University of Aberdeen
Proposed Grade Structure and Related Agreements
1. Proposed Grade Structure
A meeting was held with representatives of the recognised campus trade unions on Thursday 13 April 2006 to consider a possible grade structure for use at Aberdeen. Following consideration of a number of issues that were highlighted the trade union representatives proposed a number of amendments to the original structure that had been presented at the meeting. It was accepted that the proposed changes would have to be modelled using the Link Pay Modeller before they could be confirmed. The original proposal and the proposed revision are shown in the Appendix 1 of this document.
The revisions proposed after consultation with the representatives of the recognised campus trade unions can be summarised as follows–
1.1. The first spinal point should be deleted and the grade structure should start at spinal point 2.
1.2. Grades 1 and 2 should be merged to form a new Grade 1 starting at spinal point 2
1.3. Spinal point 5 should be a grade point rather than a discretionary point in the new Grade 1.
1.4. The remaining Grades should be renumbered giving a grade structure comprising 9 Grades rather than 10.
1.5. Spinal point 16 should be a grade point rather than a discretionary point in the new Grade 3.
1.6. The first Academic and related grade should start at spinal point 24. This new grade, Grade 5, will be equivalent to Level 1 of the National Academic Role Profiles (NARP).
1.7. Spinal point 36 should be included as a grade point rather than a discretionary point in the new Grade 6. This is in accordance with the agreement, in principle, reached with the trade unions earlier in the implementation.
1.8. A recommendation should be made to the UMG that the University adopts a single career grade for experienced lecturing staff. This career grade should be the new Grade 7, equivalent to NARP Level 3, which has a starting salary of £33,101.
1.9. Spinal point 43 should be included as a grade point rather than a discretionary point in the new Grade 7. This is in accordance with the agreement reached, in principle, with the trade unions earlier in the implementation.
1.10. The new Grade 8, equivalent to NARP Level 4, should be the career grade for Senior Lecturers.
1.11. The spinal column should be extended by three spinal points 52 (£51,572), 53 (£53,118) and 54 (£54,712) to allow for more flexibility in the discretionary levels at the top of the Senior Lecturer scale and to introduce new points that could be used in Grade 9.
1.12. Grade 9 will have a minimum level of spinal point 50 and this will be the professorial minimum. Salaries at Grade 9 may initially be on one of the spinal points 50 to 54. This scale will not be an incremental scale and individuals will either be appointed to a spot salary equal to one of the spinal points or to a personal salary determined in accordance with current appointment procedures.
2. Assimilation and Pay Protection
These arrangements were previously considered by the Steering Group at its meeting on 14 November 2005 and it was agreed that they should be revisited once the proposed grade structure had been developed. The arrangements for green circled staff have been amended to remove the phasing of the increases and it is also proposed that red circled staff should receive any nationally agreed cost of living increases that are awarded during the pay protection period.
3. Assimilation of Individual Staff to New Pay Structure
Assimilation will depend on how an individual’s current basic salary (current pay)* relates to the pay range for the grade to which their present post has been matched following the application of the agreed job evaluation process.
*Current Pay should exclude any attraction or retention premium that may be applicable at the time of assimilation.
3.1. Where the current pay matches a spinal point on the grade:
3.1.1. The individual will be paid at the point on the new pay spine equal to their current pay (i.e. no increase in salary) and
3.1.2. The individual’s grade will be confirmed.
3.2. Where the current pay is lower than the first spinal point on the grade:
3.2.1. The individual will be paid at the point on the new pay spine equal to the minimum of the grade to which the job has been matched.
3.3. Where current pay is higher than the maximum spinal point on the grade:
3.3.1. By agreement between the individual and management, the responsibilities of the post will be increased such that (following re-evaluation of the post) the grading for the post is increased; or
3.3.2. By agreement between the individual and management, the individual moves to a post at a higher grade if an appropriate one becomes available, and in the interim is offered a range of training and development opportunities to maximise his/her chances of an agreed move to a post at a higher grade, or
3.3.3. The individual continues at their current pay level, on a protected basis (as detailed below), for a period of up to four years; after which his/her pay will be reduced to highest salary point below the contribution threshold (previously referred to as the discretionary threshold) on the appropriate grade for the post as determined following job evaluation.
3.4. Where the current pay falls within the grade but does not match a spinal point:
3.4.1. The individual will be paid at first spinal point on the new pay spine above the individual’s current pay level. and
3.4.2. The individual’s grade will be confirmed.
4. Normal Incremental Progression
The Framework Agreement aims to ensure equality and harmonisation in institutional pay and grading structures. It is therefore recommended that a standard incremental date should be established for all categories of staff. It is proposed that normal incremental progression should be harmonised at 1 August, with effect from 1 August 2007.
For staff who are due to receive an increment on 1 August 2006 or 1 September 2006 this incremental progression will be included in the calculation of current salary when determining the current level of pay for the initial assimilation process. No further incremental progression will be due on the new grade until August 2007.
Once assimilated to the new pay and grade structure all staff who have not yet reached the highest salary point below the contribution threshold for their grade will normally receive annual increments on the grade until the contribution threshold is reached. The first increment due under the new pay and grading arrangement will be payable on 1 August 2007. Annual increments are awarded in recognition of the growing experience and skill of jobholders.
The criteria for progression to the contribution related pay points above the maximum of each of the agreed new grades and the use of accelerated increments will be subject to separate agreement.
5. Pay Protection
Pay Protection is often referred to as “red-circling”. “Red circling” will occur where the current salary at the time that it is established that an individual is in receipt of a salary point in a grade above the evaluated or matched grade for their role. Where “red-circling” occurs the salary point will be fixed at its current level without further increments. As it is intended that staff will assume additional responsibilities in their role that would allow the post to be regraded to a higher level or the individual will be developed so that they can be appointed to a higher level post it is recommended that nationally agreed salary increases will be applied during the four year period.
After four years of protected “red-circling”, if the individual has not be regraded to a higher level during that period, the salary point will revert to the highest point below the contribution threshold for the lower grade to which the individual had originally been matched.
An appeals procedure has been developed in partnership with the recognised campus trade unions. All appeals will be dealt with in accordance with the procedure as detailed in Appendix 2.
University of Aberdeen
Proposed Grade Structure
Grade boundaries relating to the job evaluation process.
Points scores determine the grade to which the role is assimilated. Placement of individuals onto these grades are based on current earnings and not the score applied to each role.
|Grade 1||up to 184|
UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN
JOB EVALUATION APPEALS PROCEDURE
The following Appeals Procedure has been agreed in partnership with AUT, AMICUS, UNISON and the TGWU for the purpose of providing a robust and transparent process for dealing with an appeal by a member of staff against their grading following the job evaluation exercise as part of the implementation of the Framework Agreement and thereafter.
Implementation of the Framework Agreement - Once the first stage of the job evaluation process is completed all staff, with the exception of clinical academic staff and any other groups not presently covered by the Framework Agreement will be advised of their new grade. Information relating to other roles that have been similarly graded will also be provided for sake of comparison.
It is within the context of the agreements reached with the recognised campus trade unions that the following appeals procedure has been developed. Staff who have any questions about their grading may wish to raise these with the Human Resources Officer for their area, their trade union representative or the Framework Agreement Team via the e-mail address email@example.com in the first instance as some queries may be unrelated to the appeals procedure.
The proposed Appeals Procedure has 3 stages as follows:
Stage 1: Informal Stage
The purpose of the informal stage is to enable staff to give factual information about the evaluation of their role, to explain their concerns and to seek an early resolution of their issues, if this can be achieved, in accordance with the procedures used to evaluate all other roles. It is the intention wherever possible to resolve matters informally without the requirement to proceed to Stage 2.
Where a staff member wishes to appeal the grading decision relating to the evaluation of their role they should advise the Deputy Director of Human Resources, as the project manager for the implementation of the Framework Agreement, in writing, of the nature of their appeal. Appeals should normally be lodged within 15 working days of the notification of the grading outcomes. In exceptional circumstances an extension to the timescale may be permitted.
The Deputy Director of Human Resources will then arrange for the Appeal to be considered by trained Role Analysts as quickly as possible, normally within 10 working days, after receipt of the written notification. Consideration of the appeal may involve one or more of the trained Role Analysts contacting the individual to discuss their concerns in more detail. This process would allow staff to advise the Role Analyst(s) of any factual inaccuracies or omissions in the original job description that was submitted and used to evaluate the role. This may have become necessary because of changed circumstances or a situation where the original documentation submitted was perceived to be incomplete or inaccurate in some way. The Role Analyst(s) will review all the information provided and may re-score or re-evaluate the role based on any of the additional information that is deemed to be significant as part of the job evaluation process. Where the role is to be re-scored or re-evaluated the process will normally be conducted by 1 of the original role analysts and 1 who has had no previous involvement in the case.
All individuals will be advised in writing of the outcome of their appeal. If the staff member’s concerns about the evaluation of their role have not been resolved following the completion of this Stage, they will be advised of their right to proceed to Stage 2. The intimation of the intention to lodge an appeal should be made in writing to the Director of Human Resources within 5 working days of receipt of the outcome of Stage 1, the Informal Stage. The formal written appeal, including evidence in support of the appeal, should be lodged with the Director of Human Resources no later than 10 working days after the original intimation of the intention to appeal.
Stage 2: Role Analysts Review Panel
In submitting an Appeal under this Stage of the process the staff member should set out the detailed grounds of the appeal. Appeals can be considered on the following grounds:
- The original information provided to the Role Analysts was incomplete or inaccurate in some way.
- The original information provided to the Role Analysts has changed as a result of restructuring or appointment to a new role.
- The evaluation was flawed for some other substantial reason that must be fully specified in the submission of the appeal.
The individual cannot appeal purely on the basis that they are unhappy with the outcome of the process. Detailed reasons for any appeal must be submitted.
On receipt of an appeal it will be acknowledged and a panel of 3 including 2 Role Analysts will be established to consider the appeal. Members of the panel will have had no previous involvement in the case. The Panel will normally be chaired by a member of the Framework Agreement Steering Group and will usually meet within 10 working days of the formal written appeal being received. The Role Analysts will normally include one Role Analyst who is also a representative from one of the recognised campus trade unions.
The Panel will consider the documentation submitted and may request the appellant to attend the meeting to explain the basis of their appeal. As with all appeal hearings where the individual is in attendance they will have the right to be accompanied to the hearing by a colleague or their trade union representative. The Panel may also receive and consider information from any other member of staff that would assist them in reaching their decision.
The Panel will consider the evidence and will review the scoring and evaluation of the role, as appropriate. Role Analysts who were not involved in the original scoring of the role will undertake any re-scoring that may be necessary. In the event that the re-scoring of the role produces a materially different score that would result in the job being re-graded the staff member will be advised of the re-grading and their new salary placing.
The decision of the Role Analysts Review Panel will be communicated to the staff member in writing, normally within 3 working days of the hearing. The individual will be advised that, if the appeal has not been satisfactorily resolved under Stage 2 of the Appeals Procedure then they may request a review of their appeal by an Independent Arbiter under the Stage 3, the final stage, of the Procedure.
Intimation that an appeal will be lodged should be made with the Director of Human Resources, in writing, within 5 working days of receipt of the outcome of Stage 2, the Role Analysts Appeal Panel. The formal written appeal, including evidence in support of the appeal, should be lodged with the Director of Human Resources no later than 10 working days after the original intimation of the intention to appeal to the Arbiter. A representative from Human Resources will arrange for the Independent Arbiter to consider the case as soon as possible.
Stage 3: Independent Arbiter
The grounds on which a staff member may appeal against their job grading, by proceed to Stage 3 of the process, is that there has been a material flaw in the operation and/or application of the job evaluation procedure to that staff member. At the time the appeal is lodged the individual should clearly specify the detailed reasons for wishing to proceed to Stage 3.
The University will appoint an Independent Arbiter who has detailed knowledge of the HERA job evaluation process. The Arbiter will consider the evidence submitted and will be able to request further information from any individuals who could provide information that would allow the Arbiter to reach an informed decision on the case.
The decision of the Independent Arbiter will be final and there will be no further right of appeal.
Framework Agreement Implementation
Where an appeal is lodged as part of the implementation of the Framework Agreement and following consideration of that appeal the outcome is a regrading of the role, any revised grade and salary placing will be effective from the agreed implementation for the Framework Agreement i.e. 1 August 2006.
Post Framework Agreement Implementation
In the future, where an appeal is lodged against a grading decision any change in grading resulting from the consideration of the appeal will be effective from the 1st of the month of the date the grading was due to take effect.