This briefing explains a lot about the issues and provides a reasoned approach to some of the problems we are starting to face at Goldsmiths (although the College is not moving fast enough for the problems to be clear yet!)
David
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: Friday, October 08, 2004 02:24 +0100
From: Negotiators Briefing <negotiators.briefing@aut.org.uk
Subject: AUT negotiators' briefing 8 October 2004
Dear Colleague
Negotiators' briefing email
Analysis of XXX pay deal
At the presidents' briefing held on 24 September there was a request for a detailed explanation of the pay arrangements.
XXX local association has led the way in negotiating new pay arrangements for academic and related staff. Staff moved to the new national single pay spine with effect from 1 August 2004,following the application of the 1 August 2004 3% pay award.
We have previously circulated the links to the key documents
setting out the detail on which members were balloted:
1. Assimilation model showing point for point assimilation at 1 August 2004
Assimilation
This table shows how all current staff assimilated to the new
national pay spine from 1 August 2004. You will note that two
additional points, 52 and 53, have been added to the pay spine to accommodate the local existing discretionary points for Readers.
2. The 'no detriment' model
Pay Model
This document has more detail as it shows progression arrangements for academic and academic related staff to 1 August 2013 (assuming no promotion or accelerated progression). These tables are best read in colour.
If you read the two tables horizontally you will see the progression arrangements for academic and academic related staff is dependent on their incremental point in 2003/04. The red arrow demonstrates where staff will have a double increment in order to meet the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding.
The reason why double increments are required for some staff is that the large increases available at the bottom of the grading structure under the AUT preferred model are effectively phased in to 2006.
The new grade 6 scale minimum at point 27 is introduced on 1 August 2006. Similarly, the new scale minimum for academic 2 at point 33 is introduced on 1 August 2006
While the rows show assimilation arrangements dependent on the grade and pay point of individual staff members, the columns can be read as the new grades.
You will see the table for academic related staff in the 1 August 2006 column refers to 'new scale minimum grade 6'. This column effectively represents the new grade 6: points 27 to 36. This is then reflected in all subsequent columns where it appears as spine point 27.
Other scale minima are given as:
* New scale minimum for Academic 2 (equivalent to grade 7) - point
33 with effect from 1 August 2005
* New scale minimum for grade 8 - point 39 with effect from 1
August 2004
* New scale minimum for grade 9 and Academic 4 - point 45 with
effect from 1 August 2004
The top of scales is shaded in yellow. This is defined as 'no further incremental progression other than discretionary points'.
By 1 August 2006 all the grade minima and maxima are the same as the AUT preferred grading model.
Sequencing of negotiations?
At the recent presidents' briefing many people reported that one of the key barriers to implementation of the Framework Agreement is their institution's insistence that a job evaluation exercise must be completed before negotiations can begin on the shape of new grading structures.
The AUT position is quite clear: detailed work on the introduction of role analysis and job evaluation should not start until there are clear commitments on future grading structures.
We have been asked to provide a detailed analysis for the reason for taking this position. As requested, this takes the form of FAQ's.
1. Why is the sequencing of negotiations so important? Is it really so problematic to get involved with job evaluation now and talk about the shape of grading structures later?
If your institution is insisting on carrying out a job evaluation exercise prior to discussing the shape of new grading structures, you should be suspicious about their reasons for pursuing this line of argument.
This argument is based on an assumption that institutions are
starting only with the 51 point pay spine, and no other constraints when looking at future grading structures. This is not the case. The key principles contained in the MoU have implications for the shape of grading structures. It is important that we know at the outset of negotiations whether institutions will honour the terms of the national agreement.
2. What are the key commitments that we should be seeking?
Although local negotiations will need to cover in detail the
interpretation and application of the MOU, there are a number of up front commitments that we would suggest you seek immediately:
1.The institution will honour the requirements of the Framework Agreement and the MoU
2.New grading structures will apply to all academic and related
staff, with no distinction between existing and new staff
3.New grading structures will apply common grade boundaries across equivalent grades for academic and related staff
4.There will be no more than five grades for academic and academic related staff
Once these commitments have been given, you will need to discuss in detail the application of the principles in the MoU
3. What is non- negotiable in terms of grade structure?
A good place to start is to look for commitments that the tops of grades will be set no lower than current equivalent grades
(principle 1 in the Memorandum of Understanding)
*Academic 4/grade 9 - point 49 ( to protect SL/ALC 5)
Academic 3/grade 8 - point 43 (to protect Lect B/ALC 3)
Academic 2/grade 7 - point 36 (to protect RA1A/ALC 2)
*The grades refer to the grades in the commended structure at appendix C of the Framework agreement. The grade boundary of academic 2/grade 7 must be varied to meet the terms of the MoU.
The next commitment is to ensure that progression to the top points of these grades takes no longer than under current equivalent arrangements (principle 3 in the MoU)
These commitments in effect lead to fixing the grade boundaries for grades 8 and 9 (academic 3 and 4). The only flexibility is where the grade boundaries for the bottom of grade 7 and the bottom and top of grade 6 will be set.
You must have agreement that the top of grade 7/academic 2 will be set at point 36 (in order to protect the top point of RA1A and ALC
2) and that incremental progression to this point will take no more than 10 years (to match RA1A and ALC 1/2). However, there are a limited number of options in addition to the AUT preferred model (which starts the grading structure at point 27). The other options would all necessarily involve double increments at some point in the grade structure.
Some institutions have argued that because there are other groups of staff (such as senior technical and clerical staff) who will be assimilated to these grades, they need to carry out a job evaluation exercise first to be able to cost the AUT preferred model.
As long as you have a commitment to (i) the shape of grades 8 and 9/academic 3 and 4, (ii) point 36 as the top of grade 7/academic 2 and (iii) no more than 10 incremental steps to get to this point you can proceed with job evaluation on this basis.
4. Can we engage in anything to do with job evaluation before we have agreement on the final grading structure?
Once you have the key commitments (outlined under Q2 above) there is some preliminary work committee members can engage in:
* Training for local reps in the job evaluation scheme
* Discuss use of role profiles for academic and related staff, including looking at national academic role profiles in relation to any necessary local amendments
* Discuss the representative sample of roles that you need to analyse
This should not involve the wider membership, or individuals being asked to attend interviews or complete job evaluation forms, until the key commitments on the shape of grading structures have been agreed.
5. At what point should we advise members to co-operate with the job evaluation exercise?
Once you have commitments on the implications of the MoU in
relation to the tops of grades and incremental progression you can agree to joint work on job evaluation. This will include:
*Going ahead with benchmarking exercise and matching roles to profiles
*If necessary, agreeing a review date where the final shape of grade 6 and 7 will be agreed based on benchmark data from all groups of staff in these grades.
6. We have been accused of pre-determining where staff will be graded, which is not in line with equal pay requirements. How do we respond?
We are not arguing that we should pre-determine the new grades for all our members. The position of staff on the new grading structure will be based on the outcome of a role analysis/job evaluation exercise (or verification of grade through role analysis if assimilation happens early as at XXX). We do expect some people to be upgraded and some to be downgraded as a result of role analysis/job evaluation.
However, what we cannot agree to is allowing a job evaluation
scheme to be used to design new grading structures where this could lead to people who are currently correctly graded being moved to a new structure where their career progression opportunities are worse than previously.
If new grading structures result in entire groups of jobs being paid at lower levels this would be in breach of the MoU, both the detailed principles and the commitment that the Framework is a 'platform for the long term improvement of salary levels'.
7. Our HR department and other unions have accused us of not
engaging in a partnership approach to implementation of the
Framework. We should 'trust that all will be OK'. How do we respond?
It is not unreasonable for us to ask for a commitment to the terms of our national agreement, as set out in the MoU. We need to be able to report to members on the progress of negotiations and members are asking now for commitments on the design of new structures.
It is far better to be alerted now to any potential problems than in 6-12 months time when the JE process is complete and the University will be in a far stronger position to implement the new grading structure unilaterally. The Nottingham example is instructive.
8. What about post 1992 institutions where the MoU does not apply?
Natfhe is seeking a commitment from all post 1992 institutions to Appendix C being used as the basis for discussions. They are happy to discuss improved variants to this grading structure, but are clear that anything less than Appendix C in terms of grade boundaries or incremental progression would represent a worsening of pay and conditions and would not be acceptable.
AUT and Natfhe remain committed to the harmonisation of pay
structures across pre and post 1992 universities.
If you have other questions regarding the sequencing of
negotiations in respect of job evaluation and job grading, please get in touch with Rachel Curley (rachel.curley@aut.org.uk).
Progression within grades
Ensure that in all local negotiations about progression arrangements within grades that the wording used in Appendix D of the Framework is honoured, in particular 'staff will have a normal expectation that progression from point to point up to this threshold [the contribution threshold] will take place on an annual basis.'
Any suggestion that progression below the contribution points will be anything other than automatic must be opposed. Some institutions are attempting to link progression to appraisal or staff development procedures. This is unacceptable. If this is raised by your institution, please seek advice from your regional office.
Security Alert II and the Framework Agreement
Negotiators are encouraged to engage in the AUT Security Alert II campaign which was launched this week.
The aim of the Framework Agreement is to modernise pay arrangements in the sector to "improve the recruitment and retention of staff, to ensure equal pay for work of equal value, to tackle problems of low pay, to recognise and reward the contribution individuals make, and to underpin opportunities for career and organisational development". However, these objectives will fail to be met if
higher education institutions continue their widespread abuse of the use of fixed-term contracts.
New pay and grading arrangements are an excellent opportunity to tackle the current practice, in some institutions, of placing fixed-term staff on inappropriate and local grades to deny them access to the national academic career pathway. All staff, including those on fixed-term contracts, should be placed on an appropriate grade following a process of role analysis and should have clearly defined career pathways.
Although hourly-paid staff in the pre-92 sector, are not currently covered by national pay arrangements, the Framework is explicit that the implications of the Framework Agreement - as regards equal pay for work of equal value and other equalities issues - for such staff must be considered. It is therefore not acceptable to exclude such staff from new pay and grading arrangements. Establishing the parity of pay between hourly-paid staff and permanent staff shouldlogically lead to the transfer of hourly-paid staff to pro-rata
contracts - a major objective of the Security Alert II campaign.
The Framework Agreement is explicit that suitable training and development opportunities must be made available for all staff.
Again, negotiators should ensure that this extends to fixed-term staff including contract research staff and hourly-paid staff. Until new grading models and role analysis arrangements are negotiated it is important to ensure that the pay awards of 3.44% (from 1 August 2003) and 3% (from 1 August 2004) which are part of the Framework Agreement are applied to all fixed-term staff, including those that are hourly-paid.
For further details of the Security Alert II campaign go to
security alert