REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY ON UNIVERSITY LECTURERS WITHOUT TUTORIAL FELLOWSHIPS (ULNTFs) SUPPLEMENT (1) TO NO. 4370 MONDAY, 10 JULY 1995 In Hilary Term 1995 Council and the General Board accepted a general resolution put to Congregation which instructed them to set up a working party to consider the question of the remuneration of non-clinical university lecturers without tutorial fellowships and to make proposals by the end of Trinity Term 1995 (Gazette, pp. 703--4). That working party has now reported and Council and the General Board have considered the report. At this stage, neither body has endorsed the recommendations but they have accepted in principle that there is a serious problem in the inequity between the salaries of ULNTFs and those of tutorial fellows. They have agreed that the report should be published in the Gazette and that colleges should now be consulted. The report is accordingly set out below. Colleges have been asked to submit their views on the report or any alternative proposals they may have for the resolution of the inequity by Friday, 3 November 1995 (the end of Week 4 of Michaelmas Term). Text of the working party's report 1 The working party was set up in Hilary Term 1995 following the approval by Congregation of the following general resolution. `That this house welcome the inclusion in the agenda of the Commission of Inquiry of a proposal to review the University's academic salary structure, but notes the implementation of the commission's recommendations is unlikely to be achieved before 1998--9 at the earliest. The house considers there is a need to address with greater urgency the question of the remuneration of non-clinical university lecturers without college tutorial fellowships, since the maximum point on the University's salary scale for such lecturers is significantly below the maximum for comparable duties at nearly all other universities in the United Kingdom, and is substantially below the joint maximum for college tutorial fellows at the University. That the house therefore instruct Council and the General Board to set up a working party which will include substantial representation from amongst non- clinical university lecturers without tutorial fellowships to report and make proposals on the matter to Council and the General Board by the end of Trinity Term 1995.' 2 Members of the working party were as follows. Chairman of the General Board (Chairman) Ms J.M. Innes appointed by the General Board Dr W.H. Newton-Smith appointed by Hebdomadal Council Dr C.A. Haigh Chairman of the Senior Tutors' Committee Dr K. Flint representing university lecturers without tutorial fellowships Dr W.J. Kennedy do. Dr H. Morphy do. The working party also invited the President of Wolfson to attend its meetings. 3 The crucial salaries with which the working party has been concerned are as follows (the figures both here and in the remainder of the report give the position before any 1 April 1995 salary increases). Top of the university lecturer scale, 27,473 Top of the national senior lecturer scale, 30,533 The joint maximum for university lecturers with tutorial fellowships, 32,879 4 The working party has taken the view, bearing in mind the terms of the resolution, that its remit is to find a rapid, but not necessarily permanent, solution to the grievances expressed by the university lecturers without tutorial fellowships (henceforth referred to in this report as ULNTFs). Better and longer-term solutions may arise from the report of the commission. The working party recognises that the solution it is proposing is not ideal, but it believes it to be an improvement on the present position and satisfactory as a short-term solution. 5 Before the working party was set up the Chairman held a meeting with a large number of ULNTFs. In the course of the working party's proceedings a further meeting was held between the ULNTF members of the working party and as many ULNTFs as were able to come and the ULNTF members have kept in touch with all the ULNTFs by correspondence. 6 There are approximately 185 ULNTFs, inevitably concentrated in the graduate colleges, but with a number scattered amongst the undergraduate colleges. Thirty-three colleges in all have fellows in this category. One of the difficulties of this matter is that it is not always possible to generalise about the position of ULNTFs, particularly those who are in undergraduate colleges. The latter may receive some payment or emoluments which are less than those which are received by a tutorial fellow but none the less more than are received by a fellow of a graduate college. The working party recognises that the implementation of the scheme which it proposes may require details of the individual position of a number of ULNTFs to be investigated. 7 The working party has left out of account those ULNTFs who are paid a stipend by All Souls, Nuffield and Templeton, since it believes that they are already at least in the position which the working party is aiming to achieve for all other ULNTFs. 8 Bearing in mind that the intention is to achieve a rapid but not permanent solution, the working party has agreed at the outset that it must concentrate on pensionable stipend and not on the wider question of college allowances and other emoluments. In any case the allowances paid to tutorial fellows vary significantly from college to college, and the working party did not think it would be fruitful to pursue this question in relation to ULNTFs alone. 9 As far as pensionable stipend is concerned, the working party has decided that its objective should be to make ULNTFs eligible to receive a salary equivalent to the top point of the national senior lecturer scale, i.e. 30,533. It seems to the working party that this is a defensible objective. Colleagues of ULNTFs in other universities are eligible to reach the senior lecturer maximum. University lecturers at Oxford who hold tutorial fellowships exceed this figure at the joint maximum, but the working party has not sought to bring ULNTFs up to the joint maximum. It recognises that there are considerable difficulties in comparing the workload of ULNTFs and university lecturers with tutorial fellowships (and it makes a recommendation on this point in para. 15 below). To bring ULNTFs to a national figure avoids the controversy and argument which would arise if it were proposed to bring them to the joint maximum, bearing in mind that what is being looked for is a temporary and rapid solution. The working party also has in mind the benefits to recruitment which should follow if it is possible to advertise posts with a higher maximum salary than at present. 10 The working party therefore proposes that three additional points should be added to the scale for ULNTFs. At present ULNTFs (like all other university lecturers) normally reach the top of the university lecturer scale at age 41. It is proposed that they should move to the new figure of 30,533 by three steps linked to age so that they would normally reach the new top point at the age of 44. It is proposed that the three points should be as follows. 28,493 (age 42) 29,513 (age 43) 30,533 (age 44) The first two of these points do not correspond with the national spine points. The working party notes that such correspondence would have the virtue of simplicity, but on the other hand the top of the Oxford university lecturer scale is already off the spine, and the working party attaches some importance to the existence of equal intervals between the final steps of the scale. (For comparison, the national spinal points corresponding to the age 42 and 43 points proposed above would be 28,756 29,646.) 11 The working party recognises that this proposal would not assist those ULNTFs who are aged under 41 (unless they are already paid above the age-wage point---see below). While it is clear that this is a defect in the scheme, the working party does not see how any adjustment could be made quickly and easily. It recognises, however, that this disadvantages younger ULNTFs by comparison with their colleagues who are tutorial fellows since the latter will be receiving a college stipend in addition to their university lecturer stipend, whatever their age. It believes, however, that the ULNTFs as a whole will accept this proposition for the time being. The working party notes that a small number of ULNTFs have been appointed at starting salaries one or two points above the age-wage point since Congregation agreed some years ago to introduce a small amount of flexibility into the age- wage scale. They will therefore reach the present maximum at 39 or 40 and will be able to move on to the new points at 40 or 41. The references in this report to the new points applying to ages 42 to 44 should not be taken to imply that the university lecturer scale will cease to be one with straightforward annual increments: those who are already in advance of the age-wage point will continue to be so. 12 The working party reached the above conclusions relatively quickly, and much of its discussions have been concerned with how the scheme might be implemented legally and its cost. 13 Taking first the legal issues, the working party has taken legal advice and has concluded that the most satisfactory approach from this point of view, in order to avoid possible difficulties associated with the law relating to equal pay, would be for all additional payments to be made by colleges, appropriate sums of money being transferred to them by the University. The working party's views on the proportion of the costs which might be borne by colleges themselves without compensatory provision by the University are discussed in paras. 17--29 below. If all the payments are to be made by colleges, the working party has therefore characterised its proposals as creating a joint minimum salary for university lecturers. 14 The working party has been advised by university officials that any transfers to colleges should not be liable to VAT, provided they are regarded as donations to the colleges. It has also been advised that such transfers would not appear to infringe the terms of the financial memorandum between the University and HEFCE. From the point of view of audit, the purpose of such transfers, namely to help to enable a group of university lecturers to receive salaries at the level of the maximum of the national senior lecturer scale, seems legitimate. 15 In discussing both the legal issues surrounding this subject, and the issues of general university policy (including in particular the comparative workloads of university lecturers who have tutorial fellowships and those who do not), the working party has agreed that it would be desirable if a full evaluation of the work carried out by lecturers in both categories were carried out. Indeed, had time permitted, the working party would have wished this to have been undertaken before it made its proposals. Such an evaluation is needed at least as much to facilitate the general consideration which the University is giving to the duties, borne by its academic staff and the balance between the various components of these duties, as to provide information which can help to establish appropriate salary levels. The working party therefore recommends that the evaluation be carried out, perhaps under the auspices of the Commission of Inquiry. 16 The working party recognises that it has not been able to resolve with certainty a possible remaining legal difficulty. In the case of colleges with few ULNTFs, equal pay issues might possibly arise if it could be argued by, say, a tutorial fellow that the payment by the college to one of its ULNTFs was larger than was reasonable by comparison with payments to tutorial fellows. Care would be needed to specify the duties for which the payments would be made; it will remain the case that tutorial fellows will continue to receive allowances and other emoluments additional to pensionable salary which ULNTFs may not receive. Similarly, if a graduate college is making payments to its ULNTFs, it will be necessary to provide a justification for not making a payment (albeit not necessarily at the level paid to ULNTFs) to other fellows. 17 Turning to the cost of the proposals, the working party has calculated that, assuming the continuation of the present age distribution of the ULNTFs, then the total annual cost (i.e. including superannuation and national insurance) would be of the order of 525K. (The extra gross cost of the payments to one ULNTF at the new top point would be 3,940.) The working party recognises that this is a larger sum than the University ought reasonably to be required to pay. Moreover, the working party is conscious of the fact that it could be argued that colleges should contribute some part of the cost of a resolution to this problem. In its view, a college contribution should consist of two elements. The first of these would be composed of tutorial earnings by each ULNTF. The working party proposes that any ULNTF who wishes to benefit from the higher pensionable salary proposed in this report should, when he or she reaches the top of the existing scale, accept an obligation to undertake three hours of tutorial teaching or the equivalent (see para. 18 below) and that the value of this contribution should be set at 1,080 per year, which is the income from three hours teaching per week per year of single undergraduates. Each ULNTF would agree that tutorial earnings up to 1,080 should be transferred to his or her college. It would be for each college to collect those earnings, and to enquire into the circumstances of any ULNTF in respect of whom those earnings did not accrue. The working party envisages that the college of the ULNTF would make a contract with each of its ULNTFs under which that individual undertook to carry out work which would provide this income. The working party considers that the effect of this proposal would not merely be to reduce the cost of the scheme to the University itself. It would have the positive advantage, the working party hopes, of drawing the various parts of the collegiate university more closely together. In some subjects (e.g. minority languages) college tutorial requirements are already significantly met by ULNTFs. In other cases, ULNTFs are at present unwilling to undertake college tutorial teaching because of the smallness of the remuneration which they receive. A system in which a proportion of tutorial earnings contribute to an increased pensionable stipend ought to have the effect both of recognising existing arrangements and of making available additional tutorial teaching in some areas. The working party recognises that the Senior Tutors' Committee has recently agreed that where a university lecturer holds a non-tutorial fellowship and a college lecturership he or she should be remunerated at twice the senior tutors' rates for undergraduate tutorials. This should continue, in the working party's view, and will mean that those in this position should find the provision of the 1,080 to be particularly straightforward. 18 Such a scheme can only be taken so far. The colleges would have to agree with their fellows on the one hand and the University on the other about those cases where these earnings could not be secured (e.g. where no tutorial teaching was available either because of the subject area of the lecturer (such as Educational Studies) or because demand in the subject area was insufficient). Moreover, the working party recognises an alternative source for some of these earnings, although it has not been able to quantify the contribution which this might make in the time available. It proposes that these `tutorial' earnings might be supplied from payments by the University for special graduate tuition which are made at Senior Tutors' Committee rates as if they were payments for undergraduate teaching. This would require ULNTFs to ask that such earnings, up to 1,080, should be transferred by the University to their colleges. The graduate supervision fee claim form would need to be redesigned so that ULNTFs can indicate clearly where this should be done. It is understood that the payments would not have to be transferred net of tax and national insurance. This element of the so-called `college' contribution would therefore not necessarily be met by college resources but a redeployment of existing university expenditure.The working party has enquired whether there might be regular payments made to University Lecturers in Continuing Education which could also be absorbed into the proposed new payments but it would appear that there are not. 19 In so far as the tutorial contribution proposed above is met from college sources, it would be a contribution from the colleges as a whole. The second collegiate element proposed by the working party is, however, a direct contribution by the college of which the ULNTF is a fellow to that fellow's salary. The working party proposes that this should be 500 per person. The working party recognises that this is likely to be more controversial than the tutorial contribution. None the less, the working party considers that such a proposal can be justified for two reasons. First, the payment of a direct contribution will make it easier (particularly for the undergraduate colleges which include ULNTFs) for the colleges to require their fellows to carry out particular duties. Second, as already pointed out (para. 9) an improvement in the salaries of ULNTFs can be justified in terms of recruitment. All colleges have as great an interest as the University in the recruitment of the highest quality academic staff and ought therefore to help to make this possible. 20 The working party recognises that some graduate colleges could not make such payments but it suggests that it should be an objective in the medium to long term to secure such a contribution as the income of those colleges increases. The working party's preliminary view (but it has not been able to pursue this fully in the time available) is that 500 per ULNTF ought to be manageable by all colleges except Green, Kellogg, Linacre, and St Cross. The University would have to consult these colleges annually about the extent to which, if at all, they could then contribute this sum. The net cost of the scheme to the University would be reduced to approximately 370K if the proposal to fund part via tutorial earnings and part via a general college contribution were introduced. (This figure assumes that all ULNTFs over 41 can secure such earnings except university lecturers in Educational Studies and Continuing Education and that all colleges except those mentioned above contribute 500 per ULNTF. It may therefore be too low.) 21 The mechanics of introducing and running the scheme (a) Colleges should be consulted on the scheme. (b) Colleges should opt in to the scheme so that it can be implemented for as few or as many as are prepared to take part, i.e. unanimity on the part of colleges would not be required. Implementation should be backdated to 1 October 1995. (c) Individuals should also opt in to the scheme; those whose permanent pensionable joint salary is already 30,533 or more, or guaranteed to reach that point, will not be eligible. (d) Each college which joins the scheme should seek to establish the position of its ULNTFs who are over 41 and establish who can earn the 1,080 and who cannot. In the case of those who cannot, the college should inform the University so that discussions can take place and the University can decide if it is willing to agree that the earnings cannot be secured. Those who are not willing to assume the responsibility to secure 1,080 towards the cost and for whom exemption (e.g. by virtue of their subject) is not agreed should not be eligible for any extra payment. (e) The University should then (and at the beginning of every financial year thereafter while the scheme lasts) transfer to the colleges which have agreed to take part the net annual cost of the payments to the ULNTFs (i.e. the gross cost less the contribution of 1,080 where this has been agreed and less the college contribution of 500 if this is agreed too). At the end of each year the college should account to the University for its expenditure. The following year's payment by the University will take account of any over or under expenditure by the college. If a ULNTF fails to earn the 1,080 which he or she has undertaken to earn, the circumstances will be considered by the college. If the reason is outside the individual's control, the University should make up the cost to the college and the college and the University should agree the level of payments it should continue to make to the college in respect of that particular individual in the succeeding year. If the reason is within the individual's control, the college should cover the cost of the shortfall for the year in question and the individual should be excluded from the scheme for one year. In order to make it easier for ULNTFs to secure tutorial teaching the working party proposes that each undergraduate college should be circulated annually (by the relevant faculty or department) with information on the individuals and the areas in which they can offer teaching, which within reason should not be too narrowly defined. (f) Where ULNTFs are on sabbatical leave the University will reimburse the college for the full cost of the additional payments, less the 500 college contribution. ULNTFs holding special lecturerships (for which they receive a non-pensionable addition to their salary) should be able to ask for 1,080 to be transferred to their colleges as their tutorial contribution for that year. (g) The working party considers that those who do not hold college fellowships at present, either because they have resigned them or refused them, should not be eligible for the scheme unless they are elected to fellowships. It also considers, however, that every effort should be made (in the interests of the individuals and of the collegiate university) to enable them to hold such fellowships. It may be that such individuals will decide that, notwithstanding the new scheme, they do not wish to accept any offers which may be made to them. This will be their choice, made in the light of their knowledge of the new arrangements. The working party thinks, however, that positive efforts should be made to give them such a choice, bearing in mind that circumstances will have changed as a result of the introduction of the new scheme, since a fellowship was resigned or refused. As for those who resign or have resigned tutorial fellowships but remain fellows of colleges in some other category, the working party thinks that they should be eligible for the new scheme. The working party recognises the importance of not establishing arrangements which might cause a significant number of resignations from tutorial fellowships. It does not believe, on balance, that the present proposals are likely to lead to this. The combined salary is well below the joint maximum; an obligation to undertake three hours tutorial teaching is an essential part of the scheme and resignation from a tutorial fellowship involves the loss of allowances such as the housing allowance. (h) The tutorial earnings expected from those aged 42 and 43 will be pro rata to 1,080, i.e. 360 and 720. 22 Phasing The working party has considered how the extra costs of the above scheme might be reduced in the short term by phasing it in over three years. The following possibilities are advanced. In reaching a decision, rules governing the payment of pensions should be borne in mind (see paras. 23--25 below). (a) No phasing As stated above, the total cost is estimated as being 525K, of which (on certain assumptions) 155K might be secured from college sources or from existing graduate tuition payments, leaving 370K to be borne by the University as new expenditure. (b) Phasing using the age of 50 as the crucial age (1) 1 October 1995: everyone aged 42--49 receives one increment while all over 50 receive three increments. Total cost 403K (college share 119K) representing a saving on the long-term cost of 86K to the University and 36K to the colleges. (2) 1 October 1996: everyone aged 42 receives one increment, everyone aged 43-49 receives two increments and all aged 50 or over receive three increments. Total cost 456K (college share 135K) representing a saving on the long-term cost of 49K to the University and 20K to the colleges. (3) 1 October 1997: full scheme implemented. Total cost 525K (college share 155K). (c) Phasing using the age of 60 as the crucial age (1) 1 October 1995: everyone aged 42-59 receives one increment and everyone over 60 receives three increments. total cost 246K (college share 73K) representing a saving on the long-term cost of 197K to the University and 82K to the colleges. (2) 1 October 1996: all aged 42 receive one increment, all aged 43-59 receive two increments and all aged 60 or over receive three increments. Total cost 387K (college share 114K), representing a saving on the long- term cost of 97K to the University and 41K to the colleges. (3) 1 October 1997: full scheme implemented. Total cost 525K (college share 155K). The college share in (a) and (b) has not been costed precisely for the intermediate years. It assumes that the proportion of university to college expenditure in the long-term cost (subject to the caveats in para. 20) is the same for the intermediate years, i. e. that the college share is 29.5 per cent of the total. It should again be noted that `college' is an inaccurate description as some part of the 1,080 contribution may come from special tuition payments funded by the University. Pensions 23 The working party notes that the payment of a combined salary totalling 30,533 will be reflected fully in an individual's pension after twelve months at this level. Given this and subject to the point made below in para. 25, the matters for consideration are therefore first what action, if any, to propose in respect of the 50 living former ULNTFs who are already drawing their pension and, second, what to propose in the case of the three ULNTFs who retire at 30 September 1995 who will not be able to benefit from the new salary arrangements even if they are approved and introduced. 24 In respect of those already drawing their pension the working party has concluded that it should propose no adjustments. There may be changes in salary arrangements at any time which would have improved the pension prospects of those now drawing their pension had they still been employed. 25 The working party thinks, however, that some improvement should be granted to those who are about to retire, given that the University has now begun to address the position of the ULNTFs but has not been able to implement changes in time to benefit those whose employment is coming to an end. The working party proposes that in the three cases in question an ex gratia payment should be made which would have the effect of making their lump sum what it would have been if their salary on retirement had been 30,533, rather than 27,473. The maximum individual cost of this would be 7,650, assuming 40 years' service and grossed up for tax; the average value to the individual net of tax would be 4,590. 26 The decision on phasing in the new scheme should be made with the pension rules in mind. A member of USS may draw a pension under Tit. X, cl. 1(h)(i) (Statutes, 1993, p. 74) at the age of 60 or any time thereafter. The introduction of the new arrangements for ULNTFs will have to be explained to USS in any case; the company will need to be told that they are not designed to increase the pensions of those concerned but to put the salaries of ULNTFs on an equitable footing by comparison with university lecturers in other institutions. This argument is likely to be stronger if phasing in takes place in such a way that the maximum benefit applies to more than the group which is eligible to draw a pension, i.e. if it applies at once to at least some individuals under 60 as well as to those over 60. Bearing this in mind, the working party is inclined to recommend that phasing in should follow the scheme in para 22(b). Conclusion 27 In the time available to it the working party has not been able to pursue all the details of the scheme and it recognises that a number of points need to be resolved, most connected with the individual circumstances of ULNTFs. For example, where combined salary already exceeds 27,473 but is not guaranteed to reach 30,533 ad hoc arrangements will have to be made. None the less, the working party hopes that what is proposed is sufficiently detailed to be capable of securing the agreement of the General Board and Council and of individual colleges and to be capable of implementation without too many teething troubles. 28 To summarise, the working party recommends (i) the creation of a scheme to give ULNTFs a joint minimum university/college pensionable salary of 30,533 at the age of 44 and above, all payments above the maximum of the Oxford university lecturer scale to be paid by the colleges of the ULNTFs but the colleges to receive substantial contribution to the cost from the University; (ii) the provision of ex gratia payments as described in para. 25 to those ULNTFs who retire on 30 September 1995; (iii) the commissioning of a job evaluation survey to compare the workloads of ULNTFs with those of university lecturers who hold tutorial fellowships; (iv) that Council and the General Board should agree to consult colleges at once on the scheme in the hope that implementation can begin as soon as possible in 1995--6; (v) that this report should be made available to the Commission of Inquiry. 29 Decisions on the implementation of the scheme Rapid decisions will be needed on details of the implementation of the scheme as unforeseen problems occur. The working party recommends (vi) that Council and the General Board authorise the Chairman of the General Board to act on their behalf in these matters. Moreover, issues will arise from time to time, usually at the end of an academic year, about the position of individuals, on which their colleges will need to consult the University. It is suggested therefore that the Chairman also be empowered to reach decisions on behalf of the University in such matters, subject (a) to report to the General Board and (b) to reference to the Board if significant increases in the long-term cost of the scheme seem likely to follow from problems which arise.