Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6208

Wednesday 15 December 2010

Vol cxli No 12

pp. 313–364

Notices

Calendar

19 December, Sunday. Michaelmas Term ends.

5 January, Wednesday. Lent Term begins.

12 January, Wednesday. First ordinary number of the Reporter in the Lent Term.

18 January, Tuesday. Full Term begins. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see p. 317).

22 January, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2 p.m.

25 January, Tuesday. Discussion at 2 p.m. in the Senate-House (see below).

Notice of a Discussion on Tuesday, 25 January 2011

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, 25 January 2011, at 2 p.m., for the discussion of:

1. University Council: Annual Report, 2009–10 (Reporter, 2010–11, pp. 215–18).

2. Annual Report of the General Board to the Council for the academical year 2009–10 (Reporter, 2010–11, pp. 219–22).

3. Reports and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 July 2010 (Reporter, 2010–11, pp. 223–58).

4. Report of the General Board, dated 1 December 2010, on the establishment of a Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 357).

5. Report of the General Board, dated 1 December 2010, on the establishment of an MRC Research Professorship of Cognitive Psychology (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 359).

6. Report of the General Board, dated 1 December 2010, on the establishment of a Professorship of Finance (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 360).

Sir Robert Rede’s Lecture: Notice

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that the 2011 Rede Lecture will be delivered by Dr Harold Varmus, Director of the National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health. Dr Varmus will lecture in the Senate-House at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 March 2011. Senior members of the University attending the Lecture should wear gowns. Further details will be announced later.

Report of the Council on the constitution of the Audit Committee: Notice

13 December 2010

The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion of this Report on 6 July 2010 (Reporter, 2009–10, p. 1174). It has considered the remarks carefully and consulted the Audit Committee about revisions to the proposals in its Report of 14 June 2010 (Reporter, 2009–10, p. 991) as set out below.

Co-opted members

The Council notes that the wording of the revised Regulation 1(d) for co-opted members of the Audit Committee was thought to be unclear and open to an interpretation that was not the Council’s intention. It has noted Dr Cowley’s comments about the possible imbalance of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ members and has agreed to reinstate the current requirement that the first person to be co-opted should be an ‘internal’ member, that is, a member of the Regent House. It has accordingly adopted Mr Maclaren’s and Dr Cowley’s suggestions in the following form:

Regulation 1(d) (co-opted members).

(d)not more than three persons co-opted by the Committee, of whom

(i)the first person co-opted shall be a member of the Regent House, such person not being a member of the Council,

(ii)not more than two co-opted persons shall be members of the Regent House, such persons not being members of the Council,

(iii)not more than two co-opted persons shall be external members, one but not more than one of whom may be a member of the Council in class(e),

provided that it shall not be obligatory for the Committee to co-opt any person or persons.

For the purpose of these regulations, external members are defined as the following members of the Audit Committee:

(i) persons who are members of the Council in class (e);

(ii)persons who are not employees of the University or any of its companies or of a College, and who do not hold College Fellowships which qualify them for membership of the Regent House.

The quorum

As stated in the Report, the Council and the Audit Committee had considered that, although the proposed requirement that decisions could only be made when external members were in the majority set a more exacting test for reaching a quorum than obtains in the current regulation, this would give added weight to decisions reached by the Committee and improve further the independence of its oversight over internal control and assurance matters in the University. The Council now accepts that this proposal would impose unnecessarily strict conditions and now recommends instead that the quorum should be five and that at least three external members should be present. Where a vote on any matter is necessary and the vote is tied, the Chairman or Acting Chairman, who is an external member, should have a casting vote. Regulation 5 (quorum) has accordingly been amended so as to read:

Regulation 5 (quorum).

5. No decision of the Audit Committee shall have any binding effect unless there are at least five members, three at least of these being external members, present at a meeting of the Audit Committee. If a decision is the subject of a vote and there is an equality of votes cast, the Chairman, or Acting Chairman, as the case may be, shall be entitled to give a second or casting vote.

External members of the Council

Professor Evans referred to the appointment process for the external members of the Council. The Nominating Committee established by Ordinance met several times during the summer, it reported its recommendations to the Council on 18 October, and the Council approved the submission of the names of Mr Dominic Casserley and Mr John Shakeshaft to the Regent House for approval (Graces 4 and 5 of 20 October 2010).

The Council, with the concurrence of the Audit Committee, is submitting a Grace (Grace 1, p. 360) to the Regent House for the approval of the following amendments to the regulations for the Audit Committee (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 987):

Regulation 1 (membership).

By amending the membership of the Audit Committee in class (d) and inserting a final paragraph so as to read:

Regulation 1(d) (co-opted members).

(d)not more than three persons co-opted by the Committee, of whom

(i)The first person co-opted shall be a member of the Regent House, such person not being a member of the Council,

(ii)not more than two co-opted persons shall be members of the Regent House, such persons not being members of the Council,

(iii) not more than two co-opted persons shall be external members, one but not more than one of whom may be a member of the Council in class (e),

provided that it shall not be obligatory for the Committee to co-opt any person or persons.

For the purpose of these regulations, external members are defined as the following members of the Audit Committee:

(i) persons who are members of the Council in class (e);

(ii)persons who are not employees of the University or any of its companies or of a College, and who do not hold College Fellowships which qualify them for membership of the Regent House.

Regulation 5 (quorum).

By amending the regulation so as to read:

5. No decision of the Audit Committee shall have any binding effect unless there are at least five members, three at least of these being external members, present at a meeting of the Audit Committee. If a decision is the subject of a vote and there is an equality of votes cast, the Chairman, or Acting Chairman, as the case may be, shall be entitled to give a second or casting vote.

New Regulation 6 (Acting Chairman).

By inserting a new Regulation 6 so as to read:

6. In the absence of the Chairman of the Committee, the Audit Committee shall elect an acting Chairman from the external members present.

13 December 2010

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

S. J. Cowley

Vanessa Lawrence

Ross Anderson

M. J. Daunton

Debbie Lowther

N. Bampos

A. M. Donald

Mavis McDonald

R. J. Barnes

R. J. Dowling

Rachael Padman

Nigel Brown

David Good

David Simon

William Brown

Christopher Hum

S. Wakeford

M. R. Clark

F. P. Kelly

Joan M. Whitehead

EU Public Procurement Regulations: Notice

13 December 2010

The Council, on the advice of the Finance Committee, has declared that the University continues to remain outside the scope of the EU Public Procurement Regulations as it is less than 50% publicly funded. The calculation is carried out annually to ensure that it remains possible to make the declaration. It is the Council’s intention that the University’s procurement procedures should continue to follow the good practice set out in the regulations and in the University’s Financial Regulations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 976, see also http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/finance/regulations/finregs/purchasing.html).

Council for Lifelong Learning: Notice

13 December 2010

The Council has been advised by the General Board that they have approved, after consultation with the Councils of the Schools and other interested parties, the establishment of a Board of Executive and Professional Education, which will assume responsibility for advising the central bodies on matters relating to executive and professional education activities and which will include representatives of all those institutions with a particular interest in this area of University activity, including the Institute of Continuing Education, Judge Business School, the Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership, and the Faculties of Clinical Medicine and of Education. Further details can be found at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/committee/bepe/.

Other areas which previously fell within the Council for Lifelong Learning’s remit are now dealt with through the management committees of institutions concerned with lifelong learning, which report to the General Board either directly or through a Council of a School, or by the Committee on Community Activities (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/committee/community/). The Council has accepted the General Board’s advice (given after consultation with the Chair of the Council for Lifelong Learning and the Director of the Institute of Continuing Education) that these arrangements are sufficient and that there is no longer a need for the Council of Lifelong Learning, and is accordingly submitting a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 2, p. 360) to rescind the regulations for the Council of Lifelong Learning.

The publication of reviews and other reports in the University: Notice

13 December 2010

In November 2009, the Council published a Notice in response to remarks made in the Discussion on a topic of concern: the review of teaching and learning services (Reporter, 2009–10, p. 256). In its response, the Council announced that the Registrary should consider the general policy on publishing such reviews and other reports and advise the Council and the General Board appropriately.

Statute A, VIII, 1 is clear on the obligation with regard to formal Reports by any body which has the right of reporting to the University:

Reports of the Council, or of any Board, Syndicate, or other body that has the right of reporting to the University, shall be submitted to the University by being published in the Cambridge University Reporter. A Report of any body other than the Council shall be sent to the Registrary for communication to the Council, who may refer it to the General Board and to any other body or person whom it wishes to consult. Such a Report shall be published not later than six months after the date on which it was first sent to the Registrary, unless the reporting body agrees to postpone its publication until a later date. Any comments on the Report which the Council or the General Board may wish to publish to the University shall be published with the Report.

The Council and General Board note that there is a distinction between Reports that are generated in accordance with this Statute and are intended for Discussion, potentially a Notice in response, and then usually a Grace, and another category of reports, not intended for the same procedure, that are generated by working groups of a senior body or one of its committees or through reviews. Such reports might be reviews of teaching and learning conducted regularly on behalf of the General Board, a review of an aspect of University business or a proposal for a specific change in policy, or the making of a case for a decision by one of the senior bodies or a principal committee of them. These reports will vary in their level of confidentiality, sensitivity, commerciality, or their personal nature. All of them are potentially subject to disclosure under the provisions of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and any such requests at present would be tested against the provisions of that Act before a decision was taken to release them wholly or partially or in a redacted form. In some cases, a decision would be taken not to release a report under the provisions of the FOI Act now but to revisit that decision after an elapse of time because the immediate sensitivity under the public interest test had been blunted.

The Council and Board have accepted the recommendation by the Registrary that all reports as defined above should be published on the website of the relevant senior body or committee for general access by members of the University within the Cam domain. The publication of such reports would only be subject to applying the tests of the FOI Act to them and withholding them completely, partially, or only publishing a redacted version, if that would have been the reasonable decision in response to an FOI request made by an individual. The judgement on whether to publish and in what form would be made by the secretary of the senior body or principal committee after appropriate briefing or training on the provisions of the FOI Act. As necessary, there would be consultation with the Head of the Registrary’s Office or the person delegated with responsibility for FOI and Data Protection matters. If a decision were taken not to publish a report or only to do so in some partial or redacted form, the reasons for that decision would be given in the relevant place on the website. It would be the responsibility of the secretary of the senior body or principal committee to make that decision, undertake any redaction, and to provide any explanatory notes.

A list will be published periodically in the Reporter of the reports that were accessible under the new policy and, from the Reporter’s digital edition, a reader will be able to click through to the report in question from that list.

Discussion of a topic of concern to the University: Notice

13 December 2010

The Registrary gives notice that he has received a request for the discussion of the following topic of concern to the University:

The University’s response to the proposed changes in higher education funding, in light of the more detailed proposals following the publication of the Browne Review.

The request is supported by the following members of the Regent House:

Maha Mahfouz Abdel Rahman

Felicity Mariko Green

Jean Michel Massing

Andrew C. Aitchison

Julian Leether Griffin

Mairéad McAuley

Rachel Anne Alexander

Jonathan Patrick Grove

Sarah Meer

Salim Samar Al-Gailani

Rotraud Hansberger

Preston Thor Miracle

Lori A. Allen

Timothy Norman Harper

Perveez Mody

Houshang Ardavan

Rachael Marian Harris

Iris Moeller

Michelle Baddeley

Victoria Harris

Sarah Kathleen Monk

Deborah Anne Reyner Banham

Tawfique Hasan

James E. Montgomery

Zygmunt Guido Baranski

Ronald S. Haynes

Robert Moore

John Douglass Barber

Louise M. Haywood

Jeremy Nigel Morris

Tarak Barkawi

Anita Corinne Herle

Subha Mukherji

Samuel James Barrett

Adam Higazi

Kamal Munir

M. B. Beckles

Holly High

Jane Nolan

Barbara Ann Bodenhorn

David Asaf Hillman

Anastasia Norton-Piliavsky

Jenny Bosten

Edward Holberton

Rory O’Bryen

Deborah Bowman

Nicholas Duncan Hopwood

Jonathan Oppenheim

Elizabeth Boyle

Sarah Houghton-Walker

Robin Grimsey Osborne

Rowan Boyson

Sarah Frances Howard

Ian Patterson

Julie Bressor

Jana Rachel Howlett

Cameron Petrie

Nuzhat Bukhari

Michael Hrebeniak

Claire Elisabeth Preston

Nicholas Oliver Alan Bullock

Stephen Hugh-Jones

Sarah Radcliffe

Brendan Burchell

Emma Louise Hunter

Gabriela Ramos

Catherine Burke

Michael Dominic Hurley

Sophie C. N. Read

Christopher Burlinson

Humeira Iqtidar

Michael Rice

Tim Button

Mary L. Jacobus

Ronald James Elliott Riley

Rodrigo Gabriel Cacho

Hubertus Jahn

John Robb

James Carleton Paget

Ian Richard James

Marta Sofia Rodrigues Alves de Magalhaes

Gillian Carr

Liliana Janik

Martin Ruehl

Jean Kathleen Chothia

Simon Jarvis

William Owen Saxton

David John Harold Clifford

Charles Arthur Jones

Simon John Schaffer

Joanna Cook

Michael Jones

Jason Scott-Warren

Joanna Elizabeth Irene Craigwood

Peter Jones

Brian Damien Sloan

Carly Lorraine Crouch

Richard Jozsa

Katherine E. Spence

Martin Paul Vernon Crowley

Alexandre J. Kabla

Sharath Srinivasan

Anne Christine Davis

Eivind Georg Kahrs

Gareth Stedman Jones

Nicholas Robert Michael de Lange

Lauren Kassell

Ann Marilyn Strathern

Lucy Delap

Aileen Mary Kelly

Elsa Strietman

Isabel Noronha DiVanna

Neil Kenny

Simon Richard Stanislaw Szreter

Beci May Dobbin

Frank H. King

Deborah Thom

Elizabeth Anne Drayson

Julian King

Nicholas Jeremy Thomas

Harri Mikael Englund

Peter Francis Kornicki

Wilfred David Trotter

Ben Etherington

Mary Rachel Laven

Sophie Turenne

Georgina Louise Evans

Sian Lazar

Isobel Urquhart

Paola Filippucci

Melanie Leggatt

Megan Anne Vaughan

John Peter Forrester

Emily Diana Lethbridge

Bert Vaux

Alastair Fraser

M. M. Lisboa

Jennifer Wallace

Charles Andrew Ivey French

Raphael Thomas Richard Lyne

Chris Warnes

Christophe Gagne

Alan Donald James Macfarlane

Ruth Isabella Watson

Anna Gannon

Robert Grant Macfarlane

Sheila Watts

Sinead Garrigan-Mattar

Isobel Maddison

Stephen Watts

Valentine Arthur Charles Gatrell

Alyce Mahon

Darin Thompson Weinberg

Nick Gay

Jonathan Mair

Daniel H. Weiss

Heather Glen

Peter Mandler

David Whitley

Joe Gluza

Julie Esther Marfany

John Young

Martin Steven Golding

Nicholas John Marston

Nicolette Zeeman

D. J. Goode

Andrew Martin

Andrew Zurcher

Priyamvada Gopal

The Council has agreed that this topic will be discussed on 18 January 2011.

Equal Pay Review, 2010: Notice

13 December 2010

The University of Cambridge is committed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value for all employees. The University aims to ensure its pay system is fair and just and that any sex bias is eliminated.

The first 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 Group overseeing the content of the audit is the Equal Pay Review Group (EPRG), comprising members of the Human Resources Division, Trade Union representatives, and representatives from University Schools and Departments. The Review Group’s first two reports based on data as at 1 July 2008 and 31 July 2009 were published on 18 February 2009 (Reporter, 2008–09, p. 510) and 21 April 2010 (Reporter, 2009–10, p. 688) respectively.

The Equal Pay Review 2010 (Appendices A–F) brings together the following pay data as at 31 July 2010:

average salaries1

market supplements

other pensionable and non-pensionable payments for the 12 months ending 31 July 2010.

The appendices have been revised to include median2 and inter-quartile ranges3 where appropriate, in order to provide further insight into potential gender pay issues.

This report examines the impact of the above by gender and highlights differences and pay gaps. It also comments on progress made on matters of concern raised in previous equal pay reviews. In addition, some new comparisons are analysed, including:

market comparison

pensionable payments split into those linked to a role and those awarded on a discretionary basis

a number of Key Performance Indicators that have been identified to highlight key themes in equal pay at the University of Cambridge

median and inter-quartile ranges for all appendices (as appropriate).

Appendix A

Findings of the Equal Pay Review 2010

1.0 Background

Equal pay between male and female employees 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.

Although there is no specific legal requirement for institutions to carry out an equal pay review, there are compelling reasons for doing so. Firstly, the EOC4 Code of Practice on Equal Pay recommends equal pay reviews as the most appropriate method of ensuring that a pay system delivers equal pay for equal work and is free from gender bias. Secondly, the JNCHES5 pay agreement 2006–09 includes a strong recommendation that Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) undertake an equal pay review within 12 months of the introduction of their new, post-framework pay structures and periodically thereafter. Thirdly, since April 2007, HEIs have been subject to the Gender Equality Duty6 to eliminate unlawful sex discrimination and to promote gender equality. Specific duties also apply requiring HEIs to take actions to address any gender pay gaps. Finally, the Equality Act 2010 places renewed emphasis on the need for pay equality and the draft Equal pay statutory code of practice (EHRC, 2010)7 recommends that all employers conduct equal pay reviews. The proposed specific duties also require HEIs to publish their gender pay gap and set an objective to close any identified gap.

This annual review compares the pay of male and female employees carrying out work of equal value as determined by the job evaluation scheme adopted by the University (HERA8). The approach taken to the equal pay review process is in line with the relevant JNCHES 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 to this review include standard deviation calculations which are used to identify the dispersion of the values from the average salary value. A low standard deviation indicates that the pay totals are clustered around the average value whereas a high standard deviation indicates that the 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 salaries 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. For the purposes of this year’s report, the data provided on basic pay in the appendices has been anonymized where fewer than 5 employees are identified. This is in accordance with HESA guidance.

2.0 Methodology

The methodology chosen by the University and the Trade Unions in this equal pay review is consistent with previous pay reviews. It is based on the guidance issued by the EHRC’s equal pay review model and the JNCHES 2007 equal pay review guidance for higher education institutions. JNCHES states 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 employee numbers in each grade, staff group, and across all employees as follows:

average pay for each grade,

average pay for each job category (where differentiated within or across grades),

average pay for all employees,

average pay for full-time, part-time, term-time, and fixed-term contract9 employees by grade and job category,

pay gap percentages for each staff group and all employees.

Average salaries and gender pay gaps can be calculated by either using the mean or median values. In the 2008 Equal Pay Report, the mean was used for calculating average salaries. The 2009 Equal Pay Report also used the mean and, in addition, displayed the median within the basic pay table for all University employees (Appendix B of the 2009 Report). The 2010 Equal Pay Report displays both the mean and median values for Appendices B1–B5 and C1–C5. Standard deviation calculations and average salary footnotes are also provided in each appendix, where appropriate.

The median can be a more appropriate method of measuring averages than the mean where there are outlying values within the data being analysed. However, a significant proportion of salaries are on the top service point of the grade, for both male and female employees. In this situation the median values for both genders will tend to be the same, masking any pay gap that may exist.

A comparison of the mean pay gaps with the median pay gaps in Appendix B1 illustrates this effect. With the exception of grades 8 and 12, median pay gap is 0% for all grades, due to the middle value for female and male employees falling on the same spine point. In grades 8 and 12, because the middle value for female employees falls on a different spine point to that of male employees, the result is a notable pay gap.

Therefore, for the purposes of this report, the mean has continued to be used as the primary method of analysis of average salaries and gender pay gaps. However, if the trend for market comparisons of equal pay audits moves towards the use of median values, the University may review this approach in future equal pay reports. This year’s report also includes a number of key performance indicators as recommended in the 2009 Equal Pay Review.

The Equal Pay Review 2010 was prepared in consultation with representatives from the Trades Unions, University Schools/Faculties, and the Human Resources Division, including the Equality and Diversity Section, HR Analytics, and Grading and Reward.

3.0 Summary of key findings

This section summarizes the most significant findings of the 2010 Equal Pay Review and provides extracts of the data found in Appendices B to F. More detailed analysis can be found in the main report at 4.0.

3.1 Employee profile – by gender

On 31 July 2010, 8,945 University employees occupied positions on the single salary pay spine, of whom 4,393 (49.1%) were female and 4,552 (50.9%) were male. This is a small increase on the 2009 figures where 48.8% of employees were female. Please see Chart 1 under 3.2.1 for full details.

Gender representation – by year and market comparison

Table 1: Comparison of University of Cambridge with UK workforce gender representation

Benchmark

Female (%)

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

University of Cambridge

48.2%

48.8%

49.1%

National HE Sector*

53.2%

53.0%

**

* Source: HESA – Staff at Higher Education Institutions in the UK

** Data to be released in November 2010

As can be seen from Table 1, over the last two years the University has had a slightly smaller percentage of female employees compared to the national higher education sector average. The difference however appears to be reducing.

3.2 Gender pay gap

Market comparison

The Office for National Statistics (ONS)10 produces estimates of the pay gap in the public and private sectors. In April 2009 the pay gap was estimated to be 21.0% and 28.8% in the public and private sectors respectively (including additional payments paid in every pay period). Although these estimates are of interest for high-level benchmarking purposes they can hide wide variations between different industries, occupations, regions, and age groups.

Using the same method of calculation of the pay gap as the ONS,11 in July 2010 the gender pay gap between median salaries in the University of Cambridge was 23.4%. This falls between the estimates of the pay gap in the public (21.0%) and private sector (28.8%) and is 2.4% higher than the estimate of the public sector pay gap.

Unfortunately data from the Russell Group on the pay gap at other leading universities is not yet available. This data could provide a better comparator for benchmarking purposes than national public sector pay estimates.

Gender pay gap – by year

Table 2: Percentage pay gap by year, University of Cambridge

Year

Population

Average (mean) basic pay

Female

Male

Female

Male

Pay gap (%)

2007/08

4,119

4,420

£28,247

£37,157

31.5%

2008/09

4,349

4,559

£29,772

£38,703

30.0%

2009/10

4,393

4,552

£30,253

£39,139

29.4%

As can be seen from Table 2 the University’s pay gap has fallen over the last three years. In future years the EPRG hopes to benchmark these results against national figures in the HE sector.

3.3 Analysis of average salaries (Appendices B1–B5)

Appendix B1 provides a summary of the average salary by grade for all employees on the single pay spine irrespective of occupational category and working hours.

Across all occupational categories there continues to be a gender pay gap in grade 8, and for 2009/10 it is 4.5% in favour of male employees.

Occupational categories

Further analysis by occupational category can be found in Appendices B2–B5 and Table 5 in the main report.

Academic staff – only one grade exceeds the 3% criteria, namely grade 8 (and grade 12 if the median pay gap is used), where there are less than 5 academic employees of each gender across all departments.

Academic-related staff – grades 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 each exceed the 3% criteria in favour of male employees. Grade 5, 8, and 12 exceed the 5% criteria.

Assistant staff – there are no grades in this occupational category that exceed the 3% criteria.

Non-clinical research staff – only grade 12 is significant, rising from a pay gap of 16.3% in 2009 to 21.0% in 2010. The 3.5% pay gap identified within grade 8 in the 2009 review has dropped to 1.0% in 2010.

Part-time employees – the overall pay gap is slightly lower for part-time employees (23.0% compared to 24.9% for full-time employees), please see Table 9 in the main report.

One explanatory factor of the significant gender pay gaps by occupational category, is the different distribution of male and female employees across the grade structure (see Table 5 and Chart 1).

3.4 Analysis of average salaries and additional payments (Appendices C1–C5)

The consolidation of all pay elements indicates little change when compared with average salaries, apart from the following:

Grade 12 for academic-related staff (Appendix C3) where the pay gap increases from 7.0% to 11.5% in favour of male employees.

Grade 3 assistant staff (Appendix C4) where the pay gap increases from 0.0% to 6.8% when other additional payments are included. This is because many males at this grade receive additional hours and shift allowance payments for security duties.

The pay gap of non-clinical research staff within grade 11 and 12 falls when additional payments are added to basic pay due to a greater proportion of female employees in these grades receiving additional awards. However an increase in the pay gap at grade 10 from 2.4% to 7.2% can be explained by there being very small numbers of non-clinical research staff in this grade.

3.5 Analysis of additional payments only (Appendices D1–D4)

Pensionable and non-pensionable payments (Appendices D1 to D3)

Male employees received 63.3% of the total number of pensionable payments and 58.1% of the total number of non-pensionable payments.

Of the two types of pensionable payments, male employees received 57.9% of discretionary payments and 66.5% of payments linked to a role. The total value of pensionable payments was higher for male employees (81.3% for discretionary payments and 74.0% higher for payments linked to a role).

The overall percentage value of non-pensionable payments was 71.5% for male employees.

Market supplements (Appendix D4)

The average payment in 2010 equates to £11,684 for male and £3,929 for female employees. This is a decrease of 13.3% for male and 7.1% for female employees from the previous year.

3.6 The award of contribution increments by gender and occupational category (Appendix E)

A total of 224 employees received contribution increments in 2010 and of these 64.3% were female and 35.7% male. A breakdown by occupational category is provided in Appendix E.

3.7 Analysis of salaries paid to new starters (Appendices F1 and F4)

1,368 new starters were appointed by the University on to the single salary pay spine from 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010. Of these new employees, 763 were appointed above the minimum point of the grade, 358 female employees (46.9%) and 405 male employees (53.1%). Grade 9 in particular shows a higher number of male employees appointed above the minimum spine point for that grade. For example, the highest proportion of males (27.9%) are appointed on point 57, while the highest proportion of females (22.2%) are appointed on point 49.

Overall, a greater proportion of female employees (57.7%) were appointed up to spine point 39 and a greater proportion of male employees (67.2%) were appointed from point 39 upwards. This pattern is a repeat of the previous year’s recruitment activity.

3.8 Actions arising from the 2009 review and recommendations for 2010

The findings of the 2009 and 2010 Equal Pay Reviews provide evidence of a gender imbalance across the grading structure which gives rise to an organizational pay gap of approximately 30%. The University aims to ensure its pay system is fair and equitable and that any gender bias is eliminated in line with the requirements of legislation. The following actions have therefore been undertaken following the 2009 Equal Pay Review (please see 4.3 for full details).

Senior academic promotions review

Salary on appointment guidance reviewed and updated

New market supplement review process developed and implemented

Gender Equality Group formed

Equal Pay briefing event held

Further investigation into specific areas, e.g. the pay differentials of academic-related staff in grades 8 and 12 and the reasons for the appointment at higher spine points in grade 9 for male employees

The inclusion of Key Performance Indicators in the 2010 Equal Pay Review

In addition, the following actions are recommended following the 2010 report (for full details please see 4.4):

Carry forward outstanding actions from the 2009 review

The equal pay review to be conducted biennially

4.0 Main Report

4.1 Analysis

4.1.1 Employee profile – by gender

On 31 July 2010, 8,945 University employees occupied positions on the single pay spine, of whom 4,393 (49.1%) were female and 4,552 (50.9%) were male. This is a small increase on the 2009 figures where 48.8% of employees were female. A full breakdown of the numbers of employees at each grade by gender is provided in Chart 1 below. A breakdown of employees at each grade as a percentage of the total gender population is provided in Table 3. As can be seen, the highest proportion of male employees can be found in grades 7, 9, and 12, whereas the highest proportion of female employees can be found in grades 7, 5, and 4 at the lower end of the pay spine.


Chart 1: Number of employees at each grade by gender

Table 3: Proportion of total gender population by grade

% of total gender population by grade

Grade

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

All

Female

6.4%

4.2%

9.7%

14.8%

16.4%

4.4%

23.4%

4.4%

9.8%

3.1%

1.4%

1.9%

100.0%

Male

4.2%

3.2%

4.7%

5.8%

9.9%

3.5%

27.2%

4.2%

15.6%

5.6%

5.3%

10.8%

100.0%

4.1.2 Average salaries

Gender pay analysis by grade (Appendix B1)

Table 4 provides a summary of Appendix B1 – the average salary by grade for all non-clinical staff irrespective of occupational category and working hours.

In the 2009 Equal Pay Review, two pay gaps exceeded the 3% criteria – Grade 8 (4.5%) and Grade 12 (3.6%). In the 2010 Equal Pay Review:

There continues to be a gender pay gap of 4.5% at Grade 8 in favour of male employees.

The 3.6% gender pay gap at Grade 12 identified in the 2009 annual report has fallen to 2.8%.

However, the pay gap for certain grades in the academic-related and non-clinical research staff occupational categories are over 5% (see Table 5 below).

Table 4: % Pay gap by grade in 2009/10

Grade

Population

Average (mean) basic pay

Female

Male

Female

Male

Pay gap (%)

1

282

193

£14,305

£14,439

0.9%

2

184

147

£17,098

£16,893

-1.2%

3

424

213

£19,703

£19,699

0.0%

4

652

265

£23,070

£23,289

1.0%

5

721

450

£26,053

£26,495

1.7%

6

193

161

£29,861

£30,213

1.2%

7

1,030

1,237

£32,624

£32,442

-0.6%

8

192

189

£40,486

£42,315

4.5%

9

429

709

£44,479

£45,071

1.3%

10

138

257

£52,592

£52,408

-0.3%

11

63

241

£56,169

£56,038

-0.2%

12

85

490

£76,760

£78,933

2.8%

Total

4,393

4,552

£30,253

£39,139

29.4%

A more detailed breakdown of gender pay is provided in the following analysis by both grade and occupational category as reported in Appendices B2 to B4 and summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5: % Pay gap by occupational category

Occupational Category

Population

Average (mean) basic pay

Female

Male

Female

Male

Pay gap (%)

Academic

377

1,097

£51,953

£60,379

16.2%

Academic-related

668

679

£40,569

£44,709

10.2%

Assistant

2,095

1,282

£21,922

£22,712

3.6%

Research

1,253

1,494

£32,154

£35,107

9.2%

All

4,393

4,552

£30,253

£39,139

29.4%

The gender pay gaps by occupational category identified in Table 5, are larger than those identified for individual grades in Table 4. This is due to the distribution of male and female employees in the different grades within each category of staff. Within a particular staff category, if the proportion of female employees in higher grades is lower than the proportion of male employees in higher grades, this has the effect of increasing the average gender pay gap across that category of staff. For academic staff 39.3% of female employees are on grade 9 compared to 24.6% of male employees. At the other end of scale 33.6% of male employees are on grade 12 compared to 19.1% of female employees. For research staff the majority of both male and female employees are on grade 7 (61.2% and 67.1% respectively); however there are more female employees (25.1%) on the lowest grade (grade 5) than male employees (10.2%) while there are more male employees (18.8%) than female employees (11.8%) on grade 9. For academic-related staff the differences are not so dramatic but they are sufficient to produce a pay gap in favour of male employees. There are slightly more female employees (31.1%) on grade 7 than male employees (25.6%) and slightly more male employees (23.3%) on grade 9 than female employees (19.9%).

Gender pay analysis for academic staff (Appendix B2)

One grade (grade 8) exceeds the 3% criteria where there is a population of just six academic staff, however the percentage pay gap has increased by almost 2 since 2009 (9.0% in 2009 to 10.9% in 2010). There remains a wider spread of values for male employees than female employees in grade 12, and hence a higher standard deviation. This is partly explained by the greater numbers of male employees in that grade.

Gender pay analysis for academic-related staff (Appendix B3)

For academic-related staff, grades 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 each exceed the 3% criteria in favour of male employees. Grades 5, 8, and 12 also exceed the 5% criteria. This represents a small increase from the 2009 review with one additional grade exceeding the 3% criteria (grade 6 from 1.8% in 2009 to 3.6% in 2010) and one additional grade exceeding the 5% criteria (grade 5). However the pay gap in grade 12 has dropped since 2009 from 16.6% to 7.0%. This appears to be due to the increase in the average female salary at grade 12 which has risen by just under £10,000 since the 2009 report. In the 2009 report it was recommended that further investigation, diagnosis, and possible remedial action be undertaken in relation to the pay differentials of academic-related staff in grades 8 and 12. Please see 4.3 (1) for further information.

Gender pay analysis for assistant staff (Appendix B4)

There are no pay differentials amongst assistant staff that exceed the 3% criteria. Even grade 7, historically a grade dominated by male technicians has seen a fall in the pay gap from 3.7% in 2009 to 2.1% in 2010, perhaps due to a small reduction in the number of female employees in this grade. As in previous years, female employees still hold in excess of 50% of the posts in grades 1–6 and likewise male employees still hold in excess of 50% of posts in grades 7 and 8. At grade 8 the standard deviation in average salary remains higher for the five female employees (£6,981 compared to £2,889 for the 22 male employees). However for a small sample group the standard deviation may be misleading for the purposes of gender comparison.

Gender pay analysis for non-clinical research staff (Appendix B5)

Only grade 12 exceeds the 3% pay gap amongst research staff, rising from 16.3% in 2009 to 21.0% in 2010. This may be due in part to the 5% rise in the number of male employees within grade 12 and the increase in average male salaries by £2,502, from £81,594 in 2009 to £84,096 in 2010.12 In comparison, the number of female employees in grade 12 did not increase from 2009 and the average salary rose by £351, from £70,183 in 2009 to £70,534 in 2010. The standard deviation for male employees remains high at £18,629 and £6,249 for female employees. However the standard deviation should be treated with caution due to the low number of female employees in grade 12.

The pay gap for the remaining grades remains below the 3% differential. Indeed the 3.5% pay gap identified within grade 8 in the 2009 review has dropped to 1.0% in 2010.

4.1.3 Average salaries and additional payments (Appendices C1–C5)

For academic staff the pay gap rises at grade 12 from 2.3% to 3.3% when additional payments are added to basic pay.

There is an increase in the pay gap for grade 12 academic-related staff from 7.0% to 11.5% when additional payments are added to basic pay. This is due to the greater number of male employees in this grade in receipt of additional payments.13 An increase is also seen within grade 11 from 0.2% to 2.8%, however this remains below the 3% criteria.

Mirroring previous years, the assistant staff pay gap increases in 2010 most notably at grade 3 from 0% to 6.8% when additional payments are added to basic pay. This is because many male employees at this grade receive additional hours (87% of payments to male employees) and shift allowance payments for security duties. 111 grade 3 employees received additional payments (41 female, 70 male) of which 26 male employees received security payments.

The pay gap amongst non-clinical research staff falls in grades 11 and 12 when additional payments are added to basic pay. This is because a greater proportion of female employees in these grades received an external award14 which accounts for the sizeable change in differential for total payments, particularly as there are small numbers of female employees in each of these grades which highlights the variations in pay. The pay gap at grade 12 still remains high however at 16.5%. The increase in the pay gap at grade 10 from 2.4% to 7.2% is less significant as there are fewer than five female research staff in this grade.

4.1.4 Additional payments only (Appendices D1–D4)

Additional non-pensionable payments (Appendix D1)

Male employees received 58.1% of the non-pensionable payments made in 2010, totalling £1,223,416. Female employees received 41.9% of non-pensionable payments totalling £486,481. Female employees therefore received 28.3% of the total value of non-pensionable payments made during 2009–10. Please see Table 6 below.

In last year’s report, the average Chair payment to male employees was 63% higher than those offered to female employees. This year the average female Chair payment is 8.9% higher than male Chair payment. However, only 18 female employees received these payments compared to 65 male employees.

Table 6: Non-pensionable payments by gender

Non-pensionable payments

Female

Male

Total

Number

635

(41.9%)

880

(58.1%)

1,515

Value

£486,481

(28.5%)

£1,223,416

(71.5%)

£1,709,897

Additional pensionable payments (Appendix D2 and D3)

In the Equal Pay Review 2009, it was stated that future reviews would separate pensionable payments linked to an office from pensionable payments awarded on a discretionary basis. This data is provided in Appendix D2 and D3 and is summarized in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Pensionable payments by type and gender

Pensionable payments

Female

Male

Total

Number

Value

Number

Value

Number

Value

Discretionary

80

£110,420

110

£480,861

190

£591,281

Linked to a role

109

£463,129

216

£1,317,433

325

£1,780,561

Total

189

£573,549

326

£1,798,294

515

£2,371,842

In 2009–10, 515 additional pensionable payments were awarded to employees. Of these, 63.3% were awarded to male employees, making up 75.8% of the total value of all pensionable payments made.

57.9% of discretionary payments were awarded to male employees, making up 81.3% of the total value of all discretionary payments made. In particular, male employees received more additional hours payments than female employees (46 male to 7 female recipients) whilst the latter received more additional responsibility payments (56 female to 22 male recipients). Mirroring previous years, male employees also received higher payments for administrative responsibilities than female employees – 80.8% of the total value was awarded to male employees who received 60.0% of the number of payments.

66.4% of payments linked to a role were awarded to male employees, making up 74.0% of the total value of this type of payment. Head of Department payments were made to 57 male and 11 female employees – male employees therefore received 83.2% of these payments and 92.0% of the value (an average of £8,312 for male and £3,758 for female employees). However there was a small increase of four additional female employees receiving Head of Department payments compared to 2009. Male employees received 83.3% of Director and 84.0% of Deputy Director payments and received 87.0% of the total value of these payments. No female employees were Chairs of Faculty Boards and therefore no female employees received Chair payments, however 16 were awarded to male employees totalling £58,351.

Market supplements(Appendix D4)

Market supplements are paid in order to recruit and retain employees with specific skills for which higher reward packages are offered in the wider labour market. In such circumstances, where there is a clear business need supported by objective market data, and other approaches have proved ineffective, the University will consider offering a market supplement payment in addition to the normal reward package. Such payments are subject to regular review.

Market supplements are reported in Appendix D4. The award by gender for all those in receipt of a market supplement as at 31 July 2010 is provided in Table 8 below.

Overall, 86.2% of market supplements were awarded to male employees and 13.8% to female employees; this represents a 3% increase in the proportion of awards made to male employees compared to the previous year.

The largest number of market supplements were awarded to academic and academic-related staff (71 males and 11 females). Amongst academic staff, 91.8% of awards were made to male employees, the majority of whom were in grade 12 (42 out of a total of 61 awards). Amongst academic-related staff, 71.4% of awards were made to male employees.

In 2010, the average market supplement payment was £11,684 for male employees and £3,929 for female employees. When compared to the previous year, the average payment has fallen by 13.3% for male and 7.1% for female employees.

Table 8: Market supplements by gender and occupational category

Occupational Category

Female

Male

Recruitment

Retention

Recruitment

Retention

Academic

4

(£18,935)

1

(£5,896)

38

(£322,094)

18

(£142,282)

Academic-related

3

(£14,850)

3

(£5,842)

11

(£210,308)

4

(£182,210)

Assistant

0

1

(£1,622)

1

(£2,222)

0

Research

0

0

3

(£17,172)

0

Total Number

7

5

53

22

Total Value

£33,785

£13,360

£551,796

£324,492

Combined Total

12

75

Combined Value

£47,145

£876,288

4.1.5 Contribution increments for academic-related and assistant staff (Appendix E)

A total of 408 employees applied for contribution increments in the academic year 2009–10 and 67.9% of these applicants were female employees. Of the 224 successful applicants, 64.2% of these were female employees and 35.7% were male. Of the successful academic-related employees, 49.3% were female. Of the successful assistant employees, 71.8% were female.

Overall, whilst a higher proportion of female employees were successful in receiving contribution increments than male employees in 2010 than in 2009, the success rate for female applicants was slightly lower than for male employees (52.0% compared to 61.1%).

4.1.6 New starters (Appendices F1 –F4)

New starters to the University appointed onto the single pay spine between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2010 are shown as a chart of starters by scale point (Appendix F1) and a tabular presentation of starters by spine point and grade (Appendix F2).

Appendix F1 provides a visual depiction of the allocation by gender of new appointments but does not differentiate by grade. As in 2009, more female than male employees were appointed on spine points up to spine point 39. For example 116 female employees and 59 male employees were appointed to point 34 (grades 4 and 5) whilst 99 female employees and 136 male employees were appointed to point 39 (grades 5, 6, and 7).

Appendix F2 provides a more detailed analysis. Grade 9 in particular shows a higher number of male employees appointed above the minimum spine point for that grade, e.g. point 57.

Of the 1,368 new starters appointed in this period, 763 were appointed above the minimum point of the grade, of which 358 were female (47.0%) and 405 were male employees (53.0%). A large proportion of these appointments were in grades 5 and 7.

Appendix F4 provides further detail of the appointments in grade 9. In the 2009 Report, the Equal Pay Review Working Group recommended that further investigation, diagnosis, and possible remedial actions (in line with JNCHES guidance) be undertaken into the reasons for the appointment at higher spine points in grade 9 for male employees.15 For example the highest proportion of males (27.9%) are appointed on point 57, while the highest proportion of females (22.2%) are appointed on point 49.

4.1.7 Part-time employees

Table 9 below provides a comparison of full-time and part-time average salaries. Whilst the pay gap across all employees remains high, it is in fact slightly lower for part-time employees.

Table 9: % Pay gap by full-time and part-time

Working Hours

Population*

Average (mean) basic pay

Female

Male

Female

Male

Pay gap (%)

Full-time

3,061

4,116

£31,991

£39,944

24.9%

Part-time

1,199

372

£27,327

£33,621

23.0%

* Employees on fixed hours only

4.2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

The 2009 Equal Pay Report made specific recommendations, including the identification of a small number of KPIs of the main issues highlighted in the 2009 report. It was stated that these indicators would highlight key themes in equal pay at the University of Cambridge, and would over time help quantify the effectiveness (or otherwise) of related policy action. The 2009 report stated that proposals of appropriate KPIs would be submitted to the Human Resources Committee within six months of the report. The EPRG recognized that there was a need to monitor all of the issues identified in the 2009 Equal Pay Report and that these could all be incorporated in to the 2010 report. However it was necessary to select a small number of key indicators that could be used as a base point and compare key themes between years. The EPRG recommended that each KPI remain a focus of attention for a period of 4 to 5 years, so that the impact of related policy action could be evidenced from the data. The following three KPIs have been selected.

Key Performance Indicator 1 – the mean pay gap for grade 8 and 12 academic-related staff

As can be seen from KPI 1b, the percentage difference in average basic pay for male compared to female academic-related staff in grade 12 has been falling steadily over the past three years. However the percentage difference in grade 8 academic-related staff increased between 2008 and 2009 and has remained at 5.0% for the last two years.

Key Performance Indicator 2 – gender representation of academic and academic-related staff in grade 12

In 2009/10 female employees in grade 12 comprised 14.5% of all academic staff and 23.3% of academic-related staff. The charts above indicate that the percentage of female academic staff in grade 12 increased by about 1.0% each year between 2007–08 and 2009–10. In comparison the percentage of female academic-related staff decreased in 2008–09 by 3.3% but increased by the same amount in 2009–10.

Key Performance Indicator 3 – gender distribution of new starters appointed within the top half of grade 9

As can be seen in KPI 3 above, the percentage of female staff appointed within the top half of grade 9 decreased by 2.7 in 2008–09 but increased by 15.1 to 37.8 in 2009–10.

4.3 Actions arising from the 2009 Equal Pay Review

In the 2009 Equal Pay Report, the Equal Pay Review Working Group provided a number of recommendations. These are listed below and an update is provided of action taken to address each recommendation.

1. Further investigation, diagnosis, and possible remedial actions (in line with JNCHES guidance) be undertaken into:

(a) the pay differentials of academic-related staff in grades 8 and 12;

(b) the reasons for the appointment at higher spine points in grade 9 for male employees.

Further data analysis has been undertaken to enable investigation into the reasons behind the pay differentials of academic-related employees in grades 8 and 12, and on the reasons for the appointment of male employees at higher spine points in grade 9. The Gender Equality Group is reviewing this data and will provide recommendations in due course.

2. 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 reviewing the market supplement criteria, it became clear that, given the low numbers of new market supplements being awarded, the most effective way of ensuring transparency, consistency, and fairness and minimizing discrimination was to improve the review process.

In March 2010 a new review process was introduced and a market supplement Review Group established to consider awards over 10% of base pay. Members include the Registrary, Academic Secretary, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Institutional Affairs, and the Chair of the Remuneration Committee (REMCO). The Review Group meets every six months and receives recommendations from Heads of Schools on whether each market supplement due for review16 should be continued, reduced or terminated and acts as a central moderator. Awards under 10% of base pay that are due for review are sent to the HR Committee for consideration. The decisions of the two committees are reported to the General Board, while the Council provides final approval of all decisions received from REMCO relating to awards over 10%.

3. 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.

These have been included in the 2010 report.

4. Future reviews will also identify a small number of key performance indicators (KPIs) 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 six months of this report.

Three KPIs have been selected and incorporated in to the 2010 report.

5. 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.

The University established the Gender Equality Group (GEG) in May 2010. GEG meets at least termly, reports directly to the HR Committee, and is chaired by Professor Dame Athene Donald, who is a Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the University’s Gender Equality Champion. Membership includes representation from Schools, the Unified Administrative Service, non-School institutions, and those with a special interest or expertise in gender issues. The group’s remit incorporates guiding the production of equal pay reviews, ensuring that recommendations arising from equal pay reviews are taken forward in a timely manner, further investigation into identified areas of concern, and identification of remedial action as appropriate, as well as wider objectives regarding progressing gender equality at the University. GEG’s priorities for 2010–11 will be to address the need for training in relation to recruitment procedures, and to consider the University’s maternity/paternity leave provision.

6. Further action undertaken following the 2009 Equal Pay Review

• Senior academic promotions review

A Senior Academic Promotions Review Group has been set up by the General Board to review the Senior Academic Promotions Procedures. A number of small revisions have been made to the 2011 exercise guidance following the feedback received from the promotions committees and recommendations from the Gender Representation Review Group. In particular, the guidance has been strengthened on how periods of maternity and other leave should be taken into account by the committees to ensure consistency of treatment. It was also noted that there was a tendency for women to appear low down or at the bottom of the rankings. It was agreed that data analysis of applicants be provided to the Main Committee and reviewed annually. More substantial recommendations to the Scheme are being considered by the Senior Academic Promotions Review Group, who will put forward proposals for formal consideration and consultation during the 2010–11 academic year.

• Salary on appointment guidance reviewed and updated

As the 2009 Equal Pay Review highlighted the need for closer observation of new starters’ salaries, the HR Division reviewed and reissued its guidance on salary determination to institutions in March 2010. The guidance supports a good practice approach to salary determination and assists in ensuring fairness and consistency in pay levels by recommending that institutions make a case to their HR Business Manager/Adviser before offering a salary above the minimum point of the grade (or above the first three points for research staff, recognizing that the volume of research staff recruitment would make it impractical to seek approval for all cases above the minimum scale point). All HR Business Managers and Advisers now routinely receive and review cases for offering salaries above the minimum to ensure that there are substantive and legitimate reasons for this prior to appointment administration being completed.

• Equal Pay briefing event held in February 2010

A briefing event ‘Equal Pay & The Gender Divide’ was held in February 2010, which addressed the findings of the 2009 Equal Pay Review. This event was open to employees and students of the University and the speakers were Dr Jude Browne of the Gender Equality Group and Director of the Centre for Gender Studies, and Mr Dan Pile from the Human Resources Division, the author of the Review. The briefing was well attended, including trade union representation, and positively received. It is the intention of the Equality & Diversity section to repeat this event annually to allow internal discussion of the Reviews’ findings at all levels.

4.4 Recommendations and future actions

The Equal Pay Review Group has made the following recommendations as a result of the 2010 Equal Pay Review.

1.To carry forward outstanding actions from the 2009 Equal Pay Review.

Please see outstanding actions under 4.3.

2.For GEG to investigate the potential reasons behind KPI 3 – the gender distribution and starting salaries within Grade 9, and make appropriate recommendations.

3.The equal pay review to be conducted biennially.

Whilst equal pay data would still be collated on an annual basis and considered by the EPRG and GEG, it is recommended that a full review is conducted and published every two years. This would provide adequate time for recommendations to be implemented and changes to be observed and reported.

Footnotes

  • 1Average (mean) salary 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 salary 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).


  • 4Equal Opportunities Commission, 2003.


  • 5Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff.


  • 6Introduced by the Equality Act, 2006.


  • 7Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2010.


  • 8Higher Education Role Analysis.


  • 9Please note that the University’s Equal Pay Review does not include an analysis of term-time or fixed-term working.


  • 10National Higher Source of ONS statistics http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/Patterns-of-Pay-1997to2009.pdf.

  • 11The University’s equal pay reports calculated the pay gap, for both mean and median salaries, as the gender salary difference as a percentage of the median femalesalary. However the ONS uses a different method of calculation expressing the pay gap as the difference in median salaries between the genders as a percentage of the median malesalary. Appendix C1 gives the median male and female salaries as at 31 Jul 2010 as £35,646 and £27,319 respectively. The pay gap percentage calculated using the ONS method is therefore [(£35,646–£27,319)/£35,646] % = 23.4%. The University commenced its equal pay reporting, using a rigorous assumption to identify pay gaps.


  • 12Please note that a number of non-clinical research staff at grade 12 were previously academic staff but were extended beyond the normal retirement age. Under the University Statutes and Ordinances, academic staff may not hold established offices beyond the normal retirement age of 67 and are therefore transferred on to non-established research contracts. 


  • 13For example, Head of Department, Deputy Head, Chair of Faculty Board, and Chair payments.


  • 14From an external funding body, e.g. Wellcome Trust or Royal Society.


  • 15Please refer to item 1 of ‘Recommendations and future actions’, Equal Pay Report 2009: Notice.


  • 16Market supplements are reviewed every 2 years from the date they are awarded.

Appendix B1 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay)

Appendix B1

Appendix B2 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay) – academic staff

Appendix B2

Appendix B3 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay) – academic-related staff

Appendix B3

Appendix B4 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay) – assistant staff

Appendix B4

Appendix B5 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay) – research staff

Appendix B5

Appendix C1 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay including additional payments)

Appendix C1

Appendix C2 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay including additional payments) – academic staff

Appendix C2

Appendix C3 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay including additional payments) – academic-related staff

Appendix C3

Appendix C4 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay including additional payments) – assistant staff

Appendix C4

Appendix C5 Summary of gender pay gap and grade (basic pay including additional payments) – research staff

Appendix C5

Appendix D1 Summary of non-pensionable additional payments

Appendix D1

Appendix D2 Summary of pensionable additional payments (discretionary)

Appendix D2

Appendix D3 Summary of pensionable additional payments (linked to a role)

Appendix D3

Appendix D4 Summary of market supplements

Appendix D4

Appendix E Graph showing contribution increments awarded at 1 January 2010, distributed by gender and occupational category

Appendix E

Appendix F1 Scale points of new starters by gender (chart 1)

Appendix F1

Appendix F2 Scale points of new starters by gender (chart 2)

Appendix F2

Appendix F3 New starters appointed above the grade minimum by grade and gender

Appendix F3

Appendix F4 Scale points of new starters in grade 9 by gender

Appendix F4