|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
The COUNCIL and the GENERAL BOARD beg leave to report to the University as follows:
As part of government policy to modernize pay structures in the public sector, national negotiations over several years between the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) and the trades unions in higher education culminated, in 2004, in the signing of a Framework Agreement1 within which pay reform in higher education institutions should occur. Against this background, the Council and the General Board published a Joint Consultative Report on a new pay and grading structure for non-clinical staff in July 2004 (Reporter, 21 July 2004, pp. 971-987) which indicated the need for the University to:
The Council and the General Board received the remarks made at the Discussion of this Report on 12 October 2004 (Reporter, 20 October 2004, pp. 84-104), along with comments from a University-wide consultation. They now submit this, their Second Joint Report setting out firm proposals for the implementation of a new pay and grading structure for non-clinical staff which has taken account of this feedback and has been developed in partnership with the trades unions locally (ACUA, AMICUS, AUT, and UNISON).
The main features of the proposals are:
With the exception of certain special offices, the remuneration of all non-clinical staff should be viewed as potentially consisting of four components: (i) basic salary2; (ii) contribution increments3 and bands; (iii) market supplements; and (iv) payments for other duties. The remuneration package for an individual will always comprise (i), and any combination or none of (ii)-(iv). It is fundamental to these proposals that, other than as set out in the Report, (ii) and (iii) remain separate.
It is recommended that the new structure should be implemented from 1 January 2006. Most staff will experience an immediate pay rise averaging 1.5%. Some staff will gain further where their posts are upgraded as a result of the job evaluation assessment that is integral to the implementation of the new arrangements. For that small proportion of staff whose roles are assessed as being over-graded for the duties currently performed, salary protection for up to four years will be provided while an acceptable resolution is reached.
The initial recurrent cost to the Chest of the proposals is estimated to be in the region of £5m. At least half of this cost will be met from additional recurrent funding from the HEFCE under its Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative. It is estimated that the larger part of the cost of assigning staff to grades in the new structure will be spent on academic-related and assistant staff posts.
To implement the proposals, which must be accomplished not later than August 2006 under the terms of the Framework Agreement, the Council submit nine recommendations to the University:
The impact of the proposals will be monitored, including the conduct of equal pay audits,4 and reported to the University.
Other, related matters, which are outside the scope of the present Report, will also need to be addressed in due course.
1.1 In July 2004, the Council and the General Board published their Joint Consultative Report on a new pay and grading structure for non-clinical staff (Reporter, 21 July 2004, pp. 971-987; http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/reward). This Report set out the views of the Council and the General Board on the implementation of a new pay and grading structure in Cambridge and sought comments from all sectors of the University.
1.2 The Report summarized the University's current arrangements for pay and grading (section 2), discussed the need for reform (section 3), and described ways in which this might be achieved (section 4). The reasons for pay and grading reform in the University remain compelling. It is part of the University's mission to be internationally pre-eminent in teaching and research. If it is to remain pre-eminent, the University has to be able to recruit and retain the best academic, academic-related, and assistant staff in the face of increasing competition both in the United Kingdom and overseas. Current arrangements for pay and grading have neither the flexibility nor the scope to enable the University to meet these challenges. In addition, changes must be instituted to enable the University to meet its legal obligations to staff. Under legislation dating back to 1970, the University must be able to demonstrate that its reward system delivers equal pay for work of equal value.5 The potential penalties for non-compliance are severe, as demonstrated by recent successful equal pay challenges in the NHS, and underline the need for the University's pay and grading arrangements to be legally robust.
1.3 The changes to the current pay and grading structures of the University proposed in this Report are substantial. The Council and the General Board recognize that the changes required are more difficult to realize in Cambridge than in other higher education institutions (HEIs) because the University's current pay arrangements are complex and because of the University's governance requirements.
1.4 It is important to note that reform of pay and grading structures in Cambridge is subject to externally imposed time constraints. Under the Framework Agreement6 a reduction in the working hours for manual (M Division) staff has to be achieved by August 2005, and the implementation of a new grading structure for non-clinical staff by August 2006. The proposals presented in this Report envisage assimilation to the single spine and implementation of a new grading structure taking effect from 1 January 2006 (although it is anticipated that the necessary work may not be completed until April 2006). This implementation date has been chosen to take account of the length of time required under the University's governance arrangements for the proposals to be accepted by the University and to allow assimilation to the single spine to be completed ahead of any uplift in national rates of pay which will occur from 1 August 2006.
1.5 The implementation dates have been incorporated into submissions made to the HEFCE in respect of the University's HR Strategy to obtain significant additional funding under the Rewarding and Developing Staff (RDS) initiative. The potential risks to the University at large consequent upon delay or failure include: loss of RDS funding; equal pay claims; reputational damage; and damage to employee relations.
2. Consultation and Communication
2.1 The reforms outlined in the Consultative Report were welcomed as long overdue. However, as indicated in the Notice published by the Council on 9 March 2005 (Reporter, p. 530), the remarks made at the Discussion on 12 October 2004, together with other submissions received during the consultation process, indicated concerns about their potential impact on some groups of staff and in particular on assistant staff. Account has been taken of these concerns in framing the proposals in this Report. The central bodies wish to record their gratitude to the many individuals and institutions who participated in the consultation process following publication of the Consultative Report. Their comments have been invaluable in shaping the proposals contained in the current Report.
2.2 The timetable initiated by the Council and the General Board in Annex 1 has been constructed to allow full consideration of the present Report by all stakeholders. Allowance has been made for University-wide initiatives to disseminate information, including regular joint meetings with union representatives to enable the current proposals to be developed in partnership with them, the setting up of a working group7 which has assisted in the development of a recommended grading structure, meetings with Chairs and Secretaries of Schools and Heads of Departments, newsletters, open meetings with staff on major University sites, and a dedicated University website (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/reward/).
3. The Proposed New Pay and Grading Structure
3.1 The Consultative Report explained the unsatisfactory nature of the current arrangements for pay in the University (section 2) and the need for reform (section 3).
3.2 This Report proposes to replace the current arrangements by a generally applicable, robust, and transparent set of arrangements. In doing so, the Council and the General Board propose the following general principle: that an individual's remuneration will comprise one or more of the following four distinct elements: (i) basic salary; (ii) contribution increments or bands (see sections 5 and 6 respectively); (iii) market supplements (see paragraph 6.2); and (iv) payments for additional duties.8 Individuals will always have (i), but may have none or any combination of (ii)-(iv) as components of their salary, as illustrated in Figure 1 (p. 774).
3.3 The adoption of a single, national spine for all non-clinical groups of staff was recommended in the Bett Report9 in 1999 and a single salary spine with 3% steps is an element of the two-year national pay settlement (August 2003 to July 2005). The major salary scales presently used for Cambridge non-clinical staff are at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/salary/. The size of the incremental steps of the academic and academic-related scales varies but averages 4%, whereas in the assistant staff scales it is 3%. Under the new arrangements, the Council and the General Board propose that the general scale of stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 643) and the salary scales for assistant staff should be replaced by a single salary spine with 3% steps as set out in Annex 2.
3.4 The points on the single spine will be uprated from time to time as a result of the national pay negotiations and all staff on the spine will receive the benefit of the resultant increase in salary.
3.5 Like all employers, in order to take account of equal pay considerations (see footnotes 4 and 5) the University needs an analytical job evaluation methodology that is applicable to all jobs in the institution. The Higher Education Role Analysis Scheme (HERA)10 has been developed in consultation with the trades unions nationally by a consortium of 110 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and it is recognized by the Equal Opportunities Commission as a non-discriminatory job evaluation scheme. The majority of HEIs are adopting HERA as their job evaluation scheme of choice11 and, locally, it is the scheme preferred by the trades unions. Accordingly, the Council and the General Board propose that HERA be adopted by the University as its common grading methodology.
3.6 The Consultative Report had initially envisaged that the University should adopt HERA modified by 'Project Scholar' weightings. However, in practice 'Project Scholar' weightings have been found to make little difference either to the outcomes of individual HERA evaluations or to the shape of the grading structure, and they are not being pursued further by other Russell Group universities. The Council and the General Board no longer propose to recommend their use.
3.7 It is important to note that the HERA methodology assesses the weight and worth of a job thereby allowing the assignment of jobs to grades. Like other role analysis schemes, HERA does not assess individual performance in the post or 'market' factors (these are determined separately; see sections 5 and 6 of the Report), nor does HERA determine the salary point on which an individual is paid.
3.8 Under the Framework Agreement HEIs, working in partnership with their local trades unions, are free to determine their own grading structures on the national pay spine in order to reflect their needs in local, national, and international labour markets for staff, as well as affordability. In order to develop the University's new grade structure, a University working group was established.12 The group considered the outcomes of HERA evaluations undertaken to date and the point spread of discernible clusters of jobs in order to plot new grades on the single spine. They were assisted in their work by the Statistical Laboratory which provided advice on acceptable sample sizes and confidence levels. The proposals developed by the working group were then considered with trade union representatives in the Partnership Working Group and this led to the emergence of the final proposals for a 12 grade structure as set out at Annex 2.13
3.9 In formulating the proposals for a new grade structure, considerations were:
3.10 The Council and the General Board propose that the University's current pay scales are replaced by twelve grades on the single spine as shown in Annex 2. The lowest salaries on the spine encompass age-related trainee grades within the University;15 the extension of the spine upwards is to enable an appropriate reward strategy to be developed for academic staff and academic-related staff at professorial level (grade 12 in the new structure).
3.11 Annex 2(A)-(H) also illustrates the relationship between the current salary scales and the proposed new grades. It is essential to keep in mind that a simple read-across from current grades to grades in the new structure may be misleading because it does not take account of the outcome of the HERA assessment process. However, contrary to the concern expressed following the publication of the Joint Consultative Report that some staff groups would be worse off, under the proposed new grade structure it is expected that the majority of staff in a particular grade will transfer to a new grade at an equivalent or slightly advantageous level.
3.12 Inevitably, some roles will be found to be over-graded; staff in these roles will be 'red- circled' and receive salary protection as described in paragraphs 4.7-4.12. Some roles will be identified as being under-graded; such staff will be 'green-circled' and will be placed on the appropriate grade in the new structure. On the basis of the trialling and modelling undertaken, it is estimated that approximately 7% will be red-circled and perhaps twice that percentage will be green-circled under the proposed new grade structure; red-circling and green-circling will principally affect academic-related and assistant staff.16 A detailed analysis of red- and green-circling, including distribution across the new grades, will be published following implementation of the new structure.
4. Implementation of New Arrangements
4.1 Given the time constraints imposed by the Framework Agreement, many larger HEIs are not undertaking individual HERA evaluations of all staff transferring to a new grading structure and are tackling the task of assigning grades in their structures by a matching process. In Cambridge, matching has been piloted in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics (DAMTP) and in part of the Department of Engineering. This piloting has been invaluable in determining how the exercise might be undertaken throughout the University.
4.2 For the matching process, the role of an individual is compared with role descriptors and role profiles relating to grades on the new structure. Where a 'match' can be made, the role is assigned to a grade. Role descriptors for academic-related and assistant staff and generic role profiles for academic staff have been developed in collaboration with institutions and trades unions. For specialist roles, such as library and computing staff, advice has been provided by the University Library and the University Computing Service. The role descriptors cover a wide range of academic-related and assistant staff jobs in the University. The generic role profiles reflect the fact that the duties of University Teaching Officers (UTOs) are similar, comprising teaching, research, and administration; which particular academic office an individual occupies at a given moment depends upon her or his teaching, research, and administration. The profiles for UTOs incorporate Cambridge academic values, as reflected in the senior academic promotions procedure, and also take into consideration the relevant national grade profiles developed under the Framework Agreement. Similarly, for contract research staff (CRS), the profiles incorporate the criteria for promotion as set out in the Career Management Scheme for CRS (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/policy/cms). Role descriptors and role profiles will be published on the Personnel Division web site.
4.3 Where a match does not appear possible, an individual HERA evaluation of the job will be undertaken to determine the appropriate grade. A flowchart, outlining how matching works, is at Annex 3. Detailed guidance about matching, including provisions for review and appeal, is at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/offices.personnel/reward/guidance/index.html.
4.4 The Council and the General Board propose that all non-clinical staff,17 other than those where green-circling is indicated, will be assimilated onto the new spine at the spine point equal to or immediately above their existing salary.
4.5 Green-circled staff, whose current pay is lower than pay in the new grade to which they are assigned, will be paid at the bottom of the pay range of their new grade.
4.6 Annex 4 illustrates the migration process as a flow chart for a member of assistant staff currently in grade CS4.
4.7 The central bodies believe that the University will wish to do all it can to protect existing interests. Inevitably, there is a tension between doing that, particularly on an indefinite basis, and equal pay considerations; the perpetuation of grading anomalies may give grounds for equal pay claims. This is recognized in the Framework Agreement which limits protection to a period of four years.
4.8 The Council and the General Board propose that the steps set out below be adopted to protect existing interests.18
4.9 As recommended in the Framework Agreement, the holders of those posts which are red-circled at the end of the matching process (including an appeal if one is made) will receive pay protection for four years or until such time within that period that an acceptable resolution can be reached between the individual and their institution.
4.10 During the four-year protection period, there may be opportunities to explore longer-term solutions. Following the Framework Agreement, the Consultative Report suggested the following:
4.11 Current expectations for service related progression on existing grades will be met through both service related and contribution related points on new grades and beyond the maximum of the contribution points on those grades.
4.12 Where progression goes beyond the maximum of the contribution points on new grades, at the end of the four-year period of protection, provided no other solution is available, salary will be adjusted to match the top most contribution point on the new grade. This is a more generous arrangement than that in the Framework Agreement which specifies that at the end of the four-year period of protection individuals should be placed at the highest service point below the contribution threshold of their new grade scale.
4.13 When an office or post falls vacant, the existing role profile for the office/post will be reviewed by the head of institution to determine if it is still current. If a change has occurred, a revised role profile must be completed by the institution and matched against role descriptors to determine the appropriate grade for the revised position. Where a match cannot be made, a full HERA evaluation will be carried out by trained role analysts.
4.14 Where an upgrading appears justified, the head of institution will determine, in consultation with the officers of the Council of the School or the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Personnel) in respect of non-School institutions, whether the duties should be revised to keep the post at its present salary level or whether funds can be made available to support the higher grade.
4.15 The existing practice of notifying the trades unions of the outcomes of re-evaluations will continue.
4.16 In order to assist recruitment, the full salary range for the office/post (including contribution points) may be specified in advertisements. As is currently the case, appointments will normally be made within the service range of the scale, although exceptionally it may be necessary to offer a salary within the contribution part of a grade to match an individual's current salary.
5. Pay Progression
5.1 The Framework Agreement indicates that arrangements for progression should be designed to:
5.2 As shown in Annex 2, it is proposed that most grades will have service and contribution components19 and that in the highest grades points will be contribution related. All contribution points, like service points, will be permanent, pensionable additions to salary.
5.3 Progression through the service related points on each grade will be by automatic, annual increments with the possibility in most grades of accelerated incremental progression to recognize outstanding and sustained contribution (see paragraph 5.5). Progression through the 'contribution' points of grades will not be automatic and will be based upon an assessment of the contribution of individual post-holders in their roles.
5.4 The Council and the General Board propose that the current regrading and discretionary payments criteria and procedure for academic-related and assistant staff up to the level of staff in the professorial grade will continue to be the means by which contribution within grades is assessed.
5.5 With the exception of the professorial grade, the contribution of academic staff will continue to be recognized through the senior academic promotions exercise. Incremental progression for University Lecturers and University Senior Lecturers is service related (though they may receive accelerated incremental progression for retention purposes) and will continue to be automatic. However, as with assistant staff,20 in cases of poor performance, it is proposed that annual increments for academic staff and academic-related staff may be withheld under procedures to be determined. Readers will continue to be appointed at a single salary point (step 63 in grade 11).
5.6 Detailed procedures for paying contribution supplements to Professors and senior academic-related staff in the professorial grade are considered in paragraphs 6.5-6.11.
5.7 For academic-related and assistant staff, progression from one grade to a more senior grade will be determined using HERA through the regrading exercise which provides for the consideration of cases on an annual basis and on an out-of-cycle basis. Given the timing of the implementation of the new pay and grading arrangements, it is proposed that the 2006 annual exercise will be subsumed within the assimilation of staff onto the single spine.
5.8 As noted, academic staff movement from grade to grade will continue to be determined through the annual senior academic promotions exercise. For contract research staff the possibility of promotion will remain as under present arrangements,21 whereby funding for the additional costs of approved cases must be met from the source funding the appointment or some other source available to the institution.
6. Recruitment and Retention
6.1 The recruitment and retention of staff is a central concern for the University if it is to maintain its international pre-eminence in teaching and research. This applies as much to academic-related and assistant staff as it does to academic staff. Not only must the University be able to reward appropriately outstanding contribution and achievement, but it must also be able to respond to market conditions.
6.2 Market pay supplements22 provide flexibility, enabling competitive salaries to be paid where there are market premia without distortion of the grading structure or job evaluation methodology. Existing arrangements are ad hoc and are not transparent. The Council and the General Board propose that a market supplement scheme should be established to enable, in appropriate circumstances, market supplements to be payable to any member of staff; such payments would be pensionable. Key principles of any such scheme are that:
6.3 Details of how the proposed scheme for market supplements would work are at Annex 5.
6.4 Non-pensionable recruitment incentive payment (RIP) schemes are presently available for academic and academic-related staff. For staff at professorial level they are awarded by the Vice-Chancellor. For staff in the non-professorial grades, they are operated by the Chairs of the Councils of the Schools, by the Registrary for Council institutions, and by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Personnel) for non-School institutions. The Council and the General Board now propose that, subject to affordability, contract research and assistant staff should be brought within the scope of this scheme and that it should be operated by the Councils of the Schools and Heads of non-School institutions.
6.5 A current lack of competitive remuneration in Cambridge salaries is apparent at professorial level. In seeking to tackle this problem the General Board introduced a supplementary professorial payments scheme to enable outstanding merit and sustained contribution above that normally expected of a Cambridge Professor to be recognized.23 The operation of the current supplementary payments scheme is set out in Annex 6.
6.6 The level of supplementary payments has become insufficient to enable the University to pay competitive salaries for recruitment and retention purposes. While the Consultative Report proposed that the current four supplementary steps should be increased to six (taking the maximum salary to £94,228), in the light of continued evidence of upwards pressure,24 the Council and the General Board propose that the present four levels of professorial supplementary payment be replaced by a more flexible scheme of four contribution bands on the single spine, taking the maximum professorial salary payable to £109,100, and that, within each of the proposed four bands, the 3% steps of the single spine be used to allow contribution-based progression within a band.
6.7 Details of how the scheme would operate, together with criteria for progression between bands are set out in Annex 7.
6.8 The stipends of most academic-related officers at the professorial equivalent level (e.g. Registrary, Divisional Directors in the UAS, Pro-Vice-Chancellors) currently fall within a range from the standard professorial stipend, up to a compound of that stipend and an amount equivalent to one of the six levels of payment made to Heads of Departments (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 649). Further details are set out in Annex 8.
6.9 The Council and the General Board propose that the decision-making bodies should adhere to the same procedure for determining the basic salaries of academic-related staff at the professorial level as will obtain for all other academic-related staff. That is, HERA will be used to determine the band on proposed grade 12 in which basic salary falls for the office/post; once relevant roles have been assessed it will be possible to assign HERA points scores to bands. Progression to a higher band would be dependant on a growth in job size and be determined by job evaluation.
6.10 The exact salary on appointment would be at the minimum point of the band range or would otherwise be set by the appointing body. After appointment, academic-related staff on grade 12 may be considered for salary reviews. Regardless of the salary on appointment, there should be the possibility of awarding individuals up to three points above that salary even if that exceeds the maximum of the band applying to the office/post held.
6.11 Further details of how the scheme would operate are set out in Annex 9.
6.12 It is fundamental to the reforms proposed in this Report that, for all groups of staff, there should be greater transparency of criteria, processes, and outcomes in the arrangements for pay and grading so that they are seen to be open and fair. This requires the publication of:
6.13 In respect of the supplementary payments made to Professors, in its 1989 Report, the General Board proposed that these awards should be strictly confidential. Currently, the results of the professorial supplementary payments exercise are published as a histogram giving the number of Professors by School holding level 1, 2, 3, and 4 awards. The award of supplementary payments to academic-related staff are also published in anonymized format in the Reporter.
6.14 There is a tension to be resolved between complete transparency at School level (desired by Schools for management purposes so that they can regulate costs under the RAM, and by the Board of Scrutiny on grounds of openness), and a need to preserve an appropriate degree of confidentiality in order to avoid damaging the University's ability to recruit and retain its best staff.
6.15 The information published presently in the Reporter appears to be a reasonable compromise for resolving the tensions, and it is proposed that this continues. However, the Council and the General Board recognize the need of Schools and non-School institutions to have access for management purposes to information additional to that already available to them. Accordingly, they now propose that for both professorial and professorial level staff complete, unanonymized, information regarding contribution and market pay awards shall be made available to Chairs of Councils of Schools and Heads of non-School institutions, as appropriate, in respect of staff in their Schools or their institutions.
6.16 The stipend of the Vice-Chancellor is determined by the Council. No change is proposed.
6.17 The mechanism for determining the salaries of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors was established in a Council Report of 14 July 2003 (Reporter, 2002-03, p. 1171). The full-time stipend attached to the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor is set at the professorial standard stipend (Step 31), plus a Schedule 1 (Head of Department) payment, plus a supplementary payment at level 4. The rationale for this formula is that it must be possible for the Vice-Chancellor to appoint to the post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor from the non-clinical staff of the University without individuals incurring loss of stipend.
6.18 The office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor is part-time, and so the holder receives a pro-rata proportion of the full stipend for the office and, if he/she holds another University office concurrently, receives a correspondingly reduced pro-rata stipend for that other office. It is held for an initial period of three years with the possibility of renewal for a single period of a further three years. No mechanism for reviewing the stipends of Pro-Vice-Chancellors currently exists.
6.19 It is proposed that the stipends of Pro-Vice-Chancellors should be at the minimum of contribution band 4 on appointment and should be reviewable on reappointment by the Council.
6.20 Unlike the stipend of the Vice-Chancellor, the stipend of the Registrary is presently determined by the Regent House. It is proposed that, for the future, the Council should determine the salary attached to this office.
7. Associated Matters
(i) University offices, membership of the Regent House, and titles of offices and posts
7.1 The outcome of the implementation of the proposals, if approved, will raise issues concerning the status of offices and posts, their nomenclature, and membership of the Regent House. It is proposed that, following consultation including the local trades unions, these matters be the subject of future, separate Reports.
7.2 Implementation of the proposals will also have implications for membership of pension schemes. Currently, staff group and not level of salary, determines an individual's membership of a pension scheme; for non-clinical academic and academic-related staff this is the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) and for assistant staff the Cambridge Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). USS has recently amended its rules to make possible membership by assistant staff. Currently, pension provision is being reviewed, although the University remains committed at the present time to the maintenance of final salary schemes with defined benefits for all non-clinical staff. The implication of the proposed new arrangements for pay and grading will be taken into account as part of that review.
(iii) Harmonization of terms and conditions of employment and other matters
7.3 While a reduction in working hours of manual (M Division) staff has to be achieved by August 2005, the harmonization of other terms and conditions, and other issues including the position of hourly paid staff, staff development, and career development must also be addressed. These are matters outside the scope of the present Report. However, in partnership with the local trades unions, these issues will be addressed in a timely fashion with regard, where appropriate, to the implementation of the new pay and grading arrangements from 1 January 2006; where necessary, they will be included in future Reports.
8.1 Implementation of the proposals in this Report will have significant cost implications for many areas within the University including, for example, the Schools, Departmental trust funds, and other discretionary funding sources. Implementation will also impact upon the research grant income received from Research Councils, charities, and commercial sources which support many staff in the University. At this stage, because of the factors mentioned in paragraph 1.4, a precise estimate of the eventual costs of the proposals is not possible. Therefore the approach adopted in this section can only be to provide guideline estimates and indicate the level of provision committed by the University in support of the proposals.
8.2 An estimate of costs falling on the Chest prepared for the Council indicated that the overall costs of transferring all non-clinical staff to the single spine (see paragraph 4.4) and of green-circling academic-related and assistant staff (paragraph 4.5) would be around £5m recurrently (on the Chest funded pay bill of c. £140m).25 Although it is difficult to predict how many individuals will be green-circled as a result of the matching process and individual HERA evaluations, modelling done subsequently for both assimilation to the single spine and green-circling using a number of different assumptions suggests costs of between 2.75% and 4.55% on the total Chest funded pay bill, that is, between £3,850,000 and £6,370,000. At least half of this would be covered by recurrent income under HEFCE's RDS initiative (see paragraph 1.5). In addition, a contingency reserve of recurrent RDS money of £0.5m has been established against unanticipated outcomes from the matching process.
8.3 However, there will be further costs for both Chest and non-Chest areas in the University which cannot readily be quantified and have been excluded from the above estimates. These include:
8.4 It is expected that non-Chest sources of funding will eventually cover the non-Chest recurrent costs defined in paragraph 8.3. In association with Universities UK and the Russell Group, UCEA approached Research Councils UK (RCUK) in December 2004 for clarification as to how the Research Councils intended to handle issues arising from the introduction by universities and colleges of new pay structures. The reform will overlap with the move by the Research Councils to implement Full Economic Costing (FEC) of research projects from September 2005. Under FEC, applications to the Research Councils must set out the full costs of the research which applicants propose to undertake, including the salary costs of all individuals involved. These should reflect the likely impact of the Framework Agreement in each HEI. The Research Councils recognize that future pay structures will vary between HE institutions and that salary costs entered in grant applications will be institution-specific and not nationally determined. They also accept that the grading of new posts created for research projects will be determined by HEIs' own grading arrangements being rooted in job evaluation. Heads of institutions will be advised by the Director of the Research Services Division of the present position. Although they have yet to make an explicit statement, the major UK charities are aware that the Framework Agreement is being implemented on the increased costs across the HE sector, and it is hoped that they will follow the lead of the Research Councils. In the meantime, the University recognizes that there will be a transition period and has accordingly earmarked £1.8m from RDS funding for non-Chest transitional costs to the end of 2006-07.
8.5 Also set aside from RDS funds is £150,000 to support the additional administrative burden of implementing these proposals in Schools and non-School institutions. This money is available on an application basis for backfilling.
8.6 It is difficult to predict the funding impact of the new arrangements upon future regrading exercises, on the award of contribution increments for academic-related and assistant staff, and upon promotions for academic staff. For assistant and academic-related staff, the Report proposes (paragraph 5.7) that the existing regrading and discretionary awards exercise for 2006 should be subsumed within the assimilation of staff onto the single spine but will resume thereafter. Under these proposals, it is likely that awards of contribution increments will increase. For the senior academic promotions exercise, there is still little evidence of significant diminution in the number of cases coming forward and hence no real diminution of costs.
8.7 Together with the publication of information about the outcomes of the assimilation exercise, it is also intended to publish details relating to the costs of the implementation of the new pay and grading structure in Cambridge when assimilation of all staff has been completed. Schools are likely to play a major role in controlling Chest pay costs since these will ultimately feed through to them under the present RAM arrangements. The proposal to make information on senior salaries available to the Chairs of Schools for management purposes (paragraph 6.15) and their involvement in determining such salaries (Annexes 7 and 9) should greatly strengthen the management role of the Schools in pay determination.
9. The Council and the General Board accordingly recommend:
I. That, with effect from 1 January 2006, the current general scale of stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 643) be rescinded and replaced by a single Cambridge general stipend and salary scale for all University staff26 as set out in Annex 2 of this Report.
II. That a grade structure for University staff, as described in paragraphs 3.8-3.12 above and as set out in Annex 2 of this Report, be introduced and implemented with effect from 1 January 2006.
III. That the Higher Education Role Analysis scheme (HERA) with standard weightings as described in paragraphs 3.5-3.7 above, be adopted as a common grading methodology for determining the grades of University staff.
IV. That, subject to the approval of Recommendations I and II, the current stipends for the offices of Professor, Reader, University Senior Lecturer, and University Lecturer be replaced by the following grade structure:
|Professor:||Grade 12||points 68-92|
|Reader:||Grade 11||point 63|
|University Senior Lecturer:||Grade 10||points 59-61|
|University Lecturer:||Grade 9||points 49-57|
V. That, subject to the approval of Recommendations I, II, and III, the grades and stipends for the holders of the following offices be determined by the competent authority in accordance with the procedures set out in paragraphs 4.1-4.3 and 6.9-6.11 of this Report as follows:27
|University Librarian||General Board|
|Director in the Unified Administrative Service||Council|
|Deputy Treasurer, Principal Assistant Registrary, Principal Assistant Treasurer, Senior Assistant Registrary, Senior Assistant Treasurer, Assistant Registrary, Assistant Treasurer, Administrative Officer||Council|
|Deputy Director and Assistant Director of the Estate Management and Building Service, Senior Advisory Officer, Advisory Officer||Council|
|Principal Computer Officer, Senior Computer Officer, and Computer Officer in the Unified Administrative Service||Council|
VI. That a policy and procedure for awarding contribution supplements to University staff in grade 12 as described in paragraphs 6.5-6.11 and Annexes 7 and 9 of this Report be approved.
VII. That a policy and procedure for awarding market pay supplements as described in paragraphs 6.2-6.3 and Annex 5 of this Report be approved.
VIII. That, if the proposals in this Report are approved, the Council or the General Board, as appropriate, be empowered as the competent authority to adjust, by additional and pensionable payments, the stipend of a member of the University staff as necessary to protect the stipend of that person over a period of four years from 1 January 2006.
IX. That certain regulations be amended, with effect from 1 January 2006, in accordance with the recommendations set out in Annex 10 of this Report.
|31 May 2005||ALISON RICHARD, Vice-Chancellor||BOB DOWLING||MARTIN REES|
|A. J. BADGER||DAVID S. INGRAM||G. A. REID|
|Z. BARANSKI||RUTH KEELING||DAVID SIMON|
|RICHARD BARNES||D. LOWTHER||WES STREETING|
|NIGEL BROWN||D. W. B. MACDONALD||JOAN M. WHITEHEAD|
|WILLIAM BROWN||JAMES MATHESON||RICHARD WILSON|
|23 May 2005||ALISON RICHARD, Vice-Chancellor||M. J. DAUNTON||MELVEENA MCKENDRICK|
|JOHN BELL||R. H. FRIEND||ROGER PARKER|
|TOM BLUNDELL||RICHARD HUNTER||KEITH PETERS|
|WILLIAM BROWN||DREW LIVINGSTON||I. H. WHITE|
|H. A. CHASE||D. W. B. MACDONALD|
The Second Joint Report on a new pay and grading structure represents one of the most important Reports to be placed before the University in recent years. The remuneration, conditions of employment, and career structures of more than 8,000 members of staff are largely consequent upon details of this Report. The Second Report does represent significant progress over the original. All credit should be given to the many officers and support staff who have worked hard to meet very strictly defined deadlines, and within the limitations of the resources made available to them. However, there are serious issues of detail, including omissions and ambiguities, that remain in the published Report, and which, because of the deadlines, were subjected to insufficient scrutiny by our committee structure. In our remarks at Discussion we are intending to provide more details of why we are unable to give our full support to this Report.
|31 May 2005||ROSS ANDERSON|
The Council have agreed that this Report will be submitted for discussion on 21 June 2005.
|April:||5 open meetings|
|Meetings with Schools, Heads of Departments, consideration by Council, General Board and the University and Assistants Joint Board|
PROVISIONAL ON-GOING TIMELINE
|2 June||Report published in Reporter|
|21 June||Report discussed|
|June-July||Special meeting of Personnel Committee - considers remarks and response|
|June onwards||Where necessary, trades unions to ballot their members on the proposals in the Report|
|13 July||General Board consider response|
|25 July||Council consider response|
|27 July||Publication of response and Graces anticipated in Reporter|
|5 August||Grace(s) approved (if no ballot)|
If a ballot is requested:
|10 August||Publish Notice|
|Mid October - |
|Ballot to be held in accordance with the timetable to be approved by Council.|
In order to develop the new grade structure, a University working group was established.28 The group considered the outcomes of HERA evaluations undertaken to date and the point spread of discernible clusters of jobs in order to plot new grades on the single spine. The proposals developed by the working group were then considered with trade union representatives in the Partnership Working Group and this led to the emergence of the final proposals for a 12 grade structure.
In formulating the proposals for a new grade structure, considerations were to:
Most grades have service and contribution components, while in the highest grades points are primarily contribution related. All contribution points, like service points, will be permanent, pensionable additions to salary.
A simple read-across from current grades to grades in the new structure may be misleading because it does not take account of the outcome of the HERA assessment process. However, it is expected that the majority of staff in a particular grade will transfer to a new grade at an equivalent or slightly advantageous level.
These tables illustrate the relationship between the current salary scales and the proposed new grades. It is essential to keep in mind that a simple read-across from current grades to grades in the new structure may be misleading because it does not take account of the outcome of the HERA assessment process. However, contrary to the perception arising from the publication of the Joint Consultative Report that some staff groups would be worse off, under the proposed new grade structure it is expected that the majority of staff in a particular grade will transfer to a new grade at an equivalent or slightly advantageous level.
The number following the point on the existing grades refers to the number of employees currently employed at that level of salary.
New grade structure
ANNEX 3 (MATCHING GUIDANCE FLOWCHART)
ANNEX 4 (ASSIMILATION FLOWCHART)
There are a number of steps in the assimilation of a post and its holder into the new pay and grading structure:
1. The first step is the assignment of a post to a grade on the new structure by matching or individual HERA evaluations.
2. The point on the new pay spine to which the post-holder moves is then determined by (i) their current annual salary in their existing grade and (ii) the salary range of the new grade to which their post is assigned. It is not determined by the grade of their current post nor by the spine or scale point number.
3. If the current salary is within the salary range (including the contribution points) for the new grade, then the post-holder moves to the nearest salary scale point within the new grade on the new pay spine equal to or next above their current salary. In the example shown below (where the new grade of the post is Grade 4) the post-holder would move from £17,510 pa (step 4 on CS4) to £17,978 pa (spine point 31 - step 3 on new grade 4).
4. If the current salary is below (by whatever amount) the minimum salary scale point for the new grade, then the post-holder would move to the minimum salary scale point for the new grade on the new spine. In the example shown below (where the new grade for the post is Grade 5) the post-holder would move from £18,032 pa (step 5 on CS4) to £19,645 pa (spine point 34 - step 1 on (new) Grade 5). This is 'green-circling'.
5. If the current salary is above (by whatever amount) the maximum salary scale point (including the contribution points) for the new grade, then the post-holder would move to the nearest salary scale point on the new pay spine equal to or next above their current salary and the pay protection arrangements would apply as described in paragraphs 4.7-4.12 of the main body of the Report. In the example shown below (where the new grade of the post is Grade 3) the post-holder would move from £19,693 pa (step 8 on CS4) to £20,235 pa (spine point 35) with pay protection arrangements applying. This is 'red-circling'.
ANNEX 5 (MARKET SUPPLEMENTS)
Paragraph 9 of the General Board's 1989 Report on the introduction of supplementary payments in respect of 'evidence of outstanding contribution to the work of the University and the furtherance of its aims' indicated that market forces should be handled by a separate mechanism of paying 'market supplements'.
Market supplements are used commonly to provide institutional flexibility, enabling competitive salaries to be paid for recruitment or retention purposes where there are market premia, without distortion of the grading structure or job evaluation methodology. Having a policy for paying market supplements, which is criteria and evidence based, mitigates the risk of equal pay challenges.
Market supplements are applicable to all groups of staff.
Before deciding whether a market supplement should be applied in particular cases, some preliminary matters require consideration:
It is essential that the application of market supplements should be justifiable by reference to objective evidence.
Written offers of appointment received by individuals from other potential employers may suggest a prima facie case for application of a market supplement in particular cases. However, generally it is more appropriate to seek a market assessment of roles to determine whether there is any mismatch between market rates of pay for particular types of role and the assignment of roles to grades and pay by job evaluation. Surveys of those in jobs are generally preferable to particular advertisements which may reflect an employer's need to recruit to a particular role at a particular point in time.
In considering cases it will be necessary to establish the appropriate labour market to be taken into account (e.g. local, Russell Group, etc.), excluding organizations from which the University is unlikely to recruit and organizations to which it is unlikely to lose staff. The Personnel Division will provide information on rates of pay by maintaining a database of rates of pay in the local labour market and through access to other databases (for example, UCEA and Russell Group surveys of salaries within the sector and pay data available from external sources such as Incomes Data Services, Hay).
The decision on whether to award a market supplement and its level will be determined as follows:
In all cases the rationale for awarding a market supplement must be recorded (a pro forma, downloadable from the Personnel Division web site, will be available for this purpose).
Market supplements will be subject to regular review and will be included in equal pay audits. Payments awarded may be increased, reduced, or withdrawn should market factors change. Where payments are reduced or withdrawn, it is proposed that the effect will be mitigated through a tapering arrangement.
ANNEX 6 (OPERATION OF CURRENT SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS SCHEME FOR PROFESSORS)
The present scheme of supplementary payments for Professors is applications-based and biennial. At present the base professorial stipend is currently £52,936. There are four supplementary levels of payment at 13 (= £6,880), 26, 39, and 53% of the base Cambridge professorial stipend, giving a maximum of £80,990. All such payments are pensionable.
These payments are used:
(i) At recruitment of incoming Professors
A supplement paid above the base stipend enables the Vice-Chancellor to recognize both the academic qualities of the individual being recruited and to match their current salary. The Vice-Chancellor determines what level of supplementary payment, if any, should be made in each case. The Vice-Chancellor is assisted in her decision by advice from the Board of Electors, the Academic Secretary (as Secretary to the General Board), and the views of the Chair of the Council of the School routed through the Academic Secretary.29 A supplementary payment is made for six years in the first instance.
(ii) For retention and to reward outstanding performance
A biennial application-based scheme exists whereby non-clinical Professors in post may apply for a supplementary payment on top of their base stipend or a higher level of supplementary payment. Retention of such payments is conditional upon merit, although currently there is no instance of a supplementary payment being suppressed. Applications for supplementary payments are assessed by an Advisory Committee of internal and external members, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, and administered by the Academic Secretary.
ANNEX 7 (CRITERIA FOR PROGRESSION BETWEEN PROFESSORIAL CONTRIBUTION BANDS IN GRADE 12)
Under the arrangements proposed to replace the existing levels of supplementary payment for professors there will be four bands, payable in addition to basic salary. Features of the new arrangements are that:
1. Within each band, the 3% steps on the single spine will be used to allow contribution-based progression within a band; this will give four progression points within each band. Progression within a band will not be automatic and will require evidence in the annual reports of a Professor to the General Board of a sustained contribution to the teaching, administration, and research of the University.
2. Use of the single spine steps within a band will increase affordability and enable sustained contribution to the University to be recognized which is difficult under the present 4 levels of supplementary payment.
3. Explicit criteria will determine movement from one band to the next (see below).
4. The present criteria used by the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee for Supplementary Payments for Professors can be adapted to determine progression between bands, thus tying the new scheme directly to existing practice; criteria for progression within bands are set out below).
5. It is expected that Band 4 will only be used under the most exceptional circumstances, and that most Professors will be in Bands 1 and 2.
6. Market supplements will be payable in addition to basic salary and any contribution related merit pay supplement.
A Band 1 award is intended for Professors of academic distinction that is clearly well in excess of that required for appointment to a Cambridge Professorship. They will normally have a significant national and international reputation in research, and contribute fully to the teaching and administrative work of the University. This level may also be used to reward exceptional and sustained contributions to the academic work of the University in teaching, administration, and research by those whose individual scholarship is also above the normal expectation for a Cambridge Professor.
A Band 2 award is intended for Professors who, in addition to a distinguished academic record when measured against the overall Cambridge context, are also recognized as research leaders nationally through their membership of a national academy (e.g. Royal Society, British Academy) or equivalent distinction. They will be leading international authorities in their particular field. They will have made a very significant and lasting positive mark on the University's work in their subject area directly through their own research or through their role in leading and developing their discipline at Cambridge. They will also contribute fully to the teaching and administration of the University.
A Band 3 award is intended for Professors of very high academic distinction. They will be internationally acknowledged as outstanding, and act as national leaders in their subject areas; they will be regarded as having achieved notable international eminence across the general field. They will also contribute fully to the teaching and administration of the University.
A Band 4 award is intended for Professors of the very highest international academic distinction. Through their membership of international bodies or the holding of international awards, they will be universally acknowledged as world leaders in their subject areas. They will have made a formative and lasting contribution through their research and their overall role across their general field. They will also contribute fully to the teaching and administration of the University.
Progression within bands by the 3% steps on the single spine is not automatic. It is intended to allow recognition of sustained contribution but where the case is not fully made for progression from one band to another. Normally cases, whether supported or not, may not be made in successive years.
The determination of awards between bands will be via the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Supplementary Payments for Academic Officers. Normally, this Committee will receive recommendations for awards in Band 1 from a School-level Committee composed of Professors in receipt of Band 2 - Band 4 awards and a member of the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee. The Vice-Chancellor's Committee acting directly and taking appropriate advice will determine Band 2 - Band 4 awards. There will need to be some apportionment of funding between the School-based panels and the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee.
Under the new arrangements it is proposed that at the time of the biennial exercise, it should be possible for a Chair of School, advised by the Head of Institution, to make a case for other names, other than those who apply, to be considered by the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee. Such cases would have to be supported by the same paperwork as application-based cases. Individuals may ask the Committee to consider the award of a supplementary payment where this is not supported by the School. The present position, whereby an individual can refuse to be considered/accept an award, should remain. Normally cases, whether supported or not, may not be made in successive years.
Out-of-cycle cases may be considered. A decision on the case would be taken by the Vice-Chancellor acting on the advice of the internal members of the Advisory Committee. Such out-of-cycle actions would be reported to the next full meeting of the Advisory Committee.
The theoretical possibility exists that a Professor can lose a supplementary payment on performance grounds. In practice, this has never happened. Under the proposed new arrangements the current supplementary payments, which are limited to six-year renewable periods, will be replaced by permanent movement to points on the single spine that fall within the contribution bands.
A continuing concern of Schools with recruitment of new Professors is their perception of lack of involvement and therefore lack of control on costs. Currently, Chairs of Schools are not explicitly involved by the Vice-Chancellor in the salary negotiations with incoming Professors. However, the Chair of the relevant School can make representations through the Academic Secretary about cost and affordability as far as the School is concerned, and it is proposed that this practice is formalized.
ANNEX 8 (EXISTING SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS SCHEME FOR ACADEMIC-RELATED STAFF AT PROFESSORIAL LEVEL)
Mirroring the procedure for Professors, there is a biennial salary review scheme, but with a fundamental difference - it is not applications-based; instead, all individuals are reviewed automatically by the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee for Supplementary Payments for Non-Academic Officers in the professorial grade.30 Additionally, and in contrast to the scheme for professorial supplementary payments, awards are permanent.
The pay formula for posts other than the Pro-Vice-Chancellors was established by 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. 816), as clarified by the Council's Notice of 11 November 2002 (Reporter, 2002-03, p. 287).
The initial salary or salary range to be used for appointment is published in (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 644). It is the standard professorial stipend, increased by the Council (Schedule II, Statutes and Ordinances, p. 645) or the General Board (Schedule III, Statutes and Ordinances, p. 646) (depending on whether the office is established in a Council or General Board institution) through a percentage range. In some cases the base stipend or stipend range within which appointment can be made is set by the University (Schedule I, Statutes and Ordinances, p. 644). The percentage steps of this range are percentages of the standard professorial stipend and not of the initial stipend.
1 Standard professorial stipend
Different authorities determine the stipends of University offices - the Regent House (for offices listed in Schedule I) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 644), the Council (for offices listed in Schedule II) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 645), the General Board (for offices listed in Schedules III, non-clinical, and IV, clinical) (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 646 and 649). Under the present system, different authorities are also responsible for determining the stipends of the same office - for example, the Regent House for Computer Officers in the UAS; the Council for Computer Officers in Council institutions other than the UAS, and the General Board for Computer Officers in General Board institutions. Similarly, academic-related offices in the professorial grade where holders head up major services (e.g., the UAS and Division, and the University Library) have their salaries determined by different authorities.
ANNEX 9 (PROPOSED SCHEME OF CONTRIBUTION INCREMENTS FOR ACADEMIC-RELATED STAFF IN GRADE 12)
The assignment of academic-related roles to particular contribution bands on grade 12 will be determined by job evaluation. After appointment consideration may be given to the award of contribution points on grade 12. There should be the possibility of awarding individuals up to three points above their salary on appointment, even if that exceeds the maximum of the band applying to the office/post held.
Progression through the 3% contribution points in grade 12 would:
|(i)||be awarded for sustained contribution; it would not be automatic. The nature of the contribution must be ongoing and there must be some indication that it will be beneficial to the institution over the longer term to justify the cost;|
|(ii)||be principally applications-based by the individual and biennial;|
|(iii)||at the time of the biennial operation, allow line-managers of staff to propose movement between bands and within bands for staff who do not apply;|
|(iv)||allow out-of-cycle consideration of cases by proposal by a line-manager, primarily for retention purposes;|
|(v)||be determined by the Vice-Chancellor's Advisory Committee for Supplementary Payments for Non-Academic Officers in the professorial grade.|
In respect of staff in the UAS and in Council institutions, normally the Advisory Committee will receive recommendations for awards from the Registrary. In the case of other non-School institutions recommendations will normally be made by the Head of Institution through the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Personnel). For staff in Schools, recommendations will be made through the Chairs of Schools. Individuals may ask the Committee to consider the award of a contribution supplement where this is not supported by the Registrary, by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Personnel), or the Chair of the School. Normally cases, whether supported or not, may not be made in successive years.
ANNEX 10 REGULATIONS TO BE AMENDED
That certain regulations be amended, with effect from 1 January 2006, as follows:
A. Regulations for University Assistant Staff (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 149)
If Recommendations I and II are approved, by deleting Regulation 3(b).31
B. Regulations for Payments additional to stipend (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 649)
If Recommendations I, VII, and VIII, are approved, by amending these regulations as follows:
By replacing in the last line the words 'Regulations 2-8' by the words 'Regulations 2-9'.
By replacing in the table the words 'percentage of the standard professorial stipend' by the words 'percentage of step 68 on the Cambridge general stipend and salary scale'.
By adding the following new Regulation 9:
9. The competent authority shall have power to authorize additional pensionable payments as market pay supplements to any member of the University staff in accordance with policy and procedures determined by the University.
By adding the following new Temporary Regulation 10:
10. The competent authority shall have the power to adjust, by additional and pensionable payments, the stipend of a member of the University staff as necessary to protect the stipend of that person over a period of four years from 1 January 2006 following the implementation of a single salary spine and grade structure as approved by Graces 00 of [date].
C. Regulations for Pro-Vice-Chancellors (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 654)
By amending the first sentence of Regulation 4 so as to read:
The stipend for the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be determined by the Council.
D. Regulations for the Unified Administrative Service (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 655)
If Recommendations I, II, and V are approved, by amending Regulation 9 so as to read:
9. The grades of the holders of various offices within the Unified Administrative Service shall be determined in accordance with procedures approved by the University.
E. Regulations for stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 643)
If Recommendations I-V are approved, by amending the regulations as follows:
By replacing the regulation and the scale by the following regulations numbered 1 to 4:
1. In Regulations 2 to 7 the term University staff shall apply to all University officers as described in the Statutes and Ordinances of the University and to all other persons employed by the University (except the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, the Commissary, the Proctors, Pro-Proctors, Additional Pro-Proctors, and Special Pro-Proctor, the Orator, the Esquire Bedells, the University Organist, the Univesity Marshal, the University Advocate, and the Deputy University Advocate; clinical staff, whose salaries are determined in accordance with national and local procedures for clinical staff; and persons in certain categories defined by the Council32).
2. The Cambridge general stipend and salary scale for University staff shall be as set out in Schedule I.33
3. The grade structure set out in Schedule I shall apply to all University staff.
4. A common grading methodology for determining the grades of University staff shall be approved by the University.34
By renumbering the regulation as 5 and amending it so as to read:
5. (a) The stipends of the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Pro-Proctors, Additional Pro-Proctors, and Special Pro-Proctor, the University Organist, and the University Marshal shall be determined by the Council.
(b) The stipends of the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, the Commissary, the Proctors, the Orator, the Esquire Bedells, the University Advocate, and the Deputy University Advocate shall be determined by Grace.
(c) The grades for the holders of the offices of Professor, Reader, University Senior Lecturer, and University Lecturer shall be as follows:35
|Professor:||Grade 12||points 68-92|
|Reader:||Grade 11||point 63|
|University Senior Lecturer||Grade 10||points 59-61|
|University Lecturer||Grade 9||points 49-57|
(d) The grades and stipends of all other University staff as defined in Regulation 1 shall be determined by the competent authority in accordance with procedures approved by that authority.
By renumbering the regulation as 6 and amending it so as to read:
6. The competent authority, in accordance with procedures approved by the University, shall determine the initial place of the grade of the member of University staff concerned and any subsequent progression through the contribution part of a grade.
By renumbering the regulation as 7 and amending it so as to read:
7. If a revision of the Cambridge general stipend and salary scale is approved at a time of a general revision of pay for University staff, the competent authority shall, if necessary, alter the salary of any member of the University staff in accordance with the objects and conditions of such general revision of pay.
By rescinding Schedules I-III and renumbering Schedule IV (clinical appointments) as II.
1 See footnote 6.
2 Including premium payments, e.g. overtime.
3 With scope, in most grades in the proposed new structure, for accelerated progression through service points and to contribution points above the maximum of the service related grade scale.
4 As set out in the University's HR Strategy - http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/cam-only/offices/personnel/hr/.
5 Employers must give men and women equal treatment in terms and conditions of employment if they are employed on: (i) 'like work' - that is, work that is the same or broadly similar, (ii) work rated as equivalent under a job evaluation study, or (iii) work found to be of equal value. It is for the employer to show that there is a genuine reason for any difference which is not based on the sex of the individual. Individuals may complain to an employment tribunal under the Equal Pay Act 1970. Normally, they may claim arrears of remuneration for a period of up to six years before the date of their tribunal application. An analytical and transparent grading methodology is essential if the University is to be able to defend itself against charges of pay discrimination.
6A Framework Agreement reached in 2003-04 for the modernization of pay structures was developed following national negotiations between the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) and trades unions. The Framework Agreement sets out a number of key principles, particularly 'working in partnership' with trades unions locally, and minimum requirements to be followed by institutions in the development and implementation of new grading systems. Subsequently, the agreement was supplemented by the Memorandum of Understanding between UCEA and the AUT. The text of the Framework Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding can be found at http://www.ucea.ac.uk/.
7 Consisting of two nominees from each of the six Schools, representatives from the University Library, University Computing Service, and the Unified Administrative Service, together with members of the Personnel Division. A smaller sub-group undertook detailed work on behalf of the Working Group, including looking at alternative grade structures and assessing the impact of these upon particular groups of staff.
8 See footnotes 2 and 3.
9 The Independent Review of Higher Education Pay and Conditions.
10 Further information on HERA is available at http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/reward/hera.
11 UCEA report 71% HERA; 18% Hay; 2% a combination of HERA and Hay; 2% Equate; 7% yet to choose.
12 See footnote 7.
13 As indicated in Annex 1, the trades unions will wish to ballot their members on the proposals in this Report, including any changes arising out of its consideration in the Regent House. A statement agreed following the meeting of the Partnership Working Group on 29 April 2005 reads as follows: 'The Joint Trades Unions Negotiating Committee (JUNC) accept the single pay spine and accept the use of HERA (without 'Project Scholar') as the job evaluation methodology. We note the commitment to full harmonisation of terms and conditions of employment and the proposal to backdate the implementation of the framework to 1 January 2006. The grading structure (as tabled on 29 April 2005 [and as set out in Annex 2]) represents substantial progress towards meeting our expectations of implementation of the national agreements. Whilst noting that a number of issues remain to be resolved, JUNC accepts that the second Report should be put forward for consideration by the University. The outcomes will be subject to consultation with our members through our democratic processes.'
14 See paragraph 3.12 and Annex 4.
15 No individuals in these grades are presently employed on the lowest five points of the single spine and it is proposed that they should not be used from 1 January 2006.
16 Matching may be expected to have a moderating effect on the outcomes.
17 Because of their uniqueness to and within the University it is proposed that the following offices are exempt from assimilation to the new arrangements under the procedure described in this Report: Deputy High Steward; Proctor; Pro-Proctor; Additional Pro-Proctor; Special Pro-Proctor; University Organist; Orator; Esquire Bedell; University Advocate; and University Marshal. All these offices (except the Marshal) are listed in Schedules I and II, Statutes and Ordinances, pp. 644-5.
18 Where other interests are identified during the course of implementation of the new pay and grading arrangements, it is proposed that the Council and the General Board be authorized to take appropriate action on the recommendation of the Personnel Committee.
19 Some grades (e.g. grades 7, 8, and 9) have a high proportion of service points to ensure compliance with the principles of the Memorandum of Understanding.
20 Assistant Staff Handbook. Section 3, Pay (p. 6).
21 These arrangements are described in Section 6 of the career management scheme for contract research staff.
22 The Framework Agreement (Appendix E, market pay) provides advice on attraction and retention premia.
23 Reporter, 1988-89, pp. 756-758.
24 In 2001 the University was generally recruiting externally at level 2; in 2005, this has moved to level 3 for appointments from British universities and to level 4 for overseas appointments.
25 This assumed that green-circling would not affect academic staff and that red-circling has no impact on costs as it represents a continuation of salary costs which are already being borne.
26 The term 'University staff' as referred to in these recommendations and regulations denotes all University officers as described in the Statutes and Ordinances of the University and all other persons employed by the University, except the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the High Steward, the Deputy High Steward, the Commissary, the Proctors, Pro-Proctors, Additional Pro-Proctors, and Special Pro-Proctor, the University Organist, the Orator, the Esquire Bedells, the University Advocate, and the Deputy University Advocate, and the University Marshal; clinical staff, whose salaries are determined in accordance with national and local procedures for clinical staff; and the following persons:
(i) persons employed by Cambridge University Press or the Local Examinations Syndicate other than University officers;
(ii) the staff of the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries, or the ADC Theatre;
(iii) estate workers on the Madingley Estate or persons other than University officers engaged in work on the University Farm.
27 The offices referred to here currently fall in Schedule I to the regulations for Stipends (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 644); the stipends in this Schedule are determined by the University (i.e. approved by Grace). Under the proposed new arrangements the grades and stipends of holders of these offices will be considered under the same procedures as other academic-related staff for whom the competent authority is the Council or the General Board as appropriate (i.e. holders of offices listed in Schedules II and III, Statutes and Ordinances, pp. 645-649).
28 See footnote 7 to main Report.
29 In addition to a supplementary payment, the Vice-Chancellor can make a one-off non-pensionable recruitment incentive payment (RIP) (see above). RIPs are conditional on the Professor concerned completing at least three years of service in the University, and the payment is technically refundable if the Professor resigns from the University before the end of that period. In practice this provision has not been enforced, although it seems sensible to retain it.
30 The Advisory Committee comprises the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellors for Planning and Resources and Personnel, and an external member.
31 Schedules specifying the rates of pay for each category of University assistants; a provision no longer required with the introduction of the single spine.
32 The Council have defined the following categories of persons as excluded from these regulations:
(i) persons employed by Cambridge University Press or the Local Examinations Syndicate other than University officers;
(ii) the staff of the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries, or the ADC Theatre;
(iii) estate workers on the Madingley Estate or persons other than University officers engaged in work on the University Farm.
33 See Annex 2 (p. 756).
34 The grading methodology approved by Grace 0 of [date Grace published] is the Higher Education Role Analysis scheme (HERA) with standard weightings (see the Personnel Division's Web page (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/reward/hera/index.html)
35 Under Statute D, XIV, 8 and XVI, 4 the stipends of Professors and Readers are determined by the University; under Statute D, XVII, 13 and XVIII, 4 the stipends of University Lecturers and University Senior Lecturers are determined by the University on the recommendation of the General Board.
|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
Cambridge University Reporter 2 June 2005
Copyright © 2005 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.