Human Resources Division Imperial College London

Transcription

1 Human Resources Division Imperial College London Level 3, Faculty Building South Kensington Campus London SW7 2AZ Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Audrey Fraser Head of HR Services 7 June 2016 To Joint Trades Unions Local Pay Representatives Dear Colleagues Without prejudice Thank you for the written response to our pay claim dated 26 May As discussed during our pay bargaining meeting held on Friday 3 June 2016, I am now writing to respond to the issues you raised in your response with a revised College offer. Inflation We have sought clarity from Cinzia Rienzo, the author of the NIESR reports and she has advised that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) used by the management side is preferable to the private rental measure as, in addition to being based on a higher sample size, it is based on the same set of rental data used by the Office for National Statistics. The author advised this is a crucial point in choice of data. Furthermore, the report author advised that they would not combine private rent sources from two different reports (as has been done in the Joint Trades Unions pay claim to produce private rent inflation from 2005 to 2014). The reason for this is that one is based on the Association for Residential Letting Agents and the Consumer Price (Housing) index whereas the other is based on the Valuation Office Agency and the generic Consumer Price Index. Selection of pay scales The pay scales provided in our letter dated 26 May 2016 were not limited to spine points 1 and 52 but included a range of spine points. At Appendix A, I have included the full data set covering all spine points. We have reviewed the percentage increase you have included for the period between 2005 and By taking the headcounts by spinal points previously supplied and calculating a weighted average of the spinal increases over this time period, we calculate this increase to be 27.9% which is broadly in line with your calculation of 28.1%. The equivalent figure for the time period 2005 to 2015 is 29.5%. 1 P a g e

2 Benchmark data Contrary to the assertion in the Joint Trade Union letter of 2 June 2015, we can confirm that the XpertHR/UCEA 2016 salary survey includes all staff regardless of contract length, and that the three London Russell Group academic averages include London Allowance (either as a result of consolidating the amount into base pay and/or quoted as included). As requested by on 3 June 2016 following our meeting, I have also gone back to the London Russell Group Institutions to request they validate the information provided. They have all confirmed that the data is correct and as explained by the member of staff you contacted at UCL, the figure supplied does not include Clinicians therefore is not a full representation of the average professorial salary at that Institution, but neither does Imperial s or the other Institutions contacted, as Local Pay Bargaining only covers staff employed on the College s local pay scales. Clinicians salaries are determined by the NHS. In our earlier letter (26 May 2016) we highlighted that Research staff salaries were below the benchmark and the data we supplied you with in March/April to inform your pay claim also included this. Finally, our responses to the issues raised above demonstrate that the data quoted in your earlier letter Times Higher Education Supplement (used for your pay claim) and the UCEA/ London Russell Group are not consistent. Equal pay The College acknowledges that there are a low number of women in some grades and is leading the Sector in initiatives to address this such as our commitment to being a family friendly Institution that includes providing our staff with free childcare vouchers, the Elsie Widdowson award, the approach taken to the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council review, etc. Though there are low numbers in some grades, the College ensures that women are in receipt of the same salaries as their male counterparts based on equal pay for equal value. As mentioned in our earlier letter, the audit is shared with the Faculties and Support Services leads as part of the annual pay relativity exercise to review roles/grades and address any findings as appropriate. The calculation of the College s equal pay audit is based on the methodology taught by UCEA to ensure consistency across the Higher Education Sector. The College accepts that if all grades are accumulated together the statistics would show there is an overall non-professorial academic pay gap of -8% due to the proportion of employed male and female Researchers, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Readers. The College is undertaking a number of initiatives to increase the number of female academics and at senior grades. However, we stand by the statement in our earlier letter, that there is not a non-professorial pay gap in relation to the College s obligations concerning the duty to ensure equal pay for work that is the same or broadly similar or equivalent as determined by job evaluation and as demonstrated in the Equal Pay Audit that was supplied. JTU Response to Offer Affordability The JTU s original pay claim noted the one-off windfall associated with the Research and Development Expenditure Credit that had driven the surplus higher. The surplus was commented on again in this latest 2 P a g e

3 response from the JTU and yet without that context being given again. The affordability of ongoing salary increases cannot be assessed on the basis of the surplus in one year, but rather Management has to weigh up all the competing demands for resource and assess these against projected financial performance. These projections were included in the data pack supplied. Increments Management s position on increments has not changed and it is firmly of the belief that they represent a real benefit to the staff receiving them. When arguments are put forward about the affordability of living in London for individual staff members, management believes it is entirely appropriate to reflect the fact that a considerable percentage of staff will be receiving increments to help meet these costs. The overall salary cost at College level is driven by many factors; as well as the cost of increments and the cost of living increase, growth in staff numbers, vacancies, promotions etc. all contribute. The cost of increments quoted is based on staff in post today and assuming they remain in post they will receive this benefit next year. Management has not stated that this combined with the cost of living represents the overall staff budget and estimates are built in for all the other factors referred to above when determining the overall budget for staff costs. THE COLLEGE S PAY OFFER With the exception of Research staff, College average salaries are above both the London and London Russell Group averages, helping College to recruit and retain the high calibre staff who deliver our mission. The College recognises the salary pressures for Research staff that are externally funded and therefore agrees to implement: Research Assistants - From 1 August 2016, point 22 will no longer be used and all current and new staff will move to/be appointed at point 24. Research Associates (PhD minimum) - From 1 August 2016, point 27 and point 28 will no longer be used and all current and new staff will move to/be appointed at point 29 The College also agrees to set-up a working group to review the use of fixed term contracts. Following our meeting College is increasing its offer to: 1.2% up to the top of Research Level B/Professional Level 3b (spine point 36) to bring this group of staff pay in line with the College s pay strategy to pay mid-to-upper quartiles salaries For staff above this level (spine points and fixed salaries), a 0.5% tapered award on salaries above spine point 36, please see Appendix B. The total cost of this revised offer is 2.96m ( 4.62m including those on external funding). We look forward to discussing the content of our letter on 13 June Yours sincerely Audrey Fraser Cc: Amy Austin Note taker (HR) 3 P a g e

4 Neil Alford Associate Provost (Academic Planning) Louise Lindsay Director of HR Tony Lawrence Director of Financial Management Jon Tucker Faculty Operating Officer, Business School Lynne Cox Director of Research Office Andrew Hardy Reward Adviser 4 P a g e

5 Appendix A Spine 2005 Salary 2015 Salary Imperial College Increase Equivalent national increase Difference 52 52,070 66, % 23.3% 4.1% 51 50,560 64, % 23.3% 4.2% 50 49,150 62, % 23.3% 4.2% 49 47,800 61, % 23.3% 4.3% 48 46,470 59, % 23.3% 4.4% 47 45,190 57, % 23.3% 4.4% 46 43,950 56, % 23.3% 4.4% 45 42,740 54, % 23.3% 4.5% 44 41,570 53, % 23.3% 4.6% 43 40,430 51, % 23.3% 4.6% 42 39,320 50, % 23.3% 4.7% 41 38,250 48, % 23.3% 4.8% 40 37,210 47, % 23.3% 4.8% 39 36,200 46, % 23.3% 4.9% 38 35,210 45, % 23.3% 4.9% 37 34,260 43, % 23.3% 5.1% 36 33,330 42, % 23.3% 5.2% 35 32,430 41, % 23.3% 5.3% 34 31,560 40, % 23.3% 5.4% 33 30,710 39, % 23.3% 5.5% 32 29,890 38, % 23.3% 5.7% 31 29,090 37, % 23.3% 5.7% 30 28,320 36, % 23.3% 5.9% 29 27,560 35, % 23.3% 6.0% 28 26,830 34, % 23.3% 6.1% 27 26,120 33, % 23.3% 6.3% 26 25,430 32, % 23.3% 6.4% 25 24,760 32, % 23.3% 6.5% 24 24,120 31, % 23.3% 6.7% 23 23,480 30, % 23.3% 6.9% 22 22,870 29, % 23.3% 7.0% 21 22,280 29, % 23.3% 7.1% 20 21,700 28, % 23.3% 7.3% 19 21,140 27, % 23.3% 7.6% 18 20,600 26, % 23.3% 7.6% 17 20,070 26, % 23.3% 7.9% 16 19,560 25, % 23.3% 8.2% 15 19,060 25, % 23.3% 8.5% 5 P a g e

6 14 18,570 24, % 23.3% 8.8% 13 18,110 24, % 23.3% 9.2% 12 17,650 23, % 23.3% 9.6% 11 17,210 22, % 23.3% 10.1% 10 16,780 22, % 23.3% 10.3% 9 16,360 21, % 23.3% 10.8% 8 15,960 21, % 23.3% 11.1% 7 15,560 20, % 23.3% 11.6% 6 15,210 20, % 23.3% 11.8% 5 14,860 20, % 23.3% 12.4% 4 14,510 19, % 23.3% 13.0% 3 14,220 19, % 23.3% 13.3% 2 13,890 19, % 23.3% 13.9% 1 13,570 18, % 23.5% 14.2% 6 P a g e

7 Appendix B Spine Headcount Pre offer Post offer Increase ,690 18, % ,060 19, % ,430 19, % ,770 20, % ,160 20, % ,550 20, % ,990 21, % ,450 21, % ,940 22, % ,420 22, % ,950 23, % ,460 23, % ,000 24, % ,530 24, % ,130 25, % ,730 26, % ,330 26, % ,970 27, % ,670 28, % ,330 28, % ,060 29, % ,800 30, % ,560 30, % ,360 31, % ,150 32, % ,970 33, % ,860 34, % ,720 35, % ,640 36, % ,580 37, % ,520 37, % ,550 39, % ,550 40, % ,620 41, % ,700 42, % ,830 43, % ,980 44, % ,150 45, % ,410 46, % ,670 48, % ,990 49, % ,310 50, % ,720 52, % ,160 53, % ,610 55, % ,140 56, % ,720 58, % ,320 59, % ,000 61, % ,680 63, % ,450 65, % ,350 66, % ,000 70, % ,000 80, % ,000 90, % , , % , , % , , % , , % , , % , , % , , % 7 P a g e