Equal Pay Audit 2014

All Employees on grading structure

Contents

1.  Introduction

2.  Context

3.  Scope

4.  Inclusions/exclusions

5.  Methodology

6.  Results

7.  Conclusion

8.  Future Action

Equal Pay Audit 2014

1. Introduction

Bucks New University supports the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and recognises that we should operate a pay structure that is free from bias. A grade structure, derived from a non-discriminatory job evaluation scheme (HERA), plus harmonised terms and conditions was negotiated and agreed with the trade unions in April 2008.

As part of its commitment to equal opportunities, the University believes that its male and female workers should receive equal pay for:

·  the same or similar work

·  work related as equivalent under our job evaluation scheme (HERA)

·  work of equal value

The University aims to ensure that it operations a fair and transparent pay system based on objective criteria and free from gender bias. The University will do this by:

·  carrying our two yearly audits of pay for existing employees, including those on maternity leave, sick leave and career breaks.

·  evaluating job roles and pay grades, where appropriate, to ensure that these are structured fairly, using benchmarking, where applicable.

·  Informing employees how their pay has been determined in each salary review; and

·  treating any grievance in relation to equal pay as a priority.

2. Context

The Public Sector Equality Duty came into force in April 2011 and was created by the Equality Act 2010. There is a requirement for employers covered by the duty to provide information such as the gender pay gap and an equal pay statement.

3. Scope

The primary purpose of an Equal Pay Review is to establish any pay gaps between groups of employees and to ensure there is no underlying bias in the grading structure. An Equal Pay Review involves comparing the pay of women and men doing equal work and investigating any gender pay gap.

4. Inclusions/exclusions

The Equal Pay Review covers all Academic and Professional Service Employees that are on the grading structure, and therefore excludes anyone on a SPOT salary.

5. Methodology

Initial analyses is undertaken and if there are differences over 5%, then these will be investigated further to gain a better understanding of why the differences have occurred and to identify any actions needed.

6. Results

The tables below indicate the percentage value of any pay gaps. This is shown as -% if females are paid less than males and +% if females are paid more than males.

6.1 Professional Service employees

Pay Gap SUP Salary Grades:
Salary Grade / Female / Average Salary / Male / Average Salary / Pay Gap
SUPB / 4 / £16,610 / 3 / £16,415 / +1%
SUPC / 24 / £18,824 / 13 / £19,390 / -3%
SUPD / 65 / £21,788 / 13 / £20,982 / +4%
SUPE / 25 / £24,891 / 29 / £25,796 / -4%
SUPF / 38 / £28,907 / 30 / £29,278 / -1%
SUPG / 31 / £34,213 / 27 / £34,412 / -1%
SUPH / 17 / £42,553 / 9 / £41,899 / +2%
SUPI / 3 / £51,781 / 2 / £55,409 / -7%

The pay gaps on a grade by grade basis are within acceptable limits, with only one of the eight established grade, Grade I, being above the accepted 5%.

The difference is attributed to a function of the grading structure itself as it allows for increments that give progression up to the contribution point threshold and beyond for each grade, reflecting the growing experience and skill of the person; however, this will have an effect on the results as will the long service of employees. Bearing in mind the small numbers involved in this grade we have examined the profiles and concluded that the reasons behind the 7% pay gap is due to long service and new managers being appointed at the bottom of the grade.

6.2 Academic employees

Pay Gap ACAD Salary Grades
Salary Grade / Female / Average Salary / Male / Average Salary / Pay Gap
AC2 / 5 / £33,788 / 8 / £32,024 / +6%
AC3 / 113 / £43,041 / 114 / £44,089 / -2%
AC4 / 13 / £51,622 / 23 / £52,300 / -1%

The pay gaps on a grade by grade basis are within acceptable limits, with only one of the three established grade, AC2, being just above the accepted 5%.

The difference is attributed to a function of the grading structure itself as it allows for increments that give progression up to the contribution threshold and beyond for each grade, reflecting the growing experience and skill of the person.

The specifics have been reviewed and it is felt that individuals have been placed on the correct spine point within the grading structure accounting for the job holder’s experiences, skills set and competencies.

7. Conclusion

There are no significant pay gaps when comparing work of equal value. This reflects the

consistent use of Higher Education Role Analysis (HERA) to determine the size of roles.

8. Future Action

The next Equal Pay Review will be undertaken in 2016 to ensure compliance with equal pay

legislation.