No 6185
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Vol cxl No 26
pp. 685–756
24 April, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 11 a.m. (see p. 740).
27 April, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below). End of first quarter of Easter Term.
2 May, Sunday. Preacher before the University at 11.15 a.m., Professor Richard Watson, Emeritus Professor of English and Emeritus Public Orator in the University of Durham.
|
Discussions at 2 p.m. |
Congregations |
|
27 April, Tuesday |
24 April, Saturday at 11 a.m. |
|
11 May, Tuesday |
15 May, Saturday at 11 a.m. |
|
25 May, Tuesday |
21 June, Monday (Honorary Degrees)1 |
|
8 June, Tuesday |
24 June, Thursday2 |
|
6 July, Tuesday |
25 June, Friday2 |
|
26 June, Saturday2 |
|
|
17 July, Saturday at 11 a.m. |
2General Admission (LL.M., M.Eng., M.Sci., Vet.M.B, Mus.B., B.A., and B.Th. Degrees only). Times to be announced.
The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 107) to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House, on Tuesday, 27 April 2010, at 2 p.m., for the discussion of:
1. Report of the Council, dated 15 March 2010, on amendments to Statute A (membership of the Senate and election of student members of the Council) (Reporter, p. 660).
2. Report of the Council, dated 15 March 2010, on the construction of a new Student Resources Centre building for the Department of Veterinary Medicine (Reporter, p. 662).
3. Report of the Council, dated 22 March 2010, on the construction of a lift in the Old Schools (Reporter, p. 676) (n.b. photographs of the lift will be available in the Schools Arcade and on the Council website for information: http://raven.intranet.admin.cam.ac.uk/committee/council/default.aspx).
The Vice-Chancellor reminds members of the University that an additional Congregation will take place on Monday, 21 June 2010, at 2.45 p.m., at which the Chancellor will admit the following persons to Honorary Degrees:
George John Mitchell, Hon. G.B.E., lawyer, formerly United States Senator for Maine, sometime Chairman, International Body on Arms Decommissioning in Northern Ireland and Chairman of the Northern Ireland Peace Talks, United States Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.
Ratan Naval Tata, Hon. K.B.E., Chairman of the Tata Group of Companies.
Dame Louise Napier Johnson, D.B.E., F.R.S., David Phillips Professor of Molecular Biophysics Emerita in the University of Oxford.
Sir Andrew John Wiles, K.B.E., M.A., Ph.D., F.R.S., Honorary Fellow of Clare College, James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University.
Geoffrey William Hill, M.A., F.R.S.L., Honorary Fellow of Emmanuel College, poet and critic, University Professor and Professor of Literature and Religion Emeritus, Boston University.
Richard Sennett, F.R.S.L., Hon. F.R.I.B.A., Visiting Fellow-Commoner of Trinity College, University Professor of the Humanities, New York University, Professor of Sociology and Academic Governor, the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Sir Harrison Birtwistle, C.H., F.R.A.M., composer, Henry Purcell Professor of Composition Emeritus, King’s College, University of London.
Dame Evelyn Elizabeth Ann Glennie, D.B.E., F.R.A.M., F.R.C.M., percussionist.
Ticket-holders will need to be in their places in the Senate-House not later than 2.30 p.m. The Congregation is expected to end at about 3.40 p.m.
There will be a Garden Party after the Congregation for all those attending. It will be held on the lawn in Senate-House Yard and refreshments will be served. There will be provision for cover in the event of wet weather.
Members of the University attending the Congregation are required to wear academical dress in accordance with the relevant regulations. Other persons attending do not wear academical dress. Monday, 21 June 2010 will be a ‘scarlet day’, and Doctors in the several Faculties are requested to wear their festal gowns. Graduates wear hoods at this Congregation. In accordance with Regulation 4 for academical dress (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 188), any member of the University (other than the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, High Steward, Deputy High Steward, Commissary, Proctors, Registrary, Esquire Bedells, the Orator, and the graduands) who is a graduate of another university or degree-awarding institution, may, on this occasion, wear the academical dress appropriate to that degree if they prefer.
Admission to the Senate-House and Yard will be strictly by ticket only and entry to the Yard on this occasion will be by the South-East Gate, from King’s Parade.
All members and all staff (including retired staff) of the University and the Colleges are invited to apply for tickets to attend the Congregation and Garden Party. In order to allow for the widest possible participation, it is regretted that applications for guest tickets will not be accepted.
Applications for tickets must be made by letter or by email and cannot be made in person or by telephone. Applicants must give a postal address and state their University and/or College affiliation. Requests for tickets should be sent to Honorary Degrees, The Vice-Chancellor’s Office, The Old Schools, Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TN or by email (Honorary.Degrees@admin.cam.ac.uk).
The deadline for applications this year is Friday, 21 May. If demand exceeds capacity, tickets will be allocated by ballot, and any application received before the deadline will be included in the ballot. In recent years there have always been more applications than places available, and for this reason applicants who subsequently find that they will not be able to attend on 21 June are asked to inform the Vice-Chancellor’s Office as soon as possible.
Successful applicants will receive their tickets in the week beginning 7 June. Unsuccessful applications will not be acknowledged. Tickets will be issued to named individuals and are strictly non-transferable. Further details of the arrangements for the day will be issued with the tickets.
If it is fine, a procession will form up in the Schools Arcade at 2.25 p.m. Those in the classes specified below who wish to take part in the procession are asked to state this clearly in their application for tickets. Processional tickets will be issued up to the maximum number of seats available for the procession. Only holders of Cambridge Professorial Chairs or Cambridge Higher Doctorates are eligible to process as Professors or Doctors.
With the assent of the Proctors, the Vice-Chancellor has prescribed the following order of processions prior to this Congregation:
The Vice-Marshal
Heads of Colleges
The Regius Professor of Divinity
The Regius Professor of Civil Law
The Regius Professor of Physic
The Regius Professor of Hebrew
The Regius Professor of Greek
Professors who are Doctors
Doctors of Divinity
Doctors of Law
Doctors of Medicine
Doctors of Science and Doctors of Letters
Doctors of Music
The Librarian
Professors who are not Doctors and the Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum
Members of the Council
The Pro-Proctors
A second procession will then form as follows, and will proceed immediately after the first:
The Esquire Bedells
The Chancellor
The Chancellor’s Train-bearer
The University Marshal
The Orator The Vice-Chancellor The Registrary
The Proctors
(University Constables)
The High Steward
The Deputy High Steward
The Commissary
The Pro-Vice-Chancellors
The Honorary Graduands
The Deputy Proctors
The Registrary gives notice that, under the provision of Statute T, 48 (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 75: see Reporter, 1984–85, p. 38), the following holder of the LL.B. Degree, who satisfied the Examiners for the LL.B. Examination before 1 October 1982, has now been redesignated as a holder of the LL.M. Degree:
Osborn, Jack Lester
Cambridge University Press has recently printed two documents that may be of interest to readers.
The twelfth Gomes Lecture was delivered by the Vice-Chancellor on 12 February at Emmanuel College, and is entitled A Vice-Chancellor Reflects. Her speech is given in full in a printed booklet.
On 13 February, a Memorial Service was held in Great St Mary’s Church for Sir David Williams. The Addresses and Sermon are printed in full in a further booklet.
Both of these publications are available free of charge and may be collected in person from the University Press Bookshop at 1, Trinity Street, from Friday, 23 April.
An equal pay audit was commissioned by the University to take place in 2008 as part of the proposals in the Second Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on new pay and grading arrangements for non-clinical staff (Reporter, 2004–05, p. 745). The Equal Pay Review Group comprises members of the Human Resources Division, Trade Union representatives, and representatives from institutions. The Review Group’s first report based on data as at 1 July 2008 was published on 18 February 2009 (Reporter, 2008–09, p. 510).
The Equal Pay Review 2009 (Appendices A–J) brings together the following pay data as at 31 July 2009:
•average stipends1
•market supplements
•other pensionable and non-pensionable payments for the 12 months ending 31 July 2009.
In addition Appendix B (Summary of gender pay gap and grade – all University staff) includes median2 and inter-quartile ranges3 to provide further insight into the potential gender pay issues.
This review analyses the impact of the above by gender and highlights significant differences. It also comments on progress made on matters of concern raised in the previous equal pay review. In addition some new comparisons are analysed, namely:
•the award of contribution increments and the distribution within contribution points in grades and occupational categories for academic-related and assistant staff
•gender analysis of stipends paid to new starters
•comparison of average stipends for part- and full-time staff
•cumulative comparisons of average stipend, market supplements, and pensionable and non-pensionable payments
Equal pay between men and women is a legal right under both domestic and European law. An equal pay review is a statistical analysis of an organization’s pay and HR data to identify and explain any gender-related pay differences.
This annual review compares the pay of men and women carrying out work of equal value as determined by the HERA4 job evaluation scheme adopted by the University. The approach taken to the equal pay review process is in line with the relevant JNCHES5 guidance. The actions identified are in line with the Equality and Human Rights Commission advice that where a pay differential related to gender is less than 3%, no action is necessary. Where the difference is greater than 3% but less than 5%, the position should be regularly monitored. For gender pay gaps of more than 5%, action is needed to address the issue and close the gap.
A number of the appendices include standard deviation calculations which are used to identify the dispersion of the individual values from the average stipend value. A low standard deviation indicates that the individual pay totals are clustered around the average value whereas a high standard deviation indicates that the individual pay totals are spread over a wide range. This provides another helpful indicator on the conclusions that can be drawn from the comparisons but where the sample group size is less than 10, the standard deviation may be misleading.
Care should be taken when interpreting gender differences in % pay terms as sample sizes vary considerably and a small change in the numbers employed by gender in an occupational category or grade can seem to make a significant difference. Another factor that impacts on average stipend values is the assimilation process from the former grading structure into the single salary spine with its 12 grades. It will be a number of years before this factor has worked its way through the pay structures. Even so the analyses and key findings in this report provide a sound basis for identifying equal pay issues that require monitoring or action.
The disclosure to third parties of data from equal pay reviews is covered by the Data Protection Act (1998). The results of an equal pay review can be disclosed as regards individuals or small groups as long as they are in sufficiently anonymized form.
As at 31 July 2009 the University employed 8,9086 people, of whom 4,349 (48.8%) were female. This compares with 8,539 staff in the previous report when 48.2% were female.
Key findings are amplified in subsequent sections of this review and the most significant findings are identified as follows:
The difference in average stipend values for academic-related staff in grades 5, 8, 9, and 12 all exceed the 3% criteria with grades 8 and 12 reaching or exceeding the 5% criteria. Whilst the difference at grade 8 is 5% (and does not exceed the criteria), the gender balance is even (167 female staff: 174 male staff) which focuses attention on why there should be such a large difference in average stipend. At grade 12 the sample group is small. However the difference in average stipend of 16.6% is notably significant.
The consolidation of all pay elements indicates little difference compared with average stipends alone apart from grade 12 for academic-related staff (Appendix D2) where the difference is 23.3% in favour of male staff. For assistant staff (Appendix D3) grade 3, the % differential increases to 5.3% from -0.8% when other additional payments are included.
The average payment for all market supplement payments (Appendix E1) equates to £4,229 for female staff and £13,471 for male staff. Ninety-one per cent of market supplement payments to academics were made to male staff.
Pensionable and non-pensionable data (Appendices E2 & E3) identify the number of recipients by gender and value, of which £1,764,132 (73%) of pensionable and £826,736 (76%) of non-pensionable payments were paid to male staff.
The numbers of female staff on the top contribution points of each grade compared to their male counterparts do not support the concerns of members of the Partnership Working Group that women are being held back from promotional opportunities.
An examination of new starter appointments has identified that a greater proportion of female staff (63%) were appointed up to spine point 39. In grade 9, male appointments predominate (83%) after spine point 56.
Female assistant staff accounted for more than 50% of staff in grades 1 – 6 with male staff accounting for more than 50% for grades 7 and 8 (Appendix C3).
The methodology chosen by the University and the Trade Unions in this Equal Pay Review followed the guidance issued by JNCHES in March 2007 which stated that the initial focus should be on base pay, allowances, and total earnings (including contribution-related pay and bonuses) and that to be comprehensive, such reviews should additionally establish the extent to which there are inequities in the operation of any contribution-related pay arrangements.
The guidance recommended that the analysis of pay data should consider staff numbers in each grade, staff group, and across all employees:
•average pay for each grade,
•average pay for each job category (where differentiated within or across grades),
•average pay for all staff,
•average pay for full-time, part-time, term-time, and fixed-term contract staff by grade and job category,
•pay gap percentages for each staff group and all staff.
In addition the Equal Pay Working Group decided to include standard deviation calculations as well as average stipend footnotes added to each appendix, where appropriate, ‘Standard deviation may not be a useful measure where the number of females and/or males is less than 10’. The Working Group recommendations in the Equal Pay Review 2009 include the need to identify a small number of key performance indicators for each of the main issues highlighted. Further detailed statistical analysis will be taken into account in due course.
The Equal Pay Review 2009 was prepared in consultation with the following working group members:
|
Chris Anthony |
HR Information Analyst |
|
Sue Childs |
HR Role Analyst |
|
Lorraine Dann |
Secretary of the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy |
|
Alan Davis |
Chief Custodian, Faculty of Economics, Branch Chair of Unison |
|
Denise Dear |
Academic Development Consultant |
|
Judith Drinkwater |
Secretary of the Department of Veterinary Medicine |
|
Sigrid Fisher |
Head of Equality and Diversity |
|
Alan Kirby |
Secretary of the Department of Pathology |
|
Peter Ibberson |
Equality and Diversity Consultant |
|
Claire Jelley |
HR Business Manager |
|
Theresa Jones |
Office Manager, Finance Division, Unite union representative |
|
Ian Maidlow |
Regional Representative, Unite |
|
Dan Pile |
HR Business Services Manager |
|
Lydia Richards |
Regional Representative, UCU |
A summary of average stipend pay by grade regardless of occupational category and working hours is attached in Appendix B for all staff. Grades 8 and 12 identify a gender pay gap of 4.5% and 3.6% respectively in favour of male staff.
A more detailed picture of gender pay is obtained by the analysis by both grade and occupational category as reported in Appendices C1 – C4.
Only one grade exceeds the 3% criteria; grade 8 where there are only 5 academic staff in total. There is a wider spread of standard deviations for male staff than female staff in grade 12, partly explained by the greater numbers of male staff in that grade.
Grades 5, 8, 9, and 12 each exceed the 3% criteria in favour of male staff (4.3%, 5.0%, 4.2%, and 16.6% respectively) with grade 12 exceeding the 5% criteria. The standard deviation in these 4 grades was also greater for male staff. This represents a change from the first equal pay report with grade 9 now exceeding the 3% criteria.
Last year’s review included an analysis by assistant staff categories (manual, clerical and secretarial, technical) as some of the pay differentials related to the assimilation to the single salary spine from these categories. Whilst this will have a knock on effect for several years, this review (and subsequent reviews) analyses the pay data by the occupational category of assistant staff in total.
The only grade where a pay differential exceeds 3% is for grade 7 in favour of male staff (3.7%). Most staff in this grade are technicians because historically the career route has been dominated by men.
Attention is drawn to the proportion of women in grades 7 and 8 where male staff hold in excess of 50% of posts compared with grades 1 – 6 where women hold in excess of 50%. At grade 8, the standard deviation in average stipend is £6,665 for 6 female staff and £2,494 for 22 male staff. However for a small sample group the standard deviation may be misleading for the purposes of gender comparison.
For male staff, grade 8 exceeds the 3% difference in average stipend criteria (3.5%) and grade 12 exceeds the 5% criteria (16.3%).
The figures for grade 8 are made up of a small number of appointments that have not fallen into the normal research pathway of grade 5 (research assistant), grade 7 (research associate), and grade 9 (senior research associate). The pay data for these grades 5, 7, and 9 remains below a 3% differential.
In grade 12, the % difference in average stipend is 16.3% with the standard deviation varying from £6,349 for female staff to £16,916 for male staff. However the standard deviation should be treated with caution as the numbers of female staff in grade 12 are low.
The consolidated payments should be compared with the same occupational groups in Appendices C1 to C4.
The change in grade 11 from +0% to -1.34% is accounted for by the impact that additional payments make to a relatively small cohort of female staff. Whilst 23 men in grade 11 received payments compared to 10 female staff, there were only 60 female staff in grade 11 compared to 239 male staff.
There is only one significant change for academic-related staff (Appendix D2). This is in grade 12, where the difference increases from 15.1% to 23.3%. The factors for this are known: greater numbers of male staff in this grade coupled with additional payments. At 5% action is needed to address the issue and close the gap.
The greatest change for assistant staff (Appendix D3) is in grade 3 where males move from a lesser salary (-0.8%) to a greater salary when other payments are included (+5.3%). This is because 62 staff received additional payments (15 female; 47 male) of which 26 males received additional hours and shift allowance payments for security duties.
Non-clinical research staff (Appendix D4) are only impacted by the consolidation at grades 11 and 12. All the female staff in these grades receive external awards which accounts for the sizeable change in differential for total payments, particularly as there are only 3 female staff in each of these grades which highlights the variations in pay.
Previous market supplement reports (and pensionable and non-pensionable payment details) published in the Reporter covered the number of staff in receipt of awards at 30 September. The format of this data has already been agreed with the Council. It was decided to move the reporting date for 2009 to a common date of 31 July to enable the data to be included on a common basis in this report.
Market supplements are paid in order to recruit and retain members or groups of staff with specific skills and are only paid where there is firm evidence to support this necessity.
Market supplements are reported in Appendix E1. The award by gender for all those in receipt of a market supplement as at 31 July 2009 was:
|
Category |
Male |
Female |
|
Academic |
43 |
4 |
|
Academic-related |
15 |
8 |
|
Assistant |
1 |
1 |
|
Research |
4 |
0 |
|
Total |
63 |
13 |
The figures show that 91% of awards to academics were to male staff and 65% of awards to academic-related staff were to male staff. Appendix E1 identifies that the majority of the awards to academics were given to male staff in grade 12 (33 out of a total of 47 awards). Female academic-related staff were awarded market supplements for grades 7 – 10 but not for grades 11 or 12.
The largest number of market supplement awards were made to academic and academic-related staff (12 females; 58 males). The average payment by gender was £4,447 to female staff and £14,165 to male staff.
The total value of all additional pensionable payments to male staff is much higher (£1,764,132 compared to £661,162 – i.e. 73%).
Admin responsibility pensionable payments were awarded to 21 male staff (45% of total number of staff in receipt of this payment), although these staff received 72% of the total value. The difference in payment per person and gender was particularly marked in Council non-UAS institutions, the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, and the School of Technology.
Payments to directors in academic institutions (Faculties, Departments, and Centres) were made to 12 male staff (£81,137) and 5 female staff (£16,470). This indicates an average payment of £6,761 to male staff and £3,294 to female staff.
Head of Department payments were awarded to 56 male staff (£486,629) and to 7 female staff (£33,363). Based solely on this data the average is £8,690 for male staff and £4,766 for female staff.
The total value of all non-pensionable payments to male staff is much higher (£826,736 compared to £261,378 – i.e. 76%).
Whilst Chairman payments to male staff were, on average, 63% greater than that awarded to female staff, 46 male staff received these payments, compared to 12 female staff.
In addition to Appendices E2 and E3, analysis is shown below for the ‘Other Payments’ category where there are 41 types of pensionable and non-pensionable payments. The table below shows where the greatest expenditure occurs for these payments.
|
Main categories |
Pensionable |
Non-pensionable |
|
Additional Hours |
– |
|
|
Wellcome Trust Enhancement |
– |
|
|
Wellcome Distinction |
– |
|
|
Wellcome Merit Award |
– |
|
|
Royal Society Merit Award |
– |
|
|
Shift Allowance |
– |
|
|
Mobility Allowance |
– |
With reference to the category of ‘Other Payments’, the total value of pensionable payments to male staff is higher (£874,225 compared to £527,014 – i.e. 62%). For non-pensionable payments the total value of payments to male staff is significantly higher (£700,899 compared to £214,056 – i.e. 77%).
Appendix E4 highlights the main areas of gender difference for additional pensionable and non-pensionable payments by institution and category of payment. The most obvious differences are the payments made by the School of the Physical Sciences, the School of Technology, and the Unified Administrative Service.
The distribution of staff paid on contribution points arises as a consequence of:
•assimilation to the single salary spine,
•successful regrading application where the post-holder was already paid in the upper points range of an overlapping grade,
•appointment to a higher graded vacancy where the member of staff is already within the contribution range of the lower graded post,
•new starters appointed on contribution spine points, and
•the award of contribution increments which either accelerate progression through the service-related spine points of the grade or move staff into the contribution range.
The combination of these factors makes it difficult to assess whether any gender bias has taken place that would account for disproportionate numbers of either gender in the contribution points ranges. One measure of assessing potential gender bias is an analysis of the contribution increments awarded each year for these academic-related and assistant staff. Appendix F identifies the success rate by gender of the award of contribution increments in 2009. The data suggests that staff have been treated consistently regardless of gender or part-time or full-time considerations. Overall the proportion of female staff granted contribution increments as a percentage of female applicants were slightly higher than for male staff.
One of the summaries highlighted last year was the proportion of women on contribution points in grade 4. Appendix G summarizes the trend from 1 January 2007 to 31 July 2009 and shows that whilst the proportion of female staff on the contribution points has remained consistent at around 30%, the proportion of male staff has dropped from almost 60% to just above 40%.
Since 1 January 2007, 70 of the 199 female staff (35%) that were in the grade 4 contribution range have either left their job or have transferred/been regraded, compared with 56 of the 149 male staff (38%). In the same period, 66 female staff (34%) have newly entered the grade 4 contribution range compared with only 19 male staff (17%).
Appendices H1 – H3 report the numbers and percentages of female staff and male staff on the top contribution point of each grade. This analysis has been done as a result of the concern raised by trade union members of the Partnership Working Group, that women might be held back from progression to higher grades.
Appendix H1 (assistant staff) generally shows gender balance across all grades except grade 2, where 9.1% of women are on the top point compared to 0.7% of men.
Appendix H2 (academic-related staff) shows that a greater proportion of men are on the top contribution point for each grade except for grade 8 where male staff and female staff are broadly balanced in numbers.
There is no discernible percentage difference for non-clinical research staff (Appendix H3) apart from grade 11, where the numbers are, nevertheless, too small to draw sensible conclusions.
New starters to the University appointed between 1 August 2008 and 31 July 2009 are shown as a histogram of starters by scale point (Appendix I1) and a tabular presentation of starters by spine point and grade (Appendix I2).
Appendix I1 provides a visual depiction of the allocation by gender of new appointments but does not differentiate by grade. More women than men were appointed on spine points up to spine point 39. For example 97 female staff and 61 male staff were appointed to point 34 (grades 4 and 5) whilst 79 female staff and 116 male staff were appointed to point 39 (grades 5, 6, and 7).
A more detailed analysis is provided in Appendix I2. Grade 9 in particular shows a higher number of male staff appointed above the minimum spine point for that grade, e.g. points 56 and 57.
An examination of the number and percentage of staff by gender appointed above the minimum scale point of each grade is reported in Appendix I3. Of the 1,563 new starters in this period, 911 were appointed above the minimum of the grade, 444 females and 467 males. The bulk of these appointments were in grades 5 and 7.
Appendices I4 and I5 show further detail of the appointments in grade 5 and grade 7 respectively. The proportion of men to women appointed to higher salary points in grade 5 increases in the favour of men from point 36 upwards, with less pronounced variations in grade 7.
A comparison of full-time and part-time average stipend salaries is reported in Appendix J and in order to compare like with like, the full-time value of the scale point has been used for staff working full-time or part-time. The data for part-time staff identifies that in most grades the average stipend is higher for women than for men and exceeds the 3% criteria in grades 2, 6, and 7 (3.9%, 3.7%, and 3.0% respectively). In grade 8 the average stipend is higher for male staff than female staff (3.3%).
The gender pay differential for assistant technical staff was 3.4% in favour of male staff. This has now dropped to 2.8%.
The Equal Pay Review findings continue to focus attention at the appropriate level to develop actions to address pay inequality and other gender differences.
The Equal Pay Review Working Group recommend further investigation, diagnosis, and possible remedial actions (in line with JNCHES guidance) be undertaken into:
– the pay differentials of academic-related staff in grades 8 and 12
– the reasons for the appointment at higher spine points in grade 9 for male staff.
The findings of this review includes the gender imbalance in the award of market supplements. The market supplement criteria will be reviewed to ensure there is no discrimination arising from the criteria and procedures supporting this process and reporting will differentiate between awards given for recruitment or retention purposes.
In addition to the detailed information contained in this review, future reviews will separate pensionable payments linked to an office from pensionable payments awarded on a discretionary basis. Future reviews will also identify a small number of key performance indicators for each of the main issues highlighted. These indicators will highlight key themes in equal pay at the University of Cambridge, and will over time quantify the effectiveness (or otherwise) of related policy action. Proposals will be submitted to the HR Committee within 6 months of this report.
A Gender Equality Group will be set up whose objectives will include ensuring that actions from Equal Pay Reviews will be taken forward in a timely manner. It will also co-ordinate and promote the wider issues of gender equality.
|
Appendix B |
Summary of gender pay gap and grade |
|
Appendix C1 – C4 |
Summary of gender pay effect within occupational categories |
|
Appendix D1 – D4 |
Summary of gender pay effect within occupational categories (including additional payments) |
|
Appendix E1 – E4 |
Summary of market supplements, additional pensionable and non-pensionable payments |
|
Appendix F |
Graph showing Contribution Increments awarded at 1 January 2009, distributed by gender and staff category |
|
Appendix G |
Grade 4 staff on contribution points by gender from 1 January 2007 to 31 July 2009 |
|
Appendix H1 – H3 |
Distribution of staff by gender on grade cut-off points for assistant staff, academic-related staff, and non-clinical Researchers |
|
Appendix I1 – I5 |
Scale points of new starters between 1 August 2008 and 31 July 2009 |
|
Appendix J |
Summary of gender pay gap and grade for full-time and part-time staff |
1Average stipend excludes market pay supplements and other pensionable and non-pensionable payments and is calculated as the sum of all payments on single salary spine point values divided by the number of instances of those values
2The median stipend is the middle value of all the payments on single salary spine point values when placed in lowest to highest order
3The inter-quartile range is the difference between the upper quartile (i.e. the value of all payments three quarters of the way from lowest to highest) and the lower quartile (i.e. the value of all payments one quarter of the way from lowest to highest)
4Higher Education Role Analysis
5Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff
6Figure taken from CHRIS, i.e. includes staff working variable hours but excludes ‘casual’ staff
Appendix B: Summary of gender pay gap and grade – all University staff
Appendix B