Many staff appointed to the new University since October 2004 have been significantly discriminated against in terms of pay. Some people are being paid substantially less than they should be, and will continue to suffer detriment as they move up the scales. (Please note that the documents referred to are here )
The problem arises from the application of the “Interim Agreement on the Implementation of the Framework Agreement for Academic and Related Staff”. This Agreement was strongly endorsed by you all in a ballot in December 2005, and signed by both AUT and university management representatives (the Registrar and Director of Human Resources, Dugald Mackie and Ray Lewis). Under the terms of the Agreement, staff were assimilated to the new pay spine in March 2006. The university then decided, on quite spurious grounds, that the Agreement does not apply to people appointed after 1 October 2004. This causes significant financial detriment to some staff in this category, and indeed calls into question the good faith of the management side in the negotiating process. The university have justified their actions on the grounds that staff appointed after October 2004 were not appointed to the existing national pay scales. This is concerning, since those pay scales were part of long standing national agreement honoured by all pre-1992 universities (except, apparently, Manchester!) - and the Framework Agreement itself specified that existing pay scales should remain in place until new arrangements were agreed locally.
Despite strenuous efforts by UCU, the Director of Human Resources maintains the position that staff appointed after October 2004 are excluded from the benefits of the Interim Agreement. This means that the University of Manchester is openly in breach of the nationally agreed Memorandum of Understanding, which has not been applied to some staff. As a result, staff appointed post-merger may earn significantly less, over a period of years, than they would have done on the old pay scales (due to the reduced increment size on new scales). In fact, in the longer term, the assimilation to the pay spine can represent a pay cut! Also, staff appointed to the same job on the same point on the old salary scales, but a few days or weeks apart, are now earning considerably different salaries. This is seriously unfair.
Consider the following example. Dr X was appointed to the old RAIA pt 8 on September 30 2004, while Dr Y was appointed to exactly the same salary point on October 15 2004. They have the same qualifications and experience, and are doing the same job. Dr X was assimilated to pt 32 of the new pay spine last year, and is now on pt 33. He will reach the top of the new Grade 6 by 2009, where he will be considered for promotion to Grade 7. Dr Y was assimilated to pt 30 and is now on pt 31, so she is earning £1673 less than Dr X; she also received substantially less backpay at assimilation last year. In the longer term, Dr Y will actually receive a pay cut relative to the expectations of her appointment letter: she expected to earn £30,607 from October 2009 (top of old RAIA; at 2005/2006 salary rates) but she will actually get £28,850 (2005/2006 rates). Furthermore, Dr Y will have a further two years to wait until she reaches the top of Grade 6 and is considered for promotion - a clear breach of the nationally agreed Memorandum of Understanding.
The issue applies to many staff appointed between October 2004 and assimilation to the new spine (March 2006 in most cases, but later for some); particularly (though not exclusively) on RA IA scales. Staff appointed on pts 6,7,8,9,10 of old RAIA scales are suffering detriment. Also some academic related staff appointed on similar scales or on “spot salaries” have suffered discriminatory treatment. Note that the Interim Agreement says: “Staff who are currently on indicative salaries will be assessed on an individual basis and placed on an appropriate increment taking account of the grade they are assimilated to and the salaries of other staff doing the same or similar jobs, where appropriate.” This means that if you were on a spot salary, you should have been assimilated in the same way as those staff on the old pay scales whose salary is closest to yours. You can check the Interim Agreement Appendices 1 and 2 to see where staff appointed before October 2004 doing the same job as you have been assimilated, and to see how much money you are losing.
Individuals who have suffered detriment may now feel that they should take out a formal Grievance. This is the only route remaining to seek redress. UCU will fully support any member who wishes to proceed with this; please contact the UMUCU officefor initial advice.