EQUAL PAY REVIEW 2012 UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transcription

1 EQUAL PAY REVIEW 2012 UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This Equal Pay Review compares the pay of men and women doing work of equal value within the University as at 31 July It excludes subsidiary companies. The review identifies and investigates where there are gender pay gaps of 5% and above, and makes recommendations to close the gap in the absence of a satisfactory explanation on grounds other than gender. A high level analysis was conducted in relation to the gender spread across the pay range for visiting lecturers. 1.2 The calculation and analysis followed that as advised by UCEA, the calculation was based on the difference between the average pay of men in the grade and the average pay of women in the same grade, as a percentage of the average pay of men in the grade. 1.3 The Review identified 2319 staff, (excluding HSV, Herts Sports Partnership, Uno and subsidiary companies) made up of 41% male and 59% female. This is based on a Pay Gap Report of all staff on substantive contracts with pay inclusive of allowances and bonuses. It excludes casual staff and visiting lecturers who claim for payment on an hourly basis. 1.4 There were 10 cases where the average female salary was 5% or more less than that of the male equivalent within the same grade, that is, reflective of a pay gap. This represents less than 0.5% of the total staff group. 1.5 The grades where a pay gap of more than 5% was identified were in the Ad Hoc range, AM6 and AM5 range. 1.6 Organisational structure and job titles reflect those as at pre Agile changes, due to the date when data was extracted. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Recruiting managers currently justify all appointments above the minimum of the scale by submission of an RF5 form to the HR business support team. In future any such appointments should be agreed with the business support team leader who will check that that they are justifiable. Any that are not should be raised with the HR Manager, Business Support so that appropriate action may be taken. Guidance should be produced for recruiting managers to advise what is and is not justifiable and when such recommendations should be made. 2.2 The framework for pay and review at the AM level leaves the University at risk of challenge. A working group is currently looking at this issue and is expected to make recommendations before the end of the current academic year. These recommendations should be adopted as appropriate. 2.3 Review the use of the Ad hoc grade to consider bringing posts where it is applied in line with the grading system of the university. 2.4 The AM6 grade, whilst useful and necessary, is not always applied appropriately. Review the use of this grade, define criteria for its use and ensure any criteria defined are applied appropriately and consistently. HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 1

2 2.5 Review individual cases where anomalies have been found (2) and correct as necessary. 2.6 Review the use of the National Minimum Wage, to consider bringing posts where it is applied in line with the grading system of the university. 2.7 The Equal Pay Review conducted in 2009 recommended that work be completed in respect of the consideration of the removal of the bar points in the UH grades. There were no cases identified within this review in respect of gaps as a result of bar point progression; however a working party is currently reviewing the use of bar points. It is recommended that this work is completed and any recommendations arising from it implemented. 2.8 Conduct further analysis of the overall pay gap and specifically the ability for women to progress within the organisation, making recommendations as appropriate. 2.9 Conduct the next Equal Pay Review in HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 2

3 EQUAL PAY REVIEW 2012 UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE The Equal Pay review considers the contractual pay, allowances and bonuses of staff with substantive contracts (excluding visiting lecturers) within the University. It compares the pay of men and women doing equal work within the University, which is defined as being on the same pay grade. Posts on grades UH1-9 are evaluated using the Equate job evaluation system to allocate grades. Posts on grades AM1-5 are benchmarked to provide grades. The combination of these methods allows for posts of equal value to be suitably and comparably graded. There are also a number of other grades applied within the university. Ad Hoc, AM6, SM (Senior Manager) grades and Board appointments are not incremental. Staff appointed to these grades are appointed on spot salaries. These grades are not formally evaluated, however criteria exists in relation to appointments within them. Additionally a number of substantive employees are paid at national minimum wage, and this is also reflected as a grade. The review identifies where there are pay gaps of 5% and above, investigates the causes of these gaps and makes recommendations to close them where they cannot be satisfactorily explained on grounds other than gender. 1.0 Scope The review: Covers all employees with substantive contracts within the University but excludes subsidiary companies, where salaries are aligned to external markets. Excludes visiting lecturers (VLs) and casual staff who claim for payment on an hourly, ad hoc, basis. A high level analysis only of VLs is included. Makes comparisons according to defined staff groups, that is the total Academic group, the Academic staff group excluding professors, the Professorial group and the total Professional staff group. 2.0 Methodology Data was extracted from the HR system as at 31 July This data was analysed according to the identified occupational groupings in order to identify pay gaps of 5% or more within salary grades. The grades identified were UH01-09, AM1-6, NMW (national minimum wage), Ad hoc, Board appointments and Senior Manager (SM). Analysis was carried out using electronic information in relation to staff as recorded in the HR system and hard copy staff files. The calculation and analysis followed that as advised by UCEA, where M = average pay of men in the grade, F = average pay of women in the grade, the calculation was as follows: ((M F) divided by M)%. The causes of any significant gaps were identified and recommendations of action have been documented. HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 3

4 3.0 Data The following variables are contained in the dataset: 1. Gender 2. Job Grade 3. Working Hours 4. Total earnings (contractual, allowances and bonuses) 5. Working patterns (full or part-time) In the case of points 3 and 5 total pay plus allowances was prorated up to full time equivalent to enable like for like comparison. 4.0 Analysis and Results 4.1. Gender The following table shows the overall pay gap according to occupational groupings. Table 1 overall pay gap by staff group Occupational group Female Male Total pay gap % Academics excluding professor 44, , , Professors 66, , , Academic Total 44, , , Professional 27, , , The review identified 2319 staff, made up of 940 (41%) male and 1379 (59%) female. The review showed men on an average salary of 41,040 and women on an average salary of 35,044 representing a total overall gap of 14.61%. The University s total pay gap is 5.01% above the national average pay gap which currently stands at 9.6% (Office of National Statistics Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2012). The removal of board appointments (of which there are four within the SM grade), from the overall salary average reduces the overall pay gap across the university from 14.6% to 13.4%. The following chart shows the spread of men and women across the university according to grade. The grades identified as having a pay gap of 5% or more are Ad Hoc, AM6 and AM % of staff overall are within these grades. HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 4

5 Chart 1 gender spread by grade 95% of women employed in professional roles are within grades UH1 8, as compared to 88% of men in professional roles. 70% of women in academic roles are within grades UH1 8, as compared to 59% of men. The overall pay gap of 14.61% is due to a number of factors. Firstly it is important to point out that this does not reflect an equal pay issue, as by its nature, this analysis takes in the whole range of work and grades within the university and so is not necessarily comparing like with like as an equal pay review should. The gap may reflect the fact that a higher proportion of women are located in grades UH1 8. It may also reflect the fact that a higher proportion of women in the university are employed in professional posts, which currently have bar points within them. This may indicate a progression/advancement issue for women rather than an equal pay issue. There were 10 cases where the average female salary was 5% or more less than that of the male equivalent within the same grade. Upon investigation the following reasons for this were identified: 3 cases identified in the AM6 grade due to jobs not being equal; 3 cases identified in the SM grade due to jobs not being equal; 2 cases identified in the Ad hoc grade where salary is subject to the constraints of external funding; 1 case identified in the Ad hoc grade where salary is subject to external market forces; 1 case identified in the Ad hoc grade where appointment appears to be in wrong grade. 5 cases were identified where a negative pay gap existed in favour of women. Of these; 1 case identified in the AM6 grade due to external market forces; 2 cases identified in the AM6 grade due to jobs not being equal; 1 case identified in the SM grade due to jobs not being equal; 1 case identified in the AM5 grade where the appointment appears to be in the wrong grade. HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 5

6 4.1.0 Analysis by occupational grouping Professional staff The following table shows the analysis of the Professional staff group by grade. Table 2 professional staff group by grade Female Male Total Grade Pay gap salary % ADHO 12, , , % AM1 58, , , % AM2 63, , , % AM3 67, ,688 2 nil AM4 71, ,077 1 nil AM5 76, , , % AM06 81, , , % SM Detail removed to ensure confidentiality 1.83% Board appointments Detail removed to ensure confidentiality nil NMW 11, , , % UH01 14, , , % UH02 15, , , % UH03 17, , , % UH04 20, , , % UH05 24, , , % UH06 28, , , % UH07 34, , , % UH08 41, , , % UH09 51, , , % Overall gap 27, , , % A pay gap of 5% or more has been identified within the Ad Hoc grade, representative of men earning more than women. There is a negative pay gap (women earning on average more than men) in the AM6 grade. Ad Hoc A pay gap of 46.69% is indicated in the Ad hoc range. However it is important to note that the Ad hoc salary range is not a grade in the true sense, rather it is a range of salary points pitched across the full range of salary on offer by the university, from UH01, to AM6. A salary offered on the Ad hoc range will be determined by the recruiting manager and will take account of market forces and the post being recruited to. It will be applied where it is felt the agreed grades do not offer the flexibility required, are not comparable with the appropriate market, for example the NHS, and/or recruitment difficulties have been experienced. There is therefore a vast difference in the range of salaries offered on this grade. It is also clear from the evidence that the job titles vary accordingly and are not comparable. HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 6

7 Ad hoc salaries are spot salaries and not subject to annual nationally negotiated pay awards. There are two cases in this grade; one appears to be an incorrect appointment to the grade, and the other due to external market forces. AM06 A pay gap of -6.76% is indicated in the AM06 grade, in favour of women. The AM6 grade is made up of spot salaries as in the Ad hoc range. It is usually applied where market forces require a salary above the UH pay spine. It is not clear that the grade is being used appropriately in the context within which it was set up. Of the two cases within this grade, both are due to inequality of the role between the male and female comparators, in favour of women Academic staff A pay gap of 5.81% was identified overall in the academic staff group. The specific grades where a gap of 5% or more were identified were in the Ad hoc, AM6 and AM5 grades. Table 3 Total Academic staff group by grade Female Male Total Grade Pay gap % ADHO 18, , , AM1 58, , , AM2 61, , , AM3 67, , , AM4 70, , , AM5 80, , , AM06 76, , , SM Detail removed to protect confidentiality Board appointments Detail removed to protect confidentiality nil UH03 16, ,376 1 NIL UH04 20, , , UH05 24, , , UH06 28, , , UH07 33, , , UH08 43, , , UH09 52, , , Overall gap 44, , , The detail is listed below and broken down into professorial roles and non-professorial roles, apart from the senior manager grade/board appointments, which is shown as a whole group. It HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 7

8 is not helpful when analysing the data to split this group in the same way due to the nature of the roles of senior managers within the university. Academic excluding professors Table 4 Academic staff group excluding professors Female Male Total Grade % pay gap ADHO 18, , , % AM1 58, , , % AM2 61, , , % AM3 68, , , % AM4 72, , , % AM5 80, , , % AM06 71, , , % UH03 16, ,376 1 Nil UH04 20, , , % UH05 24, , , % UH06 28, , , % UH07 33, , , % UH08 43, , , % UH09 52, , , % Overall gap 44, , , % There are pay gaps of 5% or more in the AM6, AM5 and Ad hoc grades in the Academic excluding professors group. Ad Hoc Similarly to the professional group on Ad hoc salaries, this range is made up of spot salaries. It is applied where it is felt the agreed grades do not offer the flexibility required, and are not comparable with the appropriate market, for example the NHS. Academic appointments on this grade are made in particular for Knowledge Transfer partnerships, where salary is determined by the partner organisation rather than pay scales as offered by the university. They are also offered to researchers working on externally funded projects where salary offered is determined by funding constraints and availability from the funding body. The pay gap for academic non-professorial staff on Ad Hoc salaries is 41.59%. Of the 3 cases in this group, 1 is due to external market forces and two due to project funding. AM06 As previously explained, the AM6 grade is made up of spot salaries. It is usually applied where market forces require a salary level above the UH pay spine. Additionally all appointments to Head of School (now Dean) are now made within the AM6 grade, and these appointments also HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 8

9 attract performance related pay (up to 8%) based on both corporate and individual performance, as well as an individual review of base pay. The pay gap for Academic, non professorial employees on the AM6 grade is 16.01%. Of the three cases in this grade, all three are due to inequality of role. 1 of the men in the group had a protected salary at the time the data was drawn, which also impacts upon the pay gap. AM5 The pay gap for the academic non professorial staff group on AM5 grade is % showing an overall average in favour of women in this group. There appears to be a disparity in that one Head of School is within this group whereas all other Head of School appointments are within the AM6 and AM4 grades. It is suggested that this Head has been appointed to the wrong grade; by resolving this issue there is no longer a pay gap. Professors The pay gap for professors overall is 2.88% broken down as below. Table 5 professors by grade Female Male Total Grade % pay gap ADHO 69, ,484 3 nil AM1 58, , , % AM2 61, , , % AM3 65, , , % AM4 69, , , % AM5 76, ,577 8 nil AM06 91, , , % UH08 42, ,883 1 nil UH09 54, ,283 2 nil Overall gap 64, , , % There is a pay gap of 5% or more in the AM6 grade of the professorial staff group. AM06 As explained previously, the AM6 grade is made up of spot salaries. Where applied to professorial appointments it will take account of market forces, experience, professional standing and reputation. Heads of School (pre Agile) appointed on this grade receive performance related pay of up to 8% plus individually agreed annual pay awards. HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 9

10 The pay gap for professors on the AM6 grade is %, showing an overall pay gap in favour of women in this range. The one case in this group is due to external market forces upon appointment salary according to gender across Strategic Business Units The equal pay review conducted in 2009 recommended an analysis by strategic business unit. The following chart shows the average salary of men and women within the SBUs and across the university. Chart 2 average salary by SBU It should be noted that average salary for Heads of School is shown at the faculty level and reflected within the Central faculty management unit. Additionally the OVC management unit comprises a number of smaller units, including the Dean of Students office, which reflects on the overall average salary. This data stands as at 31 July 2012, that is before changes were made to the university structure as a result of the Agile programme Visiting lecturers A high level analysis of visiting lecturers has been conducted. The chart below shows the spread by salary levels and gender. HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 10

11 Chart 3 visiting lecturers by salary band Visiting lecturers are not appointed in the same way as other substantive staff and are paid according to hours worked. Their hourly rate varies according to the category of course that is being taught and the range of duties that they undertake. The analysis shows a higher proportion of men in the an hour range, however interestingly women are equally, if not more highly, represented in all other ranges. The proportion of women to men in this group is broadly representative of the male/female split across the whole university; 56% of all visiting lecturers are female and 44% are male. 5.0 Recommendations Whilst no gender pay gap has been identified that cannot be justified, there are a number of recommendations that will, if implemented, impact upon the overall pay gap: Recruiting managers currently justify all appointments above the minimum of the scale by submission of an RF5 form to the HR business support team. In future any such appointments should be agreed with the business support team leader who will check that that they are justifiable. Any that are not will be raised with HR Manager, Business Support. Guidance should be produced for recruiting managers to advise what is and is not justifiable and when such recommendations should be made. The framework for pay and review at the AM level leaves the University at risk of challenge. A working group is currently looking at this issue and is expected to make recommendations before the end of the current academic year. Review the use of Ad hoc and AM6 grades to define criteria for use and to ensure this is applied appropriately and consistently. Review individual cases where anomalies have been found (2) and correct where necessary. Review the use of the national minimum wage to consider bringing posts where it is applied in line with the grading system of the university. HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 11

12 The Equal Pay Review conducted in 2009 recommended that work be completed in respect of the consideration of the removal of the bar points in the UH grades. There were no cases identified within this review in respect of gaps as a result of bar point progression in this review; however a working party is currently reviewing the use of bar points. It is recommended that this work is completed. Conduct further analysis of the overall pay gap and specifically the ability for women to progress within the organisation, making recommendations as appropriate. The next Equal Pay Review to be conducted in References and Documents Equal Opportunities Commission website University of Hertfordshire Equal Pay Report (MO2009) UCEA Equal Pay Workshop - Workbook by Ann Cummins University of Sunderland Equal Pay Report 2011 HR/HR policy and T&Cs/Equal Pay/Equal Pay Review 2012/ts.mo Page 12