There is no legal definition of what constitutes a significant gap however as a reference guide, the EHRC advocates the following:

Transcription

1 Equal Pay Review

2 BACKGROUND It is unlawful for employers to pay men and women differently for the same jobs, jobs that have been rated the same under a job evaluation study, or jobs that are of equal value. All public sector organisations, including Higher Education Institutions, are required to undertake a pay review to assess whether there are any discrepancies between the pay for men and women. An equal pay review is an analysis of an organisation s pay structure in order to identify and eliminate any gaps that cannot be satisfactorily explained on objective grounds other than gender. It includes the following essential elements: Comparing the pay of men and women doing equal work and identifying any gender pay gaps, whether in basic pay or any additional payments Carrying our similar analyses for other equality areas where the institution has sufficiently robust statistical data Explaining any significant pay gaps This review presents our findings as of 31 st January 2015 (as far as the data is available) together with a comparison of the results of the 2013 review and recommendations of areas for further action of review. PROCESS: The way in which the Conservatoire s pay review was structured followed the recommendations within the Equality and Human Rights commission s (EHRC) equal pay review model, which has four steps: 1. Determining the scope of the review and collating the data required 2. Identifying where men and women (and those from other equality groups) are doing equal work 3. Comparing pay data to identify any significant pay gaps 4. Establishing the causes of any significant pay gaps and deciding whether these are free from discrimination and objectively justified, reviewing all relevant pay policies An equal pay review will usually consider three areas: work rated as equivalent, work of equal value and like work. This third area is of more relevant when the organisation does not have a single job evaluation scheme and where value judgements are made based on the jobs being the same or broadly similar. As the Conservatoire has implemented the HAY job evaluation scheme for all posts, all roles have been evaluated and assigned to a specific grade. On this basis, like work is encompassed by work of equal value and work rated as equivalent. The review therefore concentrates on comparisons of work rated as equivalent and work of equal value as defined below: 2

3 1. Work rated as equivalent comparing all jobs with the same job evaluation score 2. Work of equal value where all jobs within the same points range (grade) are compared There is no legal definition of what constitutes a significant gap however as a reference guide, the EHRC advocates the following: Pay differential (relating to sex) Less than 3% Greater than 3% but less than 5% Greater than 5% Recommended action No action Regular monitoring required Reason for difference to be investigated and appropriate action taken to close gap SCOPE OF REVIEW: As in previous years, the Conservatoire Senior Management Team took the decision not to limit the Pay Review to gender, but to extend it to incorporate other protected characteristics for which we hold relevant statistical data. In 2013 we extended our Pay Review to include Disability, Race and Age, and we have once again included data and analysis on these areas. Furthermore, for the first time we are presenting data relating to our Hourly Paid staff, who constitute a significant section of our workforce. These colleagues are generally professionals currently in practice in their chosen field, be it drama, music, production or any other of our disciplines. For these members of our staff, a teaching role may represent a minor part of what they do, and they may work with our students (or indeed staff) for a small yet significant number of hours within a year. For that reason, the way in which the data on Hourly Paid staff is presented is very different to how it is presented for our full time and pro rata staff. The Conservatoire Senior Management Team has this year been included in the review, however for the purposes of general average salary figures, they have not been included in the calculations as the small sample size would significantly affect the results. All data is from 31 st January

4 FINDINGS: Average overall salary The Conservatoire employs staff not only over a wide range of levels and salary grades, but also a variety of working practices; many staff benefit from the flexibility of part time, term time only or annualised hours contracts. Headcount Number Average FTE (Full time equivalent) salary Average actual salary All staff 2013* ,829 30,807 All staff 2015* ,272 27,591 *not including Conservatoire Senior Management Team When comparing average salaries from 2013 to the current year, it would appear that the average actual salary has significantly reduced. This apparent anomaly is due to the fact that a large number of domestic services staff were transferred from existing contracts into annualised hours contracts and therefore appear on the same pay scale as all academic and academic support colleagues. This group of staff tend to be paid at the lower end of the salary scale and when they are included, this has had an obvious and anticipated impact on the overall results, as well as an increase of 8% in the overall number of staff. (1) GENDER: The Equal Pay Review 2013 highlighted a significant reduction in the overall gender pay gap since the Pay Review undertaken in 2010, reducing the gap from 8% to 1.2%. The 2015 Pay Review unfortunately demonstrates a widening of the gap once again, albeit not to its original proportion. It is anticipated that the primary reason for the widening of the gap is due to the transfer of domestic staff, who are predominantly female, as detailed above. The size of the gap, however, falls into the category defined by the EHRC where the reason for the difference needs to be investigated. Headcount Number FTE Average Salary % difference of total average salary Female (2010) 98 n/a 26,077-8% Male (2010) 88 n/a 29,138 2% Total 186 Female (2013) , % Male (2013) ,806 10% Total 224-2,977 Female (2015) 142* , % Male (2015) 100** , % Total 242*** - 4,191 (NB: the red text denotes those grades where the differential is greater than 5% and therefore requires further exploration and possible action.) * plus 3 members of Conservatoire Senior Management Team = 145 ** plus 5 members of Conservatoire Senior Management Team = 105 *** plus 8 members of Conservatoire Senior Management Team = 250 4

5 Whilst the overall gender pay gap is of concern, there is a different picture when reviewing the data broken down by grade. In both this and the 2013 Equal Pay Review, a significant gender gap has only been evident in two grades. In the 2013 Pay Review, a gender pay gap of 6.1% was evident at Grade 5. A rationale was provided for this within the report, together with an estimation that within 2 years this gap would be significantly reduced. The 2015 data demonstrates that this is indeed the case, with the gap now sitting at just over half of one percent. The other area where the EHRC guidelines indicated the need to monitor the gender pay gap was at the level of the Conservatoire Senior Management Team. The 2015 Pay Review has unsurprisingly yielded the same results, as the small number of people at this level means that the results will ultimately be skewed in favour of the gender of whoever holds the role of Principal. It is worth noting that the second most senior level within the Conservatoire, Grade 10, is occupied almost entirely by women. The second area highlighted by the 2015 Pay Review is Grade 7, which has a gender pay gap of 5.28%. This grade represents lecturers and managers and covers six spinal pay points, ranging from 34,758-41,499. The reason for the pay gap is largely due to the significant number of females who have been appointed to both academic and professional posts. Our standard practice is to appoint on the minimum salary, therefore this has had a disproportionate effect on females in terms of numbers, due to the high numbers of females recruited. This gap is expected to close as female staff incrementally rise through the pay points to the top of the grade, but it is acknowledged that it is still important to explore if there are any other reasons for the difference to be investigated and for any appropriate action to be taken to close this gap. Overall Gender Split Average Salary (FTE) % % % Grade Female Male Total Female Male Female Male Difference % 42% 14,826 14, % % - 16, % 48% 17,533 17, % % 30% 20,478 20, % % 22% 26,338 26, % % 30% 33,148 33, % % 53% 38,425 40, % % 73% 45,579 46, % % 62% 51,491 52, % % 20% 56,903 55, % CSMT % 63% 75,553 78, % Totals (NB: the red text denotes those grades where the differential is greater than 5% and therefore requires further exploration and possible action. The green text denotes where on-going monitoring is required to ensure that no inequality exists or develops) 5

6 (2) PART TIME WORKING: Nearly one third (31.8%) of our permanent staff members work on a part time basis, an increase of nearly 5% since Of the 77 part time staff, nearly two thirds (63.6%) are female. The gender pay gap for part time female staff has increased slightly from 11% to 11.6% over the past two years due to the larger number of females employed in this capacity No of Staff Average salary (FTE) % difference from all staff average ( 31,272) Part time 77 31,272 - Full time , / 0.12% Total: 242 Part time No. of staff Average salary (FTE) % difference from part time staff average Female 49 27, / -11.6% Male 28 31, / 1.57% Full time No. of staff Average salary (FTE) % difference from full time staff average Female 93 31, % Male 72 31, % This minor increase can partially be explained by the inclusion of domestic services staff, as referred to earlier, a higher proportion of whom are female and work part time. Additionally, the second highest number of part time female staff (10) are in roles situated at Grade 3 on the salary scale. In contrast, nearly half of part time males (13) are at Grade 7. There is a gender pay gap of just over 3% for part time staff at Grade 8. However, as this refers to only two members of staff there is no cause for concern at this point, although the situation will continue to be monitored. Grade Average PT Male Average PT female % difference salary salary 1 14,855 14, / -0.2% 3 17,067 17, / 2.65% 5 25,608 26, / 3.14% 6 33,177 33, / -0.37% 7 40,616 39, / -2.78% 8 46,278 44, / -3.06% 6

7 (3) ETHNICITY: Since the Equal Pay Review of 2013, the number of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic staff has almost doubled from 5 to 9, representing 3.7% of the Conservatoire s permanent workforce. Whilst this number remains low, it is worth noting that the average salary of BAME staff is 4.44% higher than the average salary. No. of Average salary % difference from all staff (FTE) staff average White ,272 - BAME 9 32, / 4.44% (4) DISABILITY: The overall number of staff who identify as having a disability has reduced significantly since the 2013 Equal Pay Review, when 30 colleagues declared a disability. Over the last 2 years, a significant number of disabled members of staff who were on middle and senior grades have left the Conservatoire. As a result, the spread of disabled colleagues is now more concentrated in the lower and middle grades and consequently the average salary for a disabled member of staff has reduced to 29,103, which constitutes a pay gap of 6.94%. Whilst the EHRC guidelines relate to gender pay gaps only, we are committed to exploring the reason for this trend and identifying possible action. The other area of potential concern is at Grade 7. However, the gap here can be explained (an existing member of staff was promoted to a higher grade, and was appointed at the lowest point of the scale as is standard practice). This will clearly be addressed over time as the post holder rises incrementally through the pay points. Overall Split Average Salary (FTE) Grade Disabled Nondisabledisabledisabled Total % Disabled % Non- Disabled Non- % Difference % 92% 14,922 14, % % - 16, % 96% 18,573 17, % % 95% 22,092 20, % % 98% 31,458 31, % % 93% 35,454 33, % % 98% 37,608 39, % % - 46, % 95% 52,059 51, % ,569 - CSMT TOTAL

8 (5) AGE: The Equal Pay Reviews of 2010 and 2013 demonstrated that, on average, younger staff members earned significantly less than their older counterparts, and this was attributed to the fact that staff in lower age groups were more likely to be at the start of their careers and possibly either in posts within the lower grades or on the initial points of a salary scale within the grade, whereas older staff who have been in post for some time may have progressed incrementally to the top of the scale and therefore have a higher comparable salary, or be in more senior roles. Age Under 20 Age Age Age Age Age 60+ % % % % % % The 2013 Equal Pay Review identified that the salaries of staff within the age band of could vary by up to 9% when compared to colleagues on the same grade. The 2015 Review presents a more balanced range of pay across age bands and grades, although clearly there remains a likelihood of staff in higher age bands earning proportionally more than younger colleagues on the same grade, as they will potentially have been in the role longer and have had the opportunity to rise through more of the pay points on an annual basis. There is no requirement to monitor these statistics further at this time. (6) HOURLY PAID STAFF The majority of staff employed by the Conservatoire are Hourly Paid, who enjoy a wide range of working arrangements. Annual hours worked range from under 50 to 400, to meet both the needs of our students and the professional and personal lives of our Hourly Paid staff. 8

9 The composition of our Hourly Paid staff can be seen below: Gender: No. of staff Female 198 Male 211 Total 409 Disability: No. of staff Disabled 9 Not disabled 98 Undeclared 302 Total 409 Ethnicity: No. of staff White 273 BAME 10 Undeclared 126 Total 409 Age: No. of staff Under Undeclared 5 Total 409 Hourly Paid staff are paid on a variety of grades, but for the purposes of the Equal Pay Review they have been concentrated into 5 main groupings, as follows: 1. Customer Service Support Staff this group includes ushers, box office staff and client services 2. Lecturer lecturers and tutors 3. Pre Higher Education this group includes staff working within the Junior Conservatoire, for example as student assistants 4. Pre Higher Education accompanist 5. Undergraduate/Post graduate programmes accompanist It has not been possible to undertake a full comparison of earnings within this Equal Pay Review due to the range of factors involved, but an overview of the number of contracts/ hours allocated by gender within each of the five groupings is below: 9

10 Total No of Annual hours Female contracts Customer Service Support Staff Lecturer Pre Higher Education Pre Higher Education accompanist Undergraduate/Post graduate accompanist Female Total: 706 Male Customer Service Support Staff Lecturer Pre Higher Education Pre Higher Education accompanist Undergraduate/Post graduate accompanist Male Total: 887 Grand Total: 1593 Just over half of our Hourly Paid staff are males (52%), with male staff comprising 56% of the Hourly Paid contracts in the past year. We will monitor this situation to ensure that there is no gender bias in the allocation of contracts. The one area where there is a clear gender contrast is Undergraduate/ Post graduate accompanist. Only 17 contracts were awarded last year in total, 88% of which were awarded to males. Whilst this is likely to be due to who was available to take up the opportunities, this is an area that may benefit from further analysis. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION The 2015 Equal Pay Review has highlighted a number of areas which require further research to ensure that everything possible is being done to reduce any existing pay gaps. Specifically this relates to: 1. Review of the overall gender pay gap to explore if any action is required to close the pay gap 2. Review of Grade 7 to explore if any action is required to close the pay gap 3. Review of the overall pay gap for disabled staff to explore if any action is required to close the pay gap 4. Monitor the gender split of Hourly Paid contracts over the next year 5. Review the allocation of Undergraduate/ Post graduate Accompanist contracts 10

11 11