The Association of University Teachers is clear that the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 16th March 2004 does not give University employers carte blanche to ignore existing pay expectations and simply set aside pay awards and pay scales that have been negotiated and agreed nationally in good faith in the process of undertaking an institution wide job evaluation/role analysis.
For the most populated existing staff grades a new grading system that leaves the majority of staff worse off, following transfer to the new pay spine, would breach the Memorandum of Understanding. The Memorandum of Understanding makes it clear that:
"The AUT and UCEA agree that the proposed Framework for the modernisation of pay structures should provide a platform for the long term improvement of salaries across higher education to address the problem of historical decline in the relative value or earnings."
While the particular grading structure to be adopted at Goldsmiths may not follow, in every particular, the AUT commended model it must, if it is to satisfy the Memorandum of Understanding, ensure that pay, under whatever detailed grading system is adopted:
The AUT believes that the minima for academic and academic related staff should be set no lower than spine point 27 . It commends a five grade structure for academic and academic-related staff. The College may want a system with more or fewer grades but GAUT believes that it is everyone's best interests to establish that the majority of staff, who are currently classified as Ac1/2 and grades 6/7, will be moved to a grade with a minima set at or above spine point 27 and a contribution threshold set at 'at least spine point 32' on the 51 point national pay spine. Should the College propose a grading system that raised the contribution threshold for the majority of post holders, whose posts are classified Ac1/2 and grades 6/7 (RA1B/RA1A and ALC & OR 1/2), it can be confident that GAUT would have no objection.
GAUT's formula for identifying mutually acceptable parameters for the payment of the majority of staff whose posts are classified as Ac3 and grade 8 (this includes Lecturers B posts classified as RII and ALC & OR3) builds on the example given above. The majority of holders of existing posts should have a reasonable expectation that whatever grading structure is adopted the minima (for Ac3 and grade 8 staff) will be set at spine point 37 (and no lower than spine point 36), and the contribution threshold set no lower than spine point 43, with contribution points that go up to spine point 46 or 47.
For Ac 4 and grade 9 (this includes Senior Lecturers, RIII and ALC & OR5) the majority of existing postholders should have a reasonable expectation that whatever grading structure is adopted the minima will be set at spine point 45 (and under no circumstances lower than spine point 44) with the contribution threshold set no lower than spine point 49.
For the majority of Ac5 and grade 10 staff (this includes professors and the most senior academic related staff) there should be a reasonable expectation that whatever grading structure is adopted the minima will be set at spine point 50.
The agreement made in March 2004 was possible because both the AUT and UCEA accepted that:
Both goals can be achieved providing there is a shared understanding that the agreement between UCEA and the AUT was about both (i) improving pay in general and (ii) ensuring that inequities in pay would be rigorously addressed. It is unlikely that a true partnership can be sustained if one or both of these requirements has not met.
ER/161104/GAUT