1 | P a g e 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%.
2 | 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
3 | 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
4 | 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
5 | 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%
6 | 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%
7 | 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%
