Report
Back on Higher Education Service Group Executive (HESGE)
Pay
Key
elements of the pay offer are as follows:-
•
£550 or 3.5% whichever is the greater
for 2003-4 with additional flat rate for lowest grades
•
3% for 2004-5
•
An additonal 1.1% on assimilation to new pay spine
•
Harmonisation of manual working
hours no later than
•
London Weighting for post-1992
Universities will increase by 4% in 2003/4.Consortium will be established
by October this year and offer made on London Weighting from 2004/5 will follow
after outcome of talks.
•
Institutions to best endeavour
to introduce new pay arrangements by
•
The national model is commended
to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and any variation from this is in partnership and agreement
at local level in line with national principles
•
There will be a national pay spine
and national grades. These grades will have incremental points and an element
of “contribution points” which overlap with the bottom of the next grade
•
Grading will be done through institution-wide
job evaluation/role analysis. Role indicators will be developed for academic
jobs and there are indicative grades for academic jobs
•
On assimilation there will be protection
for 4 years for any staff downgraded. Where staff are
upgraded they will be paid at the bottom of the appropriate new grade. Where
the resulting increase is more than 10% the increase may be phased over 2
years.
Comments:
Minimum Benchmark of £11000
At
the HESGE meeting on
be for a minimum of £11000. However, on the
current pay structure there are a number of grades which will still be below
this minimum level from
While
I accept the argument that in negotiations you never get what you ask for,
as far as I was concerned, from the HESGE meeting on 12 May £11000 was non-negotiable.
The HESGE rejected a proposal to increase this minimum to £12000 at this May
meeting on the basis that it was an unrealistic demand and counterposed
this to £11000.
The counter argument to this is:-*
•
The £550 flat rate element means
that everyone earning up to £15700 per annum will receive more than 3.5% this
year.
•
Although the 3% offer for 2004/5
is low the process of assimilation will result in another 1.1% on average
increase for all staff. The offer is worth 7.7&% over 2 years and manual
staff would be receiving almost 13% over 2 years
•
The uplift in existing pay spines
is worth 8.1% this year for the lowest paid. The £762 flat rate increase for
pre-1992 grade 1 manual staff is equivalent to £15 per week.
Harmonisation of Working Hours
I
am disappointed that the employers have not moved to harmonisation immediately
if not by August 2004.
The counter argument to this is:-*
•
The employers made the original
offer of 2006 until further representations by the unions reduced this to
2005
Salary Protection
I
am disappointed that there is not indefinite protection of salary under the
agreement when assimilating on to new pay spine.
The counter argument to this is:-*
•
The 4 year agreement is better
than many such agreements in other areas. It would have been difficult to
defend a longer period.
Please note:- I put to the HESGE that we should put out a recommendation
to reject the offer on the basis of my comments. To summarise this is the
following:-
When it came to the vote I was the only one in favour
of this proposal. (both other London HESGE reps were
not present at the meeting).
The HESGE has agreed to recommend the offer and the
timetable for consultation is closing date of 10 October. If the members agree to this recommendation
the employers are unlikely to pay out until December 2003 (it should be noted that the clause allowing
a get out for employers of 11 months who have resource issues also exists
in the agreement). There will also be a full briefing at the next Branch
Seminar.
*
The counter arguments are as put forward by
Christina McAnea, the National Secretary of UNISON
Education Services at the meeting
I
tabled APPENDIX 1 to the meeting and also made the following representations
·
A plea for more branches to send
donations to the London Weighting fund set up by UNISON.
·
The web site be
updated.
·
No strike pay payments from UNISON
central fund had yet been made. I explained some of the problems we had experienced
RE: strike pay.
Some
issues that came out of discussion:-
•
The AUT are currently balloting
on the London Weighting dispute. I reported one possible reason for the AUT
re-entering this dispute was because of the failure of the employers to convene
the London Consortium. The pay offer by UCEA however, has a commitment to
convene this consortium by October 2003 which could invalidate the reason
for the AUT to enter further in dispute
•
Concern was expressed as to the
non-payment of any strike pay
•
It was suggested that if the RHEC
were going to propose to the Industrial Action Committee (IAC) selective action,
we should be prescriptive in our report to IAC
TOM SILVERLOCK
HESGE REP
APPENDIX 1
Agreed
Strategy by RHEC London Weighting sub-committee as ratified by UNISON RHEC
9 July 2003:
·
Re-launch of the campaign with
other unions in July.
·
Meeting at all universities, particularly
where support for the strike was lower last time around – with full-time officers
and leading lay activists. To approach AUT with the view of having joint meetings
·
A programme of events / lobbies
to carry through the summer. UNISON in conjunction with AUT publish activity
sheets
·
A rolling programme of two days
action timed to hit individual universities’ registration periods. This action
would take place on the most effective days in conjunction where possible
with the AUT. However, in areas where registrations fall outside normal period
branches be given the flexibility to take action on there own so as to cause
maximum effect
·
If action goes well then consider
balloting for action short of strike* action, and continuing strike action
on selective basis by pulling out different groups, e.g. libraries etc (*sub-committee
to come back with concrete proposals)
·
If local offers are made branches
be given the option of consulting locally with the branch membership and the
Regional Committee. However, the emphasis should be on maintaining united
action across all pre-1992 universities.
·
Review effectiveness of action
and continuance of campaign by
Please
note the following:-