Wash Up of Benchmark Jobs

Des

Description

SAUT thFramework Implementation Report: 6 December 2005 The Framework Implementation process is moving into its crucial stages, both on the Job Evaluation front and the design of new pay structures. Benchmark Jobs The Hay scoring of the Benchmark Jobs was completed satisfactorily, giving an overview of the rank order of a selection of jobs from across all categories of University staff. Given that about 120 jobs were scored out of 3000+ posts across the University, this does not give a definitive picture of Strathclyde job rankings, and so confidentiality of the outcome of this exercise to the Partnership Group has been maintained to avoid misinterpretation of the data. Job Families It has been agreed that there will be the following Job Families • Operational – generally staff represented by the TGWU • Technical – Staff represented by AMICUS • Administrative and Professional Services – current secretarial/clerical staff represented by UNISON through to ALC and other Academic Related Staff represented by AUT For Academic, Research and Other Related Staff employed in teaching/teaching support, Management had been tentatively accepting that there would be one Academic Job Family covering all these roles, a position that the SAUT Committee believes is the most logical. However, the University has recently realized the implications of this for the status of Research and Other Related Staff within the University and has backtracked to ...

Informations

• Publié par: Naphang
• Nombre de lectures: 11
• Langue: English

Extrait

1

SAUT

Framework Implementation Report: 6

th

December 2005

The Framework Implementation process is moving into its crucial stages, both on

the Job Evaluation front and the design of new pay structures.

Benchmark Jobs

The Hay scoring of the Benchmark Jobs was completed satisfactorily, giving an

overview of the rank order of a selection of jobs from across all categories of

University staff.

Given that about 120 jobs were scored out of 3000+ posts across

the University, this does not give a definitive picture of Strathclyde job rankings,

and so confidentiality of the outcome of this exercise to the Partnership Group has

been maintained to avoid misinterpretation of the data.

Job Families

It has been agreed that there will be the following Job Families

•

Operational – generally staff represented by the TGWU

•

Technical – Staff represented by AMICUS

•

Administrative and

Professional Services – current secretarial/clerical staff

represented by UNISON through to ALC and other Academic Related Staff

represented by AUT

For Academic, Research and Other Related Staff employed in teaching/teaching

support, Management had been tentatively accepting that there would be one

Academic Job Family covering all these roles, a position that the SAUT Committee

believes is the most logical.

However, the University has recently realized the

implications of this for the status of Research and Other Related Staff within the

University and has backtracked to a position where separate Research and

Teaching Support Job Families are

being proposed, essentially maintaining the

stautus quo. A separate paper will be tabled discussion the pros and cons of these

two positions.

Currently, we have agreed to proceed on the basis of the status quo, with the

University agreeing that a recommendation go to Staff Committee that a University

wide debate on this issue be opened up with a view to the University deciding the

most appropriate Job Family structure before August 2006.

New Grade Structure and Job Family Level Descriptors

The outcome of the benchmarking exercise informed the Partnership discussions

on possible grading structures for the University.

The Partnership Group reached

tentative agreement on the number of grades in each of the Job Families to allow

the drafting of Job Family Level Descriptors (JFLDs) to take place (NB: This is local

terminology for what are better known nationally as “Role Profiles” –as in “the

nationally developed Role Profiles for Academic Staff”.

The Academic/Academic

Support JFLDs are based on the national Role profiles.)

The draft JFLDs were put out to a brief University wide consultation in late October,

and a large number of comments were received from across the University.

Much

of November was spent amending and hopefully improving the JFLDs.

2

The JFLDs have now been scored by Hay and the results were carefully

scrutinized by a Partnership Panel to ensure consistent and acceptable results

within the Strathclyde context. In the Academic and Academic related areas, the

results of this were entirely consistent with AUT’s national expectations, confirming

our working understanding with the University that the new grade structures would

reflect that in “Model C” of the Framework Agreement, that is 5 Grades applying to

Academic/Academic Related Staff plus a Reader/Reader Equivalent grade to

reflect this “local” arrangement.

Pay Structure Design

After much prompting from the Campus unions, the University finally moved

forward on pay modelling and presented the Partnership Group with “Initial

Thoughts on a Possible Pay Structure”, in order to allow an initial costing of

Implementation to be made and allow us to reach agreement on proceeding to the

Job Matching process (see below).

At this stage it has been agreed that these

tentative proposals remain confidential to the Partnership Group. These proposals

are not completely in line with the requirements of the MOU, but SAUT and

National Office analysis agreed that it was not a bad start and we should be able to

negotiate with management to bring the proposals into line with the MOU.

Management’s concern is with cost implications.

The TUs position is that the

Framework Implementation must proceed in accordance with the National

Agreement and be funded appropriately. However, the University’s initial costings

of its proposals are well within the 3-5% of the pay bill that has been the anticipated

cost since the Framework Agreement was concluded.

SAUT will keep the membership fully informed if difficulties arise in seeking

agreement on Pay Structures that comply with the MOU.

The final agreement

on the Pay Structures will be subject to scrutiny and approval from

AUT

National Office and a local ballot of the membership

.

The Matching Process

With the Benchmarking process complete and JFLDs agreed and scored, we are

now commencing on the Job Matching Process which has been agreed at the

Partnership Group.

1. On the basis of current grade, each post is allocated a Provisional Match to

a JFLD. Ideally, we would have pay scales agreed, so that staff could

consider the precise pay implications of this Provisional Match.

However,

the University will not move on this until they have a firm idea of the

outcome of the Job matching. Therefore, to move forward,

the Campus TUs

have agreed the following statement on pay expectations with management,

which is included in the paperwork to be distributed to all staff:

At this stage, it is not possible to confirm the salary scale which will apply to

the level to which you have been provisionally matched, since full details of

the University’s new Pay Structures, designed against the nationally agreed

Pay Spine, are still being negotiated with the Campus Unions.

However,

work on the pay structure design is proceeding on the basis that, where the

3

provisional matching is agreed, there will be no detriment to a postholder’s

current pay progression expectations:-

•

postholders will transfer onto the new pay spine at the spinal point

that is at least equal to or immediately above the salary point

which they are currently on.

•

progression through the new grade will be broadly similar to

postholders’ existing progression route, with the top point on their

new scale being no less than the top point on their current scale.

2. Heads of

Department (or Line managers if more appropriate) will consider

this provisional

grading with each individual member of staff and this could

result in

(a) agreement on the Provisional Match: the agreement would be

reported to the HR Team, with brief notes, referring to the individuals

duties that reflect the JFLD, justifying the match; or

(b) agreement on an alternative match (higher or lower): this proposed

alternative match would be reported to the HR Team with a Job Profile to

allow this alternative to be considered by a Matching Panel; or

(c) failure to agree: a Job Profile would be returned to allow a Matching

Panel to consider the appropriate match to a JFLD.

If under (b) or (c), the Job Matching Panel could not agree a matching, then

a full job description would be required to be scored by the Hay Job

Evaluation process.

3. There will be an appeal procedure –yet to be agreed, but it will be based on

a full Hay Evaluation of the job.

For Academic staff

, there are JFLDs available at each level: Teaching and

Research, Teaching and Scholarship , and Research.

While all Academic Staff will

be Provisionally Matched to the T&R JFLD, one of the others may be used if it is

seen to be more appropriate to an individuals current role.

In matching to a

Teaching and Scholarship or to a Research Level Descriptor, a member of

Academic Staff is NOT being designated as “teaching only” or “research

only”.

Rather, it is simply a reflection of the current role being undertaken

which may change over time.

Research Staff and Teaching Staff on Other Related Contracts

will be

Provisionally Matched to the Research JFLDs and the Teaching and Scholarship

JFLD (or occasionally a APS JFLD) respectively. If any such staff believes that

they are more appropriately matched to a Teaching and Research Level

Descriptor, then this should be discussed with the line manager/Head of

Department with a view to making a case for this to the Matching Panel. If a

Teaching and Research Level Descriptor is accepted as providing the “best fit”,

then the member of staff will be transferred to the appropriate grade of Academic

Staff, subject to confirmation that any appropriate promotion criteria have been met

and a successful

Ordinance 16 interview, if required, where the expectation will be

for a successful outcome since the matching process will have shown that

member of staff has already been teaching and researching at an appropriate level.

This process has now begun for ALC and Other Related Staff not reviewed by

Faculty Panels.

Other groups of staff will follow in due course.

4

One issue that will require careful negotiation during pay structure design is

the demise of ALC /Other Related Grade 4, the grade that currently overlaps

Grades 3 and 5.

Benchmarking consistently showed Grade 4 jobs closer to

Grade 3 jobs than to Grade 5 jobs, so both Grade 3 and Grade 4 have been

provisionally Matched to the same level (APS Level 6). Grade 4 postholders

must be aware of this and be prepared to argue, if the case can be made, that

they should be matched higher.

Even where this is not possible, pay

structure design, possibly via interim arrangements, will ensure that current

pay expectations of all Grade 4 staff will be protected.

Red circling will occur where an individual is matched to a grade lower than the

Provisional Matching.

This possibility is part of the National Agreement and must

be understood and accepted.

When this occurs, the National Agreement requires

that steps are taken if possible to expand the jobs of such individuals or find

alternative roles to remove the red circle, while current pay is protected for up to 4

years if required.

Local details of these arrangements are still to be negotiated.

Matching Panels

Matching Panels for all staff other than those currently reviewed by Faculty Panels

will consist of 2 TU reps, 2 appropriate members of the wider ,University staff and 1

member of Personnel Office Staff. It has also been agreed that for these staff the

Review processes will operate for all non-promotion issues (accelerated

increments, discretionary points, etc), but that promotion issues will be subsumed

into the Job Matching Process.

However, for staff normally reviewed by Faculty Panels, the University is

currently arguing that Faculty Panels act as the Matching Panels, with the

University Panel maintaining the final overall judgement on the process.

They are conceding that SAUT/EIS can have representation on these Panels

for this year.

There are various difficulties with this position

•

Review is about performance whereas Job Matching is not and the

two issues must not be mixed up

•

Review Panels normally operate with a fixed number of available

promotions, and this is not appropriate in a Job Matching process

•

Matching Panel Members need to be trained and the size of Faculty

Review Panels would make this a large task

•

It is likely that there will be more cases to be matched than would

normally come in front of Review Panels for promotion, requiring

meetings running over a number of days

This issue is the subject of a meeting between SAUT/EIS and the Director of

Personnel on Wednesday 7

th

December to seek agreement on an appropriate

Matching Panels for these staff and the appropriate role for the University

Panel (if any) in the process.

SAUT

6

th

December 2005