Cambridge University Reporter


Fly-sheets reprinted

The following fly-sheets, etc., are reprinted in accordance with the Council's Notice on Discussions and Fly-sheets (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 114).

SECOND JOINT REPORT OF THE COUNCIL AND THE GENERAL BOARD ON A NEW PAY AND GRADING STRUCTURE FOR NON-CLINICAL STAFF

A. The Proposed Reforms of University Pay and Grading

The University of Cambridge owes its pre-eminence in large part to the quality of its staff; but it operates in an increasingly competitive environment. To maintain its reputation, Cambridge must continue to recruit and retain staff of the highest calibre. The University's current pay policies are antiquated and lack the flexibility, clarity, and even-handedness that are essential if it is to maintain its current standing while also complying with developments in national employment legislation. The reforms proposed in the 2nd Joint Report are long overdue and provide the means by which the University can achieve these aims.

A ballot on this issue allows the Regent House to endorse the new pay and grading arrangements, and to increase the information published both in Statutes and Ordinances and in the Reporter concerning HERA point ranges (Grace 3), market pay supplements and the procedure for awarding them (Grace 7), and data on the grades, range of grades, and remuneration bands determined for each office or post (Grace 9). We believe that the Council, in drawing up revised versions of Graces 3, 7, and 9, have struck a good balance between the need both to protect personal privacy in relation to pay and to disclose information that is in the public interest. The Council's revisions thus strive to accept the spirit of the amendments proposed by those who called for a ballot, and go as far as possible within the law to meet their concerns.

We believe that the proposals covered by Graces 1 to 9 should now be seen as a coherent strategy, one not vitiated by amendments that would potentially undermine the workability and legality of some of its parts. Failure to adopt the proposals will seriously reduce the funding which the University receives under HEFCE's rewarding and developing staff scheme. We thus urge members of the Regent House to vote in approval (placet) of Graces 1 and 2, and for Graces 3, 7, and 9 as amended by the Council.

Z. G. BARANSKIT. C. EVERTONC. J. HILLA. W. A. PETERSON
J. S. BELLA. C. FABIANSEAN HOLLYMAX. PETTINI
R. BENNETTNORMAN A. FLECKA. HOPPERS. REICHE
TOM BLUNDELLPETER K. FOXTAMARA HUGKEITH RICHARDS
S. BOLDYSIMON FRANKLINSRIYA IYERL. C. G. ROGERS
WILLIAM BROWND. J. FRAYJ. F. C. KINGMANH. SABOURIAN
R. F. CARSWELLR. H. FRIENDJ. LIPNEREKHARD SALJE
H. A. CHASERUPERT GATTIPETER LIPTONJ. K. M. SANDERS
NICKY CLAYTONG. GILMOREHAMISH LOWJ. SHVETS
ANDREW CLIFFK. GLOVERJAMES M. R. MATHESONAJIT SINGH
J. R. CRAWFORDH. F. GRAFRICHARD MCMAHONJ. G. P. SISSONS
PARTHA DASGUPTANEIL GREENHAMD. R. MIDGLEYNIGEL SLATER
M. J. DAUNTONG. R. GRIMMETTM. R. MINDENP. TYLER
SANDRA DAWSONM. G. O. HAEHNELTA. C. MINSONMELVYN WEEKS
ATHENE DONALDR. P. HAININGD. M. NEWBERYN. O. WEISS
G. DOPPELHOFERD. F. HARTLEYFRANCIS J. NOLANI. H. WHITE
JULIAN DOWDESWELLANDREW HARVEYROGER PARKEREMMA F. WILSON
G. P. EFSTATHIOUD. P. HEARNIAN PARRYS. J. YOUNG
W. EVANSPAUL C. HEWETT  

B. Grace 9 of 27th July 2005

For many years the University has published in Ordinances three Schedules containing the stipend scale attached to each class of University office. In over 40 cases this has identified specific officers by their office. Grace 9 and its associated Annex 10 seek to abolish the publication of this information, while the Council's alternative amendment would result in the publication of far less detailed information in an anonymized form. The original amendment to Grace 9, proposed by 107 members of Regent House, prevents this abolition. It also aims to correct the anomaly that has arisen in recent years as a result of the appointment of some senior administrative staff to unestablished posts with unpublished stipends.

We believe that it is in the interests of the University community to continue to publish information in a form that clearly associates the roles of office holders with the salary scale by which they are remunerated. Both the Council's original and revised proposals will make such information public only for Professors, Readers, University Senior Lecturers, University Lecturers, and the Vice-Chancellor. We see no reason for such a restriction given that under the new pay and grading system, the basic pay grade for each role will be determined by the HERA score associated with a matching role descriptor or analysis. The basic pay grade does not represent a judgement on the personal qualities of the role holder. We emphasise that the original amendment does not change the status quo, by which supplementary payments for personal contribution or merit are not published.

The original amendment also adds a new Schedule to Ordinances that will disclose which offices/posts are in receipt of 'additional' pay totalling more than 10% of basic pay. At present 'additional' pay rewards extra administrative and/or clinical responsibility, and the precise level of many current additional payments are already published, e.g. those for heads of specific departments and for clinical responsibility. The motivation for the original amendment is that a new category of additional pay, namely market pay, is being created. The level of such market payments will not be cash limited, and it is clearly envisaged that some cases will exceed 10%. The Council expects such cases to be rare. Again, we emphasize that none of the categories of additional pay covered by this amendment, including market pay, are supposed to reward individual merit. We see no reason why such information should not be more consistently provided.

Finally, the Council suggest that publishing the information required by the original amendment might risk a challenge under legislation protecting personal privacy. If so, the University has run this risk for several years without challenge, since much of the information required is already in the public domain. Indeed, the Council's Notice is carefully worded to avoid stating that publication would be in breach of privacy legislation. Furthermore, many public authorities publish similar salary band information that is not anonymized, and from which it is possible to identify individuals at senior levels where numbers are small or singular (for example the Civil Service, the Judiciary, and the Armed Forces).

For the above reasons we urge the Regent House to support the original amendment, and vote in favour of the publication of clear pay information both for the basic pay of specific University offices and for additional payments.

R. J. ANDERSONG. R. EVANSJ. M. LINEM. R. E. PROCTOR
D. BARDEND. J. GOODEJ. R. LISTERR. RODD
N. BERLOFFMICHAEL J. GRAYN. M. MACLARENA. SHADRIN
R. B. BOASTS. F. GULLM. R. MANNINGNICHOLAS SMITH
CHARLOTTE BOLTONF. P. HAYWARDJAMES MCELWAINEM. SPIVACK
E. J. BRISCOEE. J. HINCHM. E. MCINTYREJOHN M. STEWART
J. CHINN. J. HOLMESPAUL METCALFER. J. STIBBS
M. R. CLARKR. HUNTA. MYCROFTDAVID M. THOMPSON
PHILIP CONNELLA. ISERLESM. R. O'DONOHOEC. A. TOUT
STEPHEN J. COWLEYA. KALETZKYHUGH OSBORNC. D. WARNER
J. L. DAWSONFRANK H. KINGNIGEL PEAKEJ. R. WILLIS
JOANNE DILLONE. S. LEEDHAM-GREENCATHERINE PITTM. G. WORSTER

C. Grace 3 of 27th July 2005

It is extremely unclear why the PD33/HERA exercise has been conducted with as much secrecy as it has been, and the proposed amendment to Grace 3 was intended to require the publication of an uncontroversial aspect (the relationship between grades and HERA scores). The Council and General Board have made a good point that requiring any changes to be made by Grace would be constraining during the initial, unstable period. The counter argument to that is that it is not regarded as too onerous to vote for any stipend rise annually, and one would hope that the HERA scores for grades do not change more than once a term.

Unfortunately, their proposed amendment delays the requirement for even the publication of such information for 5 years. While it is likely that the data would be published before then, their proposal means that changes could be made without even informing the Regent House or the people affected by such changes until 2010. This is a recipe for legal challenges.

We therefore suggest that members of the Regent House vote for the amendment as originally proposed.

ANTON ALTAPARMAKOVRICHARD C. FISHERK. M. JEARYR. PADMAN
R. J. ANDERSONSIMON FLOODA. KALETZKYCATHERINE PITT
D. BARDENJ. L. GLUZAFRANK H. KINGD. B. PRINCE
CLARE BARTLETM. GONZALEZJ. KINGC. QUY
E. J. BRISCOED. J. GOODEE. S. LEEDHAM-GREENC. SHORT
CLIVE R. BROWNMICHAEL J. GRAYJ. M. LINEPAUL SMITH
M. Z. CARRS. F. GULLN. M. MACLARENR. J. STIBBS
J. CHINBEN HARRISM. R. MANNINGM. TEN WOLDE
JAMES CHISHOLMF. P. HAYWARDJ. MCELWAINEC. A. TOUT
M. R. CLARKN. J. HOLMESPAUL METCALFEJ. WARBRICK
STEPHEN J. COWLEYANNA HONTA. MYCROFTC. D. WARNER
P. CROSSM. M. ISLAMJAMES NAIRNG. WILD
G. R. EVANSS. ISONM. R. O'DONOHOEV. R. WOODLEY
F. A. N. FINCHC. JARDINE  

D. Grace 9 of 27th July 2005

Crucial claims for the pay and grading proposals are that they will bring about a fairer system giving 'Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value', objectivity in determining pay under HERA, and more openness and transparency in determining reward. However these admirable values could potentially be undermined as a result of the award to selected staff of additional payments that are deemed not to be included within the HERA scored role.

Whilst we accept that such payments may in some circumstances be justifiable we believe that in order to clearly demonstrate to staff of the University that the system is not being abused in a way that does undermine values of fairness, we think that details of additional payments exceeding 10% of the HERA determined base salary for the role should be clearly published as required by the amendment to the Grace proposed in August. Similar levels of information are already made publicly available for some University of Cambridge roles, and also nationally for the Civil Service, the Judiciary, and the Armed Services.

The proposed amendment will ensure a fairness in publication of information across the whole range of University roles rather than for selected groups of roles only. In contrast we think that the alternative amendment proposed by Council will present the additional payments in a much less informative way that may not easily demonstrate fairness of treatment.

We the undersigned therefore ask you to vote in favour of the proposed amendment (August) to Grace 9.

ANDREW C. AITCHISONMICHAEL J. GRAYJAMES MCELWAINEC. SHORT
JAMES CHISHOLMTONY HOLDENM. E. MCINTYRENICHOLAS SMITH
M. R. CLARKANNA HONTJAMES NAIRNSIMONE TEUFEL
ANN COPESTAKEA. KALETZKYM. R. O'DONOHOEDAVID M. THOMPSON
STEPHEN J. COWLEYJ. M. LINER. PADMANG. WILD
N. DODGSONM. R. MANNINGPETER ROBINSONV. R. WOODLEY
SIMON FLOOD   

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY

Ballot on the Pay and Grading Report

This statement is written on behalf of the Council in response to the flysheets supporting the original (August) amendments to Graces 3 and 9.

No flysheet has been submitted in opposition to Graces 1 and 2, and no flysheet has been submitted in opposition to the Council's amendment to Grace 7. The University is strongly urged to vote in favour of Graces 1 and 2 and Grace 7 as amended by the Council.

Amendment to Grace 3

The original (August) amendment to Grace 3 requires the HERA points ranges of the different grades, and the bands within grade 12, to be published, with changes subject to the approval of the Regent House.

The Council's amendment requires that the ranges and bands be approved by Grace not later than 1 January 2010, and that amendments thereafter shall be made by Grace.

The signatories of flysheet B recognize the force of the Council's point that there will be a settling down period for the new arrangements, and that it would delay progress if it were necessary to seek approval from the Regent House for changes in HERA points ranges during that period. But they fear that the Council's proposed amendment to Grace 3 will delay the publication of information for 5 years. There is no intention on the Council's part to delay publication. The Council amendment has been carefully phrased to require publication and Regent House approval not later than 1 January 2010. It is the Council's hope and expectation that the new arrangements will have stabilized on a much shorter timeframe so that approval by the Regent House will be sought well before the specified cut-off date. The Council's amendment is more specific in its terms than the original (August) amendment, and the University is asked to support it.

Amendment to Grace 9

The original (August) amendment proposes that a further Schedule should be published to the Regulations for Stipends, along the lines of the present Schedules II and III, giving details of the stipend scales for University offices and some unestablished posts, and further that information shall be published on payments additional to stipend, where those payments exceed a certain level.

The Council's amendment provides for the annual publication of anonymized statistical information on a variety of matters relating to patterns of pay, all market supplements, and payments additional to stipend. The Council will be receptive to suggestions for developing the usefulness of the statistical information that is published. The Council intend that the information should be full and detailed for the purposes of informing the University of its pay structure and of providing evidence of the fairness of its employment practice.

The University has to achieve a proper balance between those purposes and the rights of individuals to personal privacy - rights that have been developed significantly in UK and European law over recent years. The Regent House should not require the University to publish material which potentially exposes the University to legal challenge. As the Council explained in their Notice, the amendment has been drafted in the light of legal advice received to meet the objectives of the original amendment without having that effect. The University is asked to support Grace 9 as amended by the Council.

G. A. Reid,
Deputy Chairman of the Personnel Committee
on behalf of the Council