Reporter 23/7/03: Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on arrangements for the regrading of offices and posts and for the award of discretionary increments: Notice

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

21 July 2003

The Council have considered the remarks made at the Discussion of this Report on 29 April 2003 (Reporter, p. 883). They have consulted the General Board and have agreed to comment as follows.

Dr S. J. Cowley raised three points. The first is a concern that the Council and the General Board, in proposing under Recommendation II that they be given authority to make such changes in the arrangements of the scheme as they consider necessary in the interest of its good management and practice, are attempting to arrogate to themselves powers which may be used to change fundamentally important aspects of the scheme. Professor G. R. Evans expresses a similar concern in her remarks. The purpose of this recommendation is to authorize the central bodies to make appropriate procedural adjustments to the scheme in the light of the experience of its operation, as and when required, in order to ensure that in procedural terms the scheme is managed as smoothly and efficiently as possible; there is no underlying intention to subvert the University's constitutional processes. The Regent House has conferred this authority on the General Board in recent years in relation to the operation and management of other schemes, namely the personal Professorships and Readerships promotions scheme, the University Senior Lectureship scheme, and the new single senior academic promotions scheme which has now replaced the aforementioned schemes. Adjustments under these schemes have been few and, when they have occurred, have been of a minor rather than a substantive nature. More extensive changes have been the subject of Reports to the Regent House, as, for example, in the recent revision of the senior academic promotions scheme.

In his second point, Dr Cowley sought clarification as to the applicability of the scheme at the top end of the University's salary spine. The recommendations of the Report relate to the grading of offices and posts where the salary is below step 31, which is the standard professorial, or professorial equivalent, salary level. It will not be possible for the salary of an individual to be adjusted as a result of a regrading review from below step 31 to a point above that step. For members of academic-related staff whose salary is at or above step 31, arrangements for salary progression are set out in paragraphs 41-44 of the General Board's Report on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related offices (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 809) as subsequently clarified in the Council's Notice relating to the Report on the stipends attaching to the office of Director in the Unified Administrative Service (Reporter, 2002-03, p. 287). In that Notice the Council accepted that it would be appropriate to include an Ordinance setting out the procedure for the review of stipends for Professors and academic-related offices in the professorial and equivalent grades. Such a proposal will be brought forward for consideration of the Regent House in due course.

With regard to Dr Cowley's third point, which concerns the introduction of a common grading methodology, plans for the introduction of such a scheme for non-academic staff were mentioned in paragraph 21 of the University's Human Resource Strategy, published as an Appendix to the Report of the Council and the General Board on a Human Resource Strategy for the University, which has been approved by the Regent House (Reporter, 2001-02, p. 773), and also in Personnel Committee Minutes, which are published on the University's website. Dr Cowley acknowledged the need for such a grading methodology. Although the Higher Education Role Analysis (HERA) scheme has been designed specifically for the HE sector, no recommendation has yet been agreed as to which scheme should be used in this University. The HERA scheme has been piloted to assess its fitness for purpose, and work is progressing on the benchmarking stage. In the meantime the Council and the Board are convinced that it is important to move ahead with the arrangements proposed in this Report so that institutions may experience as soon as possible the benefit of economies of effort and time that will result from the Report's proposals. Even if this Report were to be put on hold, as Dr Cowley suggested, it would still be necessary to use current grading methods - as proposed in this Report - as a transitional measure.

In his remarks, Mr N. M. Maclaren expressed concern about the role that Heads of institutions have in the proposed arrangements. The Report is essentially about academic-related and assistant staff. These staff provide a service which supports and facilitates the academic activity of the University. Their role is therefore fundamentally different from that of academic staff which is to engage directly in teaching and research. Academic staff may apply for promotion at whatever stage they consider to be appropriate in the course of their career and it is to be expected that their decision in this regard will depend on the progress they have made in teaching and research. Heads of institutions, while having a responsibility for ensuring that the teaching and research are carried out to the highest standards, also have a responsibility for ensuring that in their institutions these activities are adequately and efficiently supported by academic-related and assistant staff. The performance and contribution of such colleagues is therefore best judged by the relevant staff in their institutions, that is at local level. The Council and the Board would therefore expect Heads of institutions to consult appropriately with senior colleagues before deciding whether or not a proposal should be made in the case of a particular member of staff.

With regard to the mechanisms for counteracting the alleged 'unfairness' referred to by both Mr Maclaren and Dr D. R. de Lacey, some features of the arrangements are necessarily transitional and reflect long-established practice under existing schemes for assistant, academic, and academic-related staff. Paragraph 8.2 of the scheme indicates that it will be possible to put in place a review/appeal mechanism which applies to all staff covered by the scheme when a common grading methodology is introduced.

While the grade of an office or post should accurately reflect the size of its duties and responsibilities, the award of additional increments is discretionary and does not affect the grade of office or post held. The Council and the Board are of the view that running an appeal scheme in relation to decisions which award one, or at most several, increments would be inappropriate, particularly in view of the fact that the scheme would operate on an annual cycle. However, if a member of staff believes that he or she is not receiving consistently fair treatment under this part of the scheme and wishes to complain, the Council and the Board draw attention to the availability of the University's grievance procedures for the investigation of such complaints.

Turning to the remarks of Professor Evans that are relevant to this Report and which have not been addressed above, Professor Evans does not accept that there should be any means of dealing with requests for additional increments and regradings outside the timetable. As paragraph 9.1 of the scheme makes clear, it may be in the interest of an institution that a proposal for additional increment(s) should be considered outside the timetable, as a matter of urgency if necessary, in order to retain a member of staff who may otherwise wish to accept an offer of employment elsewhere. The Council and the Board believe that flexibility in these matters is necessary. With regard to funding, the arrangements proposed for regrading do not differ from those which have been previously approved by the Regent House with regard to promotions schemes for academic staff.

With the concurrence of the General Board, the Council are submitting a Grace (Grace 1, p. 1219) to the Regent House for the approval of the recommendations contained in this Report.

Table of Contents