 7 of the Second Report). This exercise will bring together consideration of renewals, applications for higher awards, and assimilation to the new scale, and will avoid the need for Professors to produce two sets of documentation for evaluation under different schemes in quick succession.
26. The Board have agreed that deferment of the 1 October 2005 exercise will be on a no-detriment basis, that is existing awards (including those due for renewal on 1 October 2005) will continue in payment until the outcome of the new exercise is known; any higher level award, within the current range, to a Professor who would have been eligible in the 1 October 2005 exercise will be backdated to that date. All Professors were notified of these intended changes (Lent Term 2005) and further information about the new arrangements will be published in due course.
27. Progression within and between bands is not automatic. Movement of Professors within bands will be determined by the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee in accordance with the general arrangements described in Annex 7 of the Report. The revised supplementary payments scheme will operate, as now, biennially.
28. The proposals in the Second Report on market pay supplements have prompted several speakers to question their compatibility with the generally equitable nature of the Report's other proposals, and to suggest that market payments should be capped and ratified by the Council. Professor A. M. Donald expressed the view that the scheme set out in Annex 5 required more definition.
29. Market supplements are important if the University is to remain competitive in its approach to recruitment. Market pay supplements are legally defensible if employers can demonstrate on the basis of objective evidence that they are necessary for recruitment and retention purposes. It is anticipated that in the majority of appointments where a market supplement is proposed the supplement will not exceed 10% of the total of all other components of salary. In the case of supplements above 10%, as stated in Annex 5 of the Second Report, the evidence basing of cases, affordability, equal pay auditing, and review will of themselves place constraints on the number and size of any supplements proposed by institutions. It is also stated in Annex 5 of the Second Report, that in all cases, other than those determined by the Vice-Chancellor, the Personnel Committee, on behalf of the competent authority, will approve the award of supplements which exceed 10% of the total components of salary. As with other areas of administration, in order to safeguard flexibility and promptness of action, particularly necessary in the area of appointments, decisions will be made on the basis of the guidance approved by the central bodies. Information on market supplements will be reported to the Council on an annual basis and be published in the Reporter.
30. With regard to the points made by Dr J. M. Whitehead concerning differing male/female application rates for senior academic promotions, and more generally, the impact of aspects of reform on women, the statistical analysis completed after the outcome of the 1 October 2005 promotions exercise, which took as its starting point the inception of the present senior academic promotions scheme, confirms these different application rates. Since the inception of the single senior academic promotions exercise, there is some indication that the size of the eligible pool of women is increasing steadily (approximately 2% a year) and the success rate of those applying compares favourably with that for men. However, the percentage of the eligible pool of women applying remains lower than that for men and this is a matter which the central bodies are concerned about. The proposals of the Second Report, if approved, will help in securing a robust, transparent equal pay policy for the University at large. This will be monitored through equal pay audits.
31. Dr Cowley sought a justification for the different treatment of academic and other staff and drew particular attention to the financial cap on academic promotions and also the inappropriateness of capping regrading exercises for academic-related staff. Dr R. E. Hunt questioned the fact that there would be no appeal for academics against their treatment under the proposed assimilation arrangements.
32. Paragraph 4.2 of the Second Report explains the different nature of academic and academic-related roles. The way in which it is proposed to assimilate academic staff into the new structure is in line with the way in which the HE sector at large is dealing with this issue. Academic roles at different grade levels are for the most part similar in terms of their duties and responsibilities and are defined by Statute D. Performance, assessed through the mechanism of the senior academic promotions exercise which contains provision for appeals, determines the grade for academic staff, whereas for academic-related staff and assistant staff it is the role undertaken that is of crucial importance.
33. With regard to Dr Cowley's suggestion that the Council and the General Board should lift the financial cap on academic promotions, affordability is a factor in the senior academic promotions exercise as it is in the regrading exercise for academic-related and assistant staff and in relation to other areas of activity in the University. What is affordable in any particular year will depend on the financial position of the University.
34. In response to Dr Hunt's point about the treatment of unique roles, the Council and the General Board confirm that provision exists under the implementation arrangements for the individual HERA assessment of roles.
35. In response to Mr W. H. Smith, who spoke on behalf of the unions representing assistant staff (AMICUS, ACUA, and UNISON), the Council and the General Board confirm that consideration will be given to the application of 'ghost points' in relation to assistant staff where academic-related and assistant grades overlap.
36. Dr Holmes suggested that the proposals contained in the Second Report are not affordable and Dr Cowley expressed the view that the estimates are flawed. The Board of Scrutiny and Dr Clark believed that employer's contributions for national insurance and superannuation have not been included in the costing.
37. Both the Consultative Report and the Second Report emphasized that the proposals were essential for meeting the requirements of the University's Mission Statement. Section 8 of the Second Report sets out the best estimate of cost at the present time. These estimates include the employer's contributions for national insurance and superannuation. Four different methods of estimating costs were used and the result from each method points broadly in the same direction. The total projected cost on the Chest and on non-Chest sources is in the range of £10m to £12m (falling approximately equally between these sources of funding). The Council deem this cost estimate to be affordable and they note that is of the same order of magnitude as the figures presented by Dr Holmes in his remarks.
38. Several speakers suggested that the Council should of its own volition call a ballot on the Second Report's recommendations.
39. As indicated above, the Council, after taking account of the General Board's opinion, believe that there is general support for the proposals contained in the Second Report and that there are compelling reasons for seeking an early decision from the Regent House. Much ongoing work must continue to be done by members of staff in the Schools and institutions with regard to the implementation of the proposals. Announcing a ballot would mean that, unless they selected particular Graces, all of the Graces would be put on hold until some time in the Michaelmas Term. In the Council's view, the judgement to call a ballot must be exercised by those members of the Regent House who believe their concerns are sufficiently important to justify the need for the Regent House to vote, with the consequent delay in proceeding with the implementation of the proposals.
40. With the concurrence of the General Board, the Council have agreed to submit Graces (Graces 1-9, p. 1020) to the Regent House for the approval of the recommendations in their Second Joint Report on a new pay and grading structure for non-clinical staff. The recommendations are attached as an appendix to this Notice for ease of reference. These Graces, other than any which is withdrawn or for which a ballot is requested in accordance with the regulations for Graces of the Regent House (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 105), will be deemed to have been approved at 4 p.m. on Friday, 5 August 2005.
(Paragraph 9 of the Second Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 31/23 May 2005, on a new pay and grading structure for non-clinical staff (Reporter, p. 745)).
I. That, with effect from 1 January 2006, the current general scale of stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 643) be rescinded and replaced by a single Cambridge general stipend and salary scale for all University staff1 as set out in Annex 2 of this Report.
II. That a grade structure for University staff, as described in paragraphs 3.8-3.12 above and as set out in Annex 2 of this Report, be introduced and implemented with effect from 1 January 2006.
III. That the Higher Education Role Analysis scheme (HERA) with standard weightings as described in paragraphs 3.5-3.7 above, be adopted as a common grading methodology for determining the grades of University staff.
IV. That, subject to the approval of Recommendations I and II, the current stipends for the offices of Professor, Reader, University Senior Lecturer, and University Lecturer be replaced by the following grade structure:
|Professor:||Grade 12||points 68-92|
|Reader:||Grade 11||point 63|
|University Senior Lecturer:||Grade 10||points 59-61|
|University Lecturer:||Grade 9||points 49-57|
V. That, subject to the approval of Recommendations I, II, and III, the grades and stipends for the holders of the following offices be determined by the competent authority in accordance with the procedures set out in paragraphs 4.1-4.3 and 6.9-6.11 of this Report as follows:2
|University Librarian||General Board|
|Director in the Unified Administrative Service||Council|
|Deputy Treasurer, Principal Assistant Registrary, Principal Assistant Treasurer, Senior Assistant Registrary, Senior Assistant Treasurer, Assistant Registrary, Assistant Treasurer, Administrative Officer||Council|
|Deputy Director and Assistant Director of the Estate Management and Building Service, Senior Advisory Officer, Advisory Officer||Council|
|Principal Computer Officer, Senior Computer Officer, and Computer Officer in the Unified Administrative Service||Council|
VI. That a policy and procedure for awarding contribution supplements to University staff in grade 12 as described in paragraphs 6.5-6.11 and Annexes 7 and 9 of this Report be approved.
VII. That a policy and procedure for awarding market pay supplements as described in paragraphs 6.2-6.3 and Annex 5 of this Report be approved.
VIII. That, if the proposals in this Report are approved, the Council or the General Board, as appropriate, be empowered as the competent authority to adjust, by additional and pensionable payments, the stipend of a member of the University staff as necessary to protect the stipend of that person over a period of four years from 1 January 2006.
IX. That certain regulations be amended, with effect from 1 January 2006, in accordance with the recommendations set out in Annex 10 of this Report.
|(i)||persons employed by Cambridge University Press or the Local Examinations Syndicate other than University officers;|
|(ii)||the staff of the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries, or the ADC Theatre;|
|(iii)||estate workers on the Madingley Estate or persons other than University officers engaged in work on the University Farm.|
1 The term 'University staff' as referred to in these recommendations and regulations denotes all University officers as described in the Statutes and Ordinances of the University and all other persons employed by the University, except the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, the Commissary, the Proctors, Pro-Proctors, Additional Pro-Proctors, and Special Pro-Proctor, the University Organist, the Orator, the Esquire Bedells, the University Advocate, and the Deputy University Advocate, and the University Marshal; clinical staff, whose salaries are determined in accordance with national and local procedures for clinical staff; and the following persons:
2 The offices referred to here currently fall in Schedule I to the regulations for Stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 644); the stipends in this Schedule are determined by the University (i.e. approved by Grace). Under the proposed new arrangements the grades and stipends of holders of these offices will be considered under the same procedures as other academic-related staff for whom the competent authority is the Council or the General Board as appropriate (i.e. holders of offices listed in Schedules II and III, Statutes and Ordinances, pp. 645-649).
|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
Cambridge University Reporter 27 July 2005
Copyright © 2005 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.