Human Resources Division Imperial College London Level 3, Faculty Building South Kensington Campus London SW7 2AZ Tel: +44 (0)207 594 4457 Fax: +44 (0) 207 594 8609 audrey.fraser@imperial.ac.uk www.imperial.ac.uk 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 2016. 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 2014. 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
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 email 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
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 37 52 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 2016. Yours sincerely Audrey Fraser Cc: Amy Austin Note taker (HR) 3 P a g e
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
Appendix A Spine 2005 Salary 2015 Salary Imperial College Increase 2005-2015 Equivalent national increase 2005-2015 Difference 52 52,070 66,350 27.4% 23.3% 4.1% 51 50,560 64,450 27.5% 23.3% 4.2% 50 49,150 62,680 27.5% 23.3% 4.2% 49 47,800 61,000 27.6% 23.3% 4.3% 48 46,470 59,320 27.7% 23.3% 4.4% 47 45,190 57,720 27.7% 23.3% 4.4% 46 43,950 56,140 27.7% 23.3% 4.4% 45 42,740 54,610 27.8% 23.3% 4.5% 44 41,570 53,160 27.9% 23.3% 4.6% 43 40,430 51,720 27.9% 23.3% 4.6% 42 39,320 50,310 28.0% 23.3% 4.7% 41 38,250 48,990 28.1% 23.3% 4.8% 40 37,210 47,670 28.1% 23.3% 4.8% 39 36,200 46,410 28.2% 23.3% 4.9% 38 35,210 45,150 28.2% 23.3% 4.9% 37 34,260 43,980 28.4% 23.3% 5.1% 36 33,330 42,830 28.5% 23.3% 5.2% 35 32,430 41,700 28.6% 23.3% 5.3% 34 31,560 40,620 28.7% 23.3% 5.4% 33 30,710 39,550 28.8% 23.3% 5.5% 32 29,890 38,550 29.0% 23.3% 5.7% 31 29,090 37,520 29.0% 23.3% 5.7% 30 28,320 36,580 29.2% 23.3% 5.9% 29 27,560 35,640 29.3% 23.3% 6.0% 28 26,830 34,720 29.4% 23.3% 6.1% 27 26,120 33,860 29.6% 23.3% 6.3% 26 25,430 32,970 29.7% 23.3% 6.4% 25 24,760 32,150 29.8% 23.3% 6.5% 24 24,120 31,360 30.0% 23.3% 6.7% 23 23,480 30,560 30.2% 23.3% 6.9% 22 22,870 29,800 30.3% 23.3% 7.0% 21 22,280 29,060 30.4% 23.3% 7.1% 20 21,700 28,330 30.6% 23.3% 7.3% 19 21,140 27,670 30.9% 23.3% 7.6% 18 20,600 26,970 30.9% 23.3% 7.6% 17 20,070 26,330 31.2% 23.3% 7.9% 16 19,560 25,730 31.5% 23.3% 8.2% 15 19,060 25,130 31.8% 23.3% 8.5% 5 P a g e
14 18,570 24,530 32.1% 23.3% 8.8% 13 18,110 24,000 32.5% 23.3% 9.2% 12 17,650 23,460 32.9% 23.3% 9.6% 11 17,210 22,950 33.4% 23.3% 10.1% 10 16,780 22,420 33.6% 23.3% 10.3% 9 16,360 21,940 34.1% 23.3% 10.8% 8 15,960 21,450 34.4% 23.3% 11.1% 7 15,560 20,990 34.9% 23.3% 11.6% 6 15,210 20,550 35.1% 23.3% 11.8% 5 14,860 20,160 35.7% 23.3% 12.4% 4 14,510 19,770 36.3% 23.3% 13.0% 3 14,220 19,430 36.6% 23.3% 13.3% 2 13,890 19,060 37.2% 23.3% 13.9% 1 13,570 18,690 37.7% 23.5% 14.2% 6 P a g e
Appendix B Spine Headcount Pre offer Post offer Increase 1 29 18,690 18,914 1.20% 2 114 19,060 19,289 1.20% 3 136 19,430 19,663 1.20% 4 0 19,770 20,007 1.20% 5 31 20,160 20,402 1.20% 6 12 20,550 20,797 1.20% 7 5 20,990 21,242 1.20% 8 5 21,450 21,707 1.20% 9 5 21,940 22,203 1.20% 10 4 22,420 22,689 1.20% 11 29 22,950 23,225 1.20% 12 2 23,460 23,742 1.20% 13 30 24,000 24,288 1.20% 14 24 24,530 24,824 1.20% 15 24 25,130 25,432 1.20% 16 68 25,730 26,039 1.20% 17 61 26,330 26,646 1.20% 18 57 26,970 27,294 1.20% 19 54 27,670 28,002 1.20% 20 56 28,330 28,670 1.20% 21 88 29,060 29,409 1.20% 22 171 29,800 30,158 1.20% 23 152 30,560 30,927 1.20% 24 172 31,360 31,736 1.20% 25 107 32,150 32,536 1.20% 26 366 32,970 33,366 1.20% 27 393 33,860 34,266 1.20% 28 344 34,720 35,137 1.20% 29 368 35,640 36,068 1.20% 30 269 36,580 37,019 1.20% 31 239 37,520 37,970 1.20% 32 221 38,550 39,013 1.20% 33 176 39,550 40,025 1.20% 34 173 40,620 41,107 1.20% 35 152 41,700 42,200 1.20% 36 441 42,830 43,344 1.20% 37 144 43,980 44,500 1.18% 38 121 45,150 45,680 1.17% 39 122 46,410 46,950 1.16% 40 75 47,670 48,210 1.13% 41 88 48,990 49,540 1.12% 42 101 50,310 50,870 1.11% 43 162 51,720 52,280 1.08% 44 261 53,160 53,730 1.07% 45 96 54,610 55,190 1.06% 46 73 56,140 56,730 1.05% 47 85 57,720 58,310 1.02% 48 22 59,320 59,920 1.01% 49 90 61,000 61,610 1.00% 50 31 62,680 63,300 0.99% 51 19 64,450 65,080 0.98% 52 16 66,350 66,990 0.96% 268 70,000 70,650 0.93% 243 80,000 80,700 0.88% 167 90,000 90,750 0.83% 113 100,000 100,800 0.80% 81 110,000 110,850 0.77% 46 120,000 120,900 0.75% 32 130,000 130,950 0.73% 24 140,000 141,000 0.71% 17 150,000 151,050 0.70% 19 160,000 161,100 0.69% 7 P a g e