Wash Up of Benchmark Jobs
4 Pages
English

Wash Up of Benchmark Jobs

-

Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

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 ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 11
Language English
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