Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH MEETING OF PEOPLE COMMITTEE 15 February 2012, 2 – 4pm in the Room 2.301 Bristo Square If you require any of the documents for this meeting in an alternative format, please contact
Linda McAllister at: [email protected] or telephone 0131 650 8128
AGENDA 1 Welcome & Apologies
2 Minute
To approve the minutes of the meeting on 19/10/16 Attached
3 Matters Arising To raise any matters arising : - Race Equality Charter Mark – update from Convenor
- Support for Development & Recognition of Technical staff – meeting arranged with Zoe Lewandowski & Doreen Davidson
4 Main Agenda Items 4.1 To discuss Guaranteed Hours Resourcing & Contractual
Model Paper A (closed)
4.2 To discuss Academic Leadership role sharing Paper B
4.3 To discuss Developing the HR Strategy to support the University’s Strategic Plan Paper C
4.4 To discuss Student Disability Review Paper D
4.5 To discuss Appeals against Dismissal Paper E(closed)
4.6 To discuss Athena Swan Verbal
4.7 To discuss the Equality Outcomes 2017-2021 Paper F
4.8 To note EDMARC report Paper G
5 Standing Items: 5.1 To note paper on People Report Paper H 6 Further Information
Papers considered by People Committee area available on the wiki site: https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/UCC/People+Committee. And on University web pages:
.http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/human-resources/people-committee
7 Any Other Business
Next meeting: 17 May 2017
1
PAPER B
PEOPLE COMMITTEE
15 February 2017
Academic leadership role sharing
Description of paper 1. The Committee considered developing a policy in support of sharing of leadership roles by academics within the University at its meeting on 19 October 2016. This is an updated version of the paper presented to People Committee on 19 October 2016 meeting with some role sharing options and examples in the additional paragraphs under Section 6.2 and 6.7(a) and (b). Action requested 2. Discussion of the paper and to make a decision on the principle of leadership role sharing by academic staff. All advertised leadership roles will be assumed to be suitable for two people to share, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Recommendation 3. The Committee is being asked to accept the establishing of the role sharing option for all academic leadership posts, except where it is explicitly deemed to be inappropriate. Background and context 4. There is evidence of a deeply entrenched problem of getting academic colleagues to take on senior posts with significant managerial responsibility due to the onerous time requirement that detracts from their research and teaching commitments. There is also compelling evidence of staff with dependents, women in particular, finding it difficult to maintain a healthy work-life balance when progressing in their academic career due to the time demands of leadership roles. Flexibility in working arrangements is recognised to offer benefits to post-holders and institutions in enabling and supporting all staff to maximise their potential at work, while maintaining a healthy work-life balance. Role sharing is one way in which flexible working can be realised. This can either operate to balance tasks within full-time working, or to enable part-time opportunities. Usually it involves two people sharing the same role, although potentially it could be considered on a wider basis.
2
Discussion 5. There are a number of drivers of change behind the potential solution provided by leadership role sharing. These include organisational restructuring and changes for academic staff in their family situations (e.g. births, partnerships, ageing parents, adoption and fostering), wider responsibilities outside work (e.g. political representation, external organisations), or pre-retirement reduction in hours of work. 6.1 Role sharing generally takes one of three forms: (a) ‘Identical’ role share: each person has the same expertise and
capabilities (b) ‘Split’ role share: each person has responsibility based on different
seniority, capability, projects, clients, geography (c) ‘Hybrid’ role share: each person has some shared and some different
responsibilities; e.g. one may be a strategist and the other an implementer. This is more commonly found in senior roles.
6.2 According to Starr (2010)1, there are 11 types of arrangement that are found in
practice, but there is no reason why some could not be combined: (a) Fractional time: e.g. principal role-holder (0.8fte) with Deputy/Assistant
(0.2 fte) (b) Internship model (to learn the ropes); FT or shared PT (c) PT/partial overlap: overlap for communications, handover and when
joint presence is required (d) Equal partners: equal responsibility/authority, often 50/50 time. (e) Concurrent model: same time with specific tasks or sharing all tasks (f) Cyclical/turn-taking: e.g. 6-monthly cycle (g) Functional: tasks divided by educational/business imperatives (h) Temporary sharing; e.g. one term off (i) Multi-campus: different site/section leaders (j) Super-Principal: one overall in charge, with site managers (k) Cross-cultural model: partners from different cultures to meet cross-
cultural needs. 6.3 The benefits of role sharing are potentially the following: (a) A sharing of problems and solutions, enriching the consideration and
resolution of issues, and reducing social isolation (b) Output/productivity is generally greater than for single job holders (c) Offers more time to think about problems and issues requiring high-level
decisions with big impact (d) Can speed up decisions as vocalisation is enabled when ideas are
shared (e) Better work-life balance, enabling reduced hours working and
opportunities to continue academic research and teaching (f) Retention of staff who would otherwise leave or seek other employment
1 Starr K (2010). The benefits and disadvantages of sharing the Principalship. The Australian Educational Leader, 32 (1), 18-21. http://www.academia.edu/27197122/Benefits_and_disadvantages_of_sharing_the_principalship.
3
(g) Continuity during holidays, research leave, sickness and other absences
(h) Provides opportunities for co-learning/mentoring of skills and knowledge, thereby improving opportunities for career development
(i) Allows staff to work in the role for longer periods, with benefits for continuity and increasing efficiency
(j) Reduces hierarchy with shared/distributed (rather than sole/’heroic’) leadership, providing a model for collegial team-working
6.4 The potential disadvantages of role sharing include: (a) Loss of control of decisions when held by more than one person (b) Overlapping time probably required for effective communication and
handover between role holders, as well as deliberation on tricky issues (c) Time needed to establish effective partnership working (d) Unsuited to individualists, independent workers, or competitive
personalities who might struggle with equitable co-working (e) Unsuited to poor organisers, or poor communicators (f) Potential relationship breakdown if trust is lost or if not
treated/recognised as equals (g) Potential for playing-off one against the other 6.5 A number of working arrangements are advised in establishing job sharing: (a) Job sharers should establish their own way of working (b) There should be a clear and structured way of working, including a
hand-over form and which areas of responsibility they each take (c) They need to speak with ‘one voice’ in all communications (d) They should have implicit trust in each other (e) They must have shared responsibility for all decisions (f) They must be determined to make it work (g) They should have similar values (h) There must be a supportive management, able to resolve
disagreements between partners when they occur (i) There should be an agreed mechanism for monitoring, including how
each partner contributed to the outcomes (j) The focus should be on leadership, rather than leaders per se, and
widening the experience to more people. 6.6 The mechanism by which leadership will be shared is, ideally, for interested academics to apply for the post as a joint application, or to indicate their desire to share the post, prompting the line manager to seek a matching academic. This latter course of action may be necessary should one of the role partners leave the post early. 6.7 Examples of potential structures (a) Head of School This would probably work best as a hybrid role, whereby some responsibilities
are shared and others are specific to one person. The shared responsibilities would include acting as the mouthpiece of the organisation, internally and externally, attending university, college and school meetings, and conducting annual reviews of senior members of academic staff. The specific
4
responsibilities could be partly functional, such as research vs teaching and learning, and/or possibly by subject area cluster.
Given an overall role allocation of 0.8 FTE, it would be likely that the role would
be shared in equal measure, but with partial overlap of time meaning an individual requirement of 0.5 FTE each. One arrangement could be one person formally allocated Monday and Tuesday, the other Thursday and Friday, with overlap on Wednesday afternoons to ensure planning, coordination and review of activities, and presence at School-wide meetings. When a presence is required on Wednesday mornings, this would be adjusted from the time allocation on other days of the week.
There would also be the potential to incorporate an internship model, such that
there would be a change in partner part-way through the appointment cycle. This has the attraction of providing continuity of role during the changeover, as well as offering mentoring for newly appointed role holders. It also allows some flexibility in the duration of the roles, given individuals’ personal life trajectories.
In any arrangement, it is important to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
each candidate and to play to their strengths in the role. (b) Director of the Graduate School As above, this would probably work well as a hybrid role, with shared
responsibilities over the chairing of the overall Board, presence at School and subject area meetings, but specific responsibilities perhaps split functionally by PGR and PGT. An overall allocation of 0.5 FTE could translate into 0.3 FTE each, to allow some overlap for planning, coordination and review of activities. Again, as above, an internship model could be incorporated to provide continuity and mentoring in the role.
Resource implications 7. Resources will be required to develop and consult on the policy and associated operational guidance and to communicate and roll out the new arrangements. 8. The costs of overlapping time for handovers and the time required to establish effective ways of working should be compensated by the increased productivity and potentially better quality decision-making, not to mention the avoidance of the costs of staff leaving or not taking on leadership roles. Risk Management 9. It is anticipated that the risks would be low and with the potential to increase the reputation of the University as a good employer, giving particular attention to opportunities for women to progress in their careers. Equality & Diversity 10. By providing greater flexibility, especially at senior levels in the University, it offers the potential to increase the opportunities for women to occupy these roles.
5
Next steps/implications 11. Once People Committee have considered the pros and cons, and agree to the recommendation, a formal policy will need to be drawn up for consideration by the Central Management Committee and separately by a joint meeting with the Trade Unions. Consultation 12. The paper has been discussed with Professor Jane Norman, VP People and Culture, Professor Dorothy Miell, Head of CAHSS, and Professor Fiona Mackay. It has also been discussed with Dr Claire Duncanson and Dr Andrea Birdsall (both in Politics & International Relations (PIR)), given their experience of sharing the role of PIR Director of Undergraduate Teaching. Further information 13. Author Presenter Professor Andrew Thompson Politics & International Relations School of Social and Political Science 7 February 2017
Professor Jane Norman
Freedom of Information
14. Open.
1
PAPER C
PEOPLE COMMITTEE
15 February 2017
Developing the HR Strategy to support the University’s new Strategic Plan
2016.
Description of paper 1. The paper provides information about the development of an HR Strategy and
associated HR work plan to support the delivery of the University’s new Strategic Plan 2016.
Action Requested
2. People Committee are asked to provide comment and feedback on the proposals in this paper and give their agreement to the Director of HR and HR Executive taking the development of the proposed HR Strategy and associated HR work plan forward to the next stage.
Recommendation 3. The People Committee are recommended to support the proposals for the
development of an HR Strategy and associated HR work plan as set out in this paper.
Background and context 4. In support of the previous Strategic Plan University HR Services published the
HR Strategy 2012-2016. This was the University’s first published HR Strategy and was well received.
5. The 36 page HR Strategy 2012-2016 was a comprehensive document providing a forward looking and aspirational description of the role of Human Resources and the areas of potential HR influence and impact.
6. While the document has been important in articulating the potential contribution that HR can make to delivering the University’s goals and objectives, HR practitioners and HR service users have found it less helpful as a tool to align and prioritise HR activity.
7. Consequently, we are proposing to develop a shorter more focused HR Strategy to support the University’s Strategic Plan 2016, which will be underpinned by a detailed HR work plan.
8. During the latter stages of the development of the University’s new Strategic
Plan, and since its publication at the end of last year, the HR Executive (the
three College Heads of HR, the Head of HR for Corporate Services Group, the
three Deputy Directors of HR and the Director of HR) have been working
2
together to develop an outline for a new HR Strategy and to review current and
known future pan-University HR work projects and work requests in order to
work up an initial underpinning work plan.
9. The intention is for the HR Strategy to be a published document which will run concurrently with the University Strategic Plan 2016 and for the underpinning work plan to be a flexible and living document which will change as priorities change and as new priorities arise (e.g. as a result of regulation or social/political context). The initial draft work plan is designed to cover the period to 31 July 2018.
Discussion Development of the HR Strategy and work plan
Strategic Plan 2016 – Strategic Objectives and Development Themes
10. To develop the HR Strategy we took the new Strategic Plan as our starting point, focussing on how HR can support the achievement of the strategic objectives of Leadership in Learning and Leadership in Research through our contribution to the four development themes:
Influencing Globally
Contributing Locally
Partnerships with Industry
Digital Transformation and Data
HR Work Principles
11. We also revisited the HR work principles established when the current Director of HR took up post at the end of 2014:
Simplification – making HR services easy to access and easy to use for our customers
Facilitation - pro-active support for HR service users, helping them to achieve their goals and focussing on removing rather than creating barriers
Anticipation – having an eye to the future and developing solutions that will work tomorrow and next year not just today
HR Work Themes
12. Taking into consideration all of the above, the HR Executive have developed
four HR Work Themes, which reflect where we feel HR can add most value in
contributing to the Strategic Plan Development Themes and ultimately to
achieving the University’s objectives of Leadership in Learning and Leadership
in Research.
3
13. The HR Work Themes are designed to guide allocation of resources to ensure
we focus HR discretionary effort (i.e. effort not required to deliver business as
usual and/or compliance activity) on the things that will really add value. The
themes will help us to:
prioritise competing demands
demonstrate how we add value
say “no” to requests that will add less value in terms of supporting delivery of the University’s Strategic Plan.
14. The four HR Work Themes are:
Developing and implementing simple and consistent
processes and systems –making better use of technology and
digital solutions and developing and implementing common
standardised processes.
Helping to create a flexible organisation – developing flexible
contractual arrangements that support matrix working, overseas
working, joint appointments, remote working, flexible work patterns,
secondments etc.
Supporting the evolution of the workforce – differentiated
attraction and recruitment strategies, succession planning and
talent management, soft and hard skills development (e.g.
leadership skills, digital skills), employee engagement and change
management.
Making staff engagement and wellbeing a reality – promoting
and supporting equality, diversity and inclusion and physical,
mental, emotional and financial wellbeing.
Finite Resources
15. In developing the HR Strategy and the underpinning work plan we have been
cognisant of the finite resources available across HR (UHRS and devolved
teams) and the need to ensure that we allocate sufficient resource to manage
on-going business as usual activity as well as compliance and monitoring and
reporting requirements.
16. There are limited resources available for project work, particularly in the devolved teams, where the greater balance of activity is focused on “business as usual” support for managers, primarily in the form of individual employee casework advice and management.
Initial draft HR Plan to 31 July 2018
17. The HR Executive have mapped all current and known future requests for
pan-University HR work against the four HR Work Themes (and against the
Development Themes in the Strategic Plan). We have also assessed each
piece of work/work request in terms of the risk of not doing it and the
impact/benefit of doing it.
4
18. This exercise has allowed us to develop an initial draft of a prioritised HR work
plan to 31 July 2018. Further work is on-going to quantify the amount of
effort/resource and the skill-sets required to deliver each piece of work. This
will allow us to further refine the plan priorities.
19. Through this process we have identified some work which is already started,
which, while important, may not have been prioritised using this new approach.
It is proposed, however that we continue and complete this work where it is
already well underway.
20. The emerging picture suggests that potentially significant resources could be
required to deliver compliance priorities, (i.e. where the risk of not undertaking
the activity would be unacceptable (e.g. significant legal/financial penalty,
major reputational damage etc.)
UCEA commitment to joint working on “casualisation”
New legislation on Gender Pay Gap reporting
Requirement to publish Equality Outcomes
Requirement to develop British Sign-Language plan
Roll out of system to monitor hours for workers on Tier 4 visas
21. Further non-compliance but high priority projects include:
HR Transformation programme
Review of Guaranteed Hours (GH) model of resourcing and contractual arrangements
Review of CJCNC and trade-union Partnership working
Professional and career development for Technical staff
Review, re-write and roll out of revised Disciplinary, Absence and Grievance policies
Development of strategic leadership framework and supporting programmes
Framework for staff working abroad
Youth Employment Strategy
22. We have also noted a number of, as yet unquantified, but potentially
significant pieces of work, two of which are listed below. Depending on the
extent of work required to address these issues other work may need to be de-
prioritised.
Implications of Brexit
Implementation of EU Data Protection regulation changes.
23. The following pieces of work/work requests were noted as being important
but of a lower priority then the work set out at points 19 and 20 above.
Inclusion of “core hours” concept in employment contracts
5
Guidance on joint appointments and secondary employment
Establishment and development of mediation service
Review and re-write of Research Misconduct policy
Development and implementation of employee loan facility
Review of contractual arrangements for External Examiners
Review and re-write of Consultancy policy.
Evaluating new work requests
24. We propose that any new work requests that are not compliance driven (i.e.
where the risk associated with not doing the work is not assessed as high) are
prioritised by establishing how many of the four HR Work Themes they match to
and estimating the level of impact/benefit across the University.
Resource implications 25. One of the key functions of the HR Strategy and associated work plan will be to ensure the most effective allocation of available HR resources to support the delivery of the University’s Strategic Plan 2016.
Risk Management
26. It is anticipated that this approach will allow more effective management of risk. Where there is a significant risk of not doing a particular piece of work this will automatically be given a high priority in the work plan.
Equality & Diversity
27. Equality and Diversity considerations and the need for an impact assessment will be considered as part of the development and implementation process for each project.
Next Steps
28. Once finalised by the HR Executive, the Director of HR will publish a short 2-3 page HR Strategy setting out the four HR Work Themes, how these will support the delivery of the University’s Strategic Plan, and how they will be used to inform the HR work plan and prioritise pan-University work across HR.
29. Further work to develop the initial draft HR plan will be undertaken by the HR Executive.
Consultation 30. The proposed HR Work Themes have been discussed with Sarah Smith, University Secretary and Professor Jane Norman, Vice-Principal People and Culture and shared, in draft, with the wider pan-University HR Community at the recent HR Community Away afternoon.
Further information
31. Author/Presenter, Zoe Lewandowski, Director of HR, 8 February 2017 Freedom of Information
32. This paper is open. `
1
PAPER D
PEOPLE COMMITTEE
15 February 2017
Review of Support for Disabled Students
Description of Paper 1. Executive summary of the preliminary findings and recommendations of the Review of Support for Disabled Students.
Action Requested/Recommendation 2. People Committee are asked to endorse the findings, and provide feedback on any potential difficulties in implementing the recommendations and support the implementation. Background and Context 3. Overview Students raised concerns about the University's current arrangements for supporting disabled students. In response, the Principal instigated a review in May 2016 and tasked a review panel to scrutinise priority areas (accessibility and the implementation of adjustments) and recommend options for enhancement. The focus of the review was on support for disabled students, however it was determined that any issues identified which (also) relate to support for disabled staff be remitted to People Committee (or another relevant staff committee) for further action. 4. The Review Panel membership was: Professor Jane Norman, Vice Principal (People and Culture) (Convenor); Chris Brill and Stephanie Millar, Senior Policy Advisers, Equality Challenge Unit; Gavin Douglas, Deputy Secretary (Student Experience) (Secretary & Deputy Convenor); Jessica Husbands, Vice President (Societies and Activities), EUSA; Leah Morgan, Convenor of the Disability and Mental Wellbeing (DMW) Liberation Group, EUSA; Professor Sandy Tudhope, Head of the School of Geosciences and Court representative. 5. The Panel met on five occasions and two formal review days were held with student and staff stakeholder groups from across the University (in September 2016 to consider issues relating to the accessibility of the estate and in October 2016 to consider issues relating to the implementation of adjustments). 6. The group noted that deficiencies in support for students with disabilities had been highlighted in previous reports (eg QAA) and that the recommendations had not been acted on.
2
Discussion 7. The University has a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the needs of students with disabilities. This obligation is anticipatory and there is a risk that we are not currently fully meeting this obligation. 8. The summary findings and the recommendations of the review panel are set out in Appendix 1. The recommendations are broadly in line with the January 2017 publication from the Department of Education entitled “Inclusive Teaching and Learning in Higher Education as a route to Excellence”. Please see web link below:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-teaching-and-learning-in-higher-education Resource Implications 9. There are resource implications which are being considered as part of the review. Risk Management 10. There are institutional risk management implications which are being considered as part of the review. Equality & Diversity 11. Equality and diversity implications are integral to the review. Next Steps/Implications 12. A final consultation event with students will be hosted by the Students’ Association before the final report is submitted to the Principal in March 2017. Consultation 13. The findings and recommendations were discussed at Senate on 1st Feb and will be presented to the student body in February/March. These findings and recommendations will also be discussed at PSG before finalising the report prior to submission to the Principal.
Further Information 14. Review Panel convened by Professor Jane Norman, Vice-Principal People and Culture, January 2017 Freedom of Information 15. This paper is open
3
Appendix 1 PAPER D
Review of Support for Disabled Students
The following represents the key findings and proposed recommendations of the review to date, which were presented at the February meeting of Senate and are due to be considered by the Principal’s Strategy Group on 20 February 2017.
Accessibility of the Estate Key Problems:
Inaccessibility - students and staff report that they face difficulties in accessing some of the estate due to layout and design of both old and new buildings.
Baseline Data - there is no current, accurate baseline figure in regard to the exact number of buildings which are accessible, either teaching or residential.
Accountability - there is a lack of clarity on who is responsible for optimizing access once a building is in use.
Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) – there is no effective system or infrastructure to generate and execute PEEPs.
Maintenance - access is often limited because of long standing breakdown of equipment which is essential for access (such as lifts, accessible doors) and there is no systematic method for reporting accessibility or related maintenance issues directly to Estates.
Lack of Engagement with Students – the University does not systematically consult or involve disabled students during the design stages of new build or refurbishment projects. This has led to instances of poor design across the estate, not simply confined to access/egress issues. For example:
- teaching space with inappropriate size, acoustics or lighting for students with disability; - a lack of clear, simple, eye level signage across the University; - toilets designed with insufficient space for guide dogs, wheelchair or hoist users and a lack
of gender neutral toilets; - relatively small size parking spaces (i.e. meeting statutory requirements but practically
inaccessible to many users), and inappropriate surfaces of some of the allocated bays (e.g. on cobbled areas).
Scale of ambition – there is a tendency to address accessibility issues as they arise as opposed to
proactively anticipating user needs (for example, the ramp into Allison House being removed for repair for 12 weeks but no alternative arrangements being made in the meantime). In new developments, the standard is compliance with building standards however these represent a minimum rather than a ”best practice” standard of accessibility.
Parking - disabled parking spaces and building access are often blocked by external contractors and or staff.
Proposed Solutions:
4
Review of Accessibility of the Estate - The Review Panel recommends that there is a comprehensive review of accessibility of the estate, and that the University devise, and allocate appropriate funding for, an action plan to address areas of inaccessibility (the review team noted that this work has already started).
New Policy and Guidance - The Panel recommends that Estates develop a policy document which sets out a set of appropriately aspirational standards (given the scale and standing of the institution) for access (the review team noted that this work has already started).
Governance: - The Panel recommends that Estates and the Estates Committee give (greater) priority to
accessibility in future plans for new buildings or refurbishment of buildings. - The Panel recommends that a named senior individual in Estates be assigned to champion
issues of disabled access (the review team noted that this is now in place). - The Panel recommends that Estates and the Estates committee perform a regular (perhaps
annual) review of activities and performance around inclusive access as part of the Equality Duty.
- The Panel recommends that consideration be given to performance indicators (for the new strategic plan) which monitor and report on accessibility of the estate.
PEEPs - The Panel recommends that the group convened by the Vice-Principal People and
Culture develops an effective system to generate and execute PEEPs, and that this is developed as a matter of urgency.
Maintenance - The Panel recommends that Estates develop an effective strategy to identify and address urgent repair and maintenance issues (such as those which facilitate access of disabled individuals). Estates should also develop an online feedback mechanism for users to highlight accessibility and related maintenance issues to estates, and for Estates to respond with estimated timelines. This mechanism should be proactively marketed to students.
Engagement with Students - The Panel recommends that Estates involves disabled students in the review of accessibility, policy and guidance implementation, and during the design stages of refurbishment or new build projects in order to ensure due consideration of accessibility from a user perspective.
Training and awareness - The Panel recommends that Estates staff participate in enhanced disability awareness training, ideally involving disabled users themselves, in order raise awareness and understanding of the impact of accessibility issues.
Parking - The Panel recommends that the Director of Estates implement clearer and more regular communication to its own staff and to contractors regarding the requirement that disabled parking space is kept accessible at all times.
Implementation of Adjustments Key Problems:
Complexity – multifaceted system of support which is too often opaque, fragmented, and inconsistent.
Implementation – adjustments recommended by the Student Disability Service (SDS) are not always implemented.
5
Communication - there is a lack of communication between SDS and schools about deciding adjustments and a lack of clarity regarding responsibilities. Communication of recommended adjustments is hampered by poor systems and over-reliance on email.
Governance - schools and SDS both have specific roles in supporting disabled students but there is no one individual or organization with overall authority or responsibility to ensure a student’s adjustments (or any other needs) are implemented.
Accessible and Inclusive Learning Policy – awareness of and engagement with the Policy across the University remains limited and inconsistent.
IT infrastructure - the IT infrastructure in current use is inadequate for effective recording and communication of agreed adjustments.
Proposed Solutions:
Status of Adjustments - The Review Panel recommends that the University change the status of agreed adjustments from a recommendation to a necessary requirement to implement.
Roles and Responsibility – The Student Disability Service (SDS) must be the ultimate authority in regard to identifying what is a ‘reasonable’ adjustment however the responsibility for the implementation of agreed adjustments must rest with the Schools and therefore ultimately with each Head of School.
Communication - The Panel recommends that SDS build closer relationships with Schools so that Disability Advisers understand the discipline-specific issues that may impact on certain adjustments. The Panel also recommends that SDS engage in a programme of communication to ensure that Schools are aware of and kept up to date with changes to the full list of adjustments that SDS may make.
Governance: - The Panel recommends that Schools undertake an annual review of adjustments and
submit a report to the Disability Committee/Central Management Group (CMG) in regard to the number of adjustments proposed, and the number implemented and not implemented.
- The Panel recommends that Schools introduce a designated single point of contact for each disabled student (Disability Support Officer role), with whom students can raise issues or concerns about implementation of adjustments, and other disability related issues such as accessibility, and who is empowered to act with the authority of the Head of School to resolve problems with adjustments.
- The Panel recommends that SDS put in place training and support for Disability Support Officers, including but not limited to creating a network of these staff to share best practice.
Accessible and Inclusive Learning Policy - The Panel recommends that the Policy receives a high profile relaunch with the specific
support and endorsement of senior leaders in the institution. - The Panel recommends that after the initial launch and communication phase, the SDS
conduct a focused, small-scale audit of the AILP to investigate how successful implementation of the policy has been, as well as to identify any obstacles to full implementation.
IT infrastructure - The Panel recommends that the project to enhance the SDS data systems is delivered (as
planned) by the end of the current academic year, 2016-17. This should include a single portal which lists all the adjustments for any individual student and/or all the adjustments for
6
any individual class is required. The portal should be able to assemble relevant information throughout the student lifecycle starting at confirmation of admission.
Review Panel January 2017
1
PAPER F PEOPLE COMMITTEE
15 February 2017
Equality Outcomes 2017-2021
Description of paper
1. This paper sets out the 2017 reporting requirements under the Scottish Specific Duties of the Equality Act 2010 Public Sector Equality Duty.
2. This paper presents and invites comment on the draft Equality Outcomes 2017-2021, to be published by 30th April 2017.
Action requested
3. People Committee is asked to note the 2017 reporting requirements and invited to comment on the draft Equality Outcomes 2017-2021.
4. People Committee is asked to remit authority to the Vice-Principal People & Culture to oversee further revisions to the outcomes, and the development of targeted actions to achieve these outcomes, prior to publication by 30th April 2017.
Background and context
5. Under the Equality Act 2010, the University is bound by the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) and must - in all its activities - have 'due regard' to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.
6. The PSED is underpinned by additional, devolved, specific duties. The Scottish specific duties came into force in May 2012 and require the University to publish various equality reports every 2 years from April 2013, with additional reporting every 4 years.
7. Under the Scottish specific duties the University must, by 30th April 2017, meet the following reporting duties, to:
report on progress on mainstreaming the equality duty;
publish a set of equality outcomes for 2017-2021 and report on progress in achieving the 2013-2017 outcomes;
gather and publish employee equality information;
2
publish gender pay gap information;
publish statements on equal pay and occupational segregation;
publish the gender composition of Court, and produce succession plans to increase diversity (new duty effective from March 2016).
8. This paper focuses on the development of a set of Equality Outcomes for 2017-2021.
9. Equality Outcomes are broad results that will be achieved as a consequence of
targeted actions to improve equality. The University published its first set of Equality Outcomes in April 2013 covering the period 2013-2017 and reported progress in achieving these in April 2015.
Discussion
10. Draft Equality Outcomes 2017-2021 have been identified and shaped by:
Review of the previous set of Equality Outcomes and progress;
Consideration of responses to staff and student surveys including the Race Equality Charter Survey, the Staff Disability Survey and the Social Responsibility & Sustainability Survey;
Alignment with University strategic priorities, the Scottish Funding Council Outcome Agreement, and existing initiatives/activities across the University;
Cognisance of external drivers such as the Scottish Funding Council Gender Action Plan.
Guidance from Equality & Human Rights Commission, and the Equality Challenge Unit on developing equality outcomes.
11. The draft Equality Outcomes 2017-2021 and identified areas for specific actions
are:
Outcome1. We provide an environment that is accessible, welcoming and safe.
Action areas: promote Dignity & Respect; improve support for disabled staff and students; develop British Sign Language plan; improve estate accessibility.
Outcome 2. Equality, diversity and inclusion are embedded in all that we do.
Action areas: improve Equality Impact Assessment compliance; increase uptake of Equality, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) training; increase diversity in governance and decision-making; revise EDI Strategy.
Outcome 3. We have equity of pay for all staff.
Action areas: implement recommendations from Gender Pay Gap Task Group.
3
Outcome 4. We have a diverse community of staff and students, who are able to reach their full potential.
Action areas: implement Youth Employment Strategy; take forward findings from Attracting Diversity in Student Recruitment project; implement Athena SWAN and Race Equality action plans; improve disclosure of equality information by staff and students; continue to develop Widening Participation initiatives.
12. We welcome feedback from People Committee on the above draft outcomes, and particularly welcome suggestions for actions to underpin each outcome.
Resource implications
13. The implementation of the Equality Outcomes 2017-2021 will have implications for staff resources and in some cases will have financial costs. However, the majority of actions are aligned with existing initiatives/activities across the University.
Risk Management 14. Failure to comply with our reporting duties has legal implications.
Equality & Diversity
15. In seeking to support the advancement of equality, this paper has positive implications for equality, diversity and inclusion matters.
Next steps/implications
16. Refinement of the Equality Outcomes and the development of underpinning actions will be shaped through consultation with key stakeholders and action-owners. These include: Heads of College and Support Groups, College E&D Committees, School/Support Groups E&D Coordinators, Staff Networks, the Student’s Association.
17. The full Equality Outcomes 2017-2021 will go forward to the April meetings of
Policy & Resources Committee and University Court for formal approval prior to publication on 30th April 2017.
Consultation
18. As described in paragraph 16.
4
Further information
Authors
Dr Caroline Wallace, Senior Partner – Equality Diversity & Inclusion, UHRS
Professor Jane Norman, Vice-Principal People & Cultur
1 February 2017
Presenter
Dr Caroline Wallace, Senior Partner – Equality Diversity & Inclusion, UHRS
Freedom of Information
19. This paper is open.
1
PAPER G PEOPLE COMMITTEE
15 February 2017
2016 EDMARC Report
Description of paper
1. The paper presents the eighth Equality, Diversity Monitoring and Research Group
(EDMARC) reports on staff and student data for the University of Edinburgh.
Action requested
2. People Committee is asked to note the reports, raise any issues or concerns it has
on the contents of the reports, and to endorse the proposed approach from the Vice
Principal People and Culture to Heads of School (HoS) to respond to the School data
and to set out their equality and diversity priorities in the context of the Strategic Plan
2016 performance measures and their own priorities.
Background and context
3. The reports focus on staff and student data for 2015/16 and looks at the equality
dimensions of gender, age, disability and ethnicity for undergraduate, taught
postgraduate and research postgraduate and research postgraduate students and for
academic and professional services staff.
Discussion
4. The Executive Summary identifies the main points from the staff and student
reports. The full reports can be obtained from the following link:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity/monitoring-statistics/edmarc
5. All data from both the student and staff reports has been presented by School and
will be made available to Heads of School. The Vice Principal People and Culture
intends to ask each HoS to review their own School data and:
Identify the equality and diversity priorities for their own School that they
consider requires action to address;
State what the School can do itself to address these priorities; and
2
State what support they require from College and/or Support Groups to assist
in addressing their priorities.
6. The new Strategic Plan 2016 performance measures will provide the corporate
priorities for equality and diversity that HoSs can use alongside their own specific
priorities to inform the above process.
7. HoSs should aim to complete their reviews by the end of April 2017.
Resource implications
8. There are no resource implications.
Risk Management 9. None
Equality & Diversity
10. Publication of our annual equality data for staff and students meets our
obligations under equality legislation.
Next steps/implications
11. The EDMARC reports will be presented to CMG for noting and comment and to
Court for formal approval. Information contained in the reports will inform the
Advancing Gender Equality Steering Group and the Race Equality Working Group.
Consultation
12. The attached reports have been reviewed by the EDMARC committee.
Further information
Author and Presenter
13, Professor Jane Norman, Chair of EDMARC, Vice-Principal People & Culture 6 February 2017
Freedom of Information
14. This paper is open.
1
EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY MONITORING AND RESEARCH COMMITTEE (EDMARC)
2016
EIGHTH REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Introduction The eighth EDMARC report provides analyses of student and staff data by the key equality dimensions of gender, age, disability and ethnicity. The report supports the monitoring of equality and diversity within the University of Edinburgh. This summary identifies the main points from the staff and student reports. The full reports can be obtained from the following weblink, http://www.ed.ac.uk/equality-diversity/monitoring-statistics/edmarc or by contacting Kevin Harkin in Governance and Strategic Planning, telephone: 0131 651 4578 or email: [email protected]. The University successfully achieved an institutional Athena Swan Silver Award in 2015, an award held by only ten other HE institutions and two research institutes. The University also submitted an application for the Equalities Challenge Unit (ECU) Race Charter Award. These activities concentrate on gender and race issues respectively in more detail than the EDMARC report does, and the findings and action plans are published on the Equality and Diversity website.
2. Students 2.1 Gender Intakes of undergraduate (UG) female students remain consistent across the period with 63.1% of undergraduate (UG) entrants being female in 2015/16. There remains gender differences between Colleges (linked to subject differences) with both the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine consistently having between 63% and 68% proportion of female UG entrants and the College of Science and Engineering having between 39% and 46% female entrants. The overall proportion of female postgraduate taught (PGT) entrants in 2015/16 was 62.5%. Subject differences remain at postgraduate taught level, with the College of Humanities and Social Science attracting the highest proportion of female entrants. For Postgraduate Research (PGR) entrants the proportion of female entrants is 48.7% although there remain subject gender differences between the colleges with CHSS and CMVM having a majority intake of female students. The proportion of female entrants for first degree, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research are all above the Russell Group average.
ANNEX 1 PAPER G
GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING
EDMARC Executive Summary
2
GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING (GASP) THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
For the analysis of undergraduate outcomes, we use the proportion of entrants who exit with an award as the measure. Overall, and consistently over the last ten years females are more likely to exit with a qualification and to achieve a first class or upper second class degree than males, although this pattern is not seen in all schools, with some showing a broadly even level of attainment between genders and in some schools in some years this is reversed, with males doing better than females. Outcomes of PGT entrants show that female students are slightly more likely to have a successful outcome from their programme of study than male students. There is no difference between the successful outcomes of women and men on Postgraduate Research programmes 2.2 Disability The proportion of UG students with a registered disability continues to rise and is 10.4% in 2015/16. Since 2006/07 the proportion of PGT entrants with a declared disability has increased from a low of 3.5% in 2006/07 to 5.8% in 2015/16. The proportion of PGR entrants declaring a disability is slightly higher than last year at 6.3%. The University of Edinburgh has one of the highest proportion of students declaring a disability in the Russell Group at UG level, but at PGR level it is one of the lowest. For the current year the outcomes of entrants who register a disability the proportion that achieved a 1st or 2.1 honours degree was lower (3.5%-points) than the group with no declared disability. Students with no declared disability at both PGT and PGR level are slightly more likely to have a successful outcome from their programme of study than students declaring a disability. 2.3 Ethnicity At 9.7%, the overall proportion of UK-domiciled black and ethnic minority (BME) UG entrants is the highest level recorded by EDMARC. The most recent four years has seen a step increase in the proportion of BME entrants (range 7.8% - 9.7%) compared to the six years previously (range of 5.9% - 6.4%). Over the last ten years there has been a year-on-year increase in the overall proportion of non-UK BME UG entrants (apart from 2010/11) rising from 20.1% to 46.5% in 2015/16. The proportion of UK-domiciled PGT entrants from an ethnic minority background has increased from 5.5% in 2002/03 to 13.4% in 2015/16 and the proportion of non-UK PGT BME entrants has increased from 48.1% to 59.3% over the same period. The proportion of UK-domiciled BME entrants is much higher in MVM than the other two Colleges, whereas all three Colleges have a similar proportion of non UK-domiciled entrants. The proportion of PGR entrants from an ethnic minority background is 10.9% for UK entrants and 42.8% for non-UK entrants, and the 10 year trend for both groups shows no increase over the period. Analysis of ethnicity data from peer groups shows that the University of Edinburgh has a slightly higher proportion of BME entrants at all levels of study in comparison to other institutions in Scotland although is some way off the proportion of BME entrants to Russell Group institutions. Edinburgh’s participation in the Race Charter Mark aims to identify how participation of BME students and staff can be improved.
EDMARC Executive Summary
3
GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING (GASP) THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
There is a slight divergence of achievement for UK-domiciled BME students where the proportion of students achieving a 1st or 2.1 honours degree has been lower than white students for the last four years (range 5.0%-points to 7.7%-points). For non-UK BME students the diversion of achievement is more pronounced, with the proportion achieving a 1st or 2.1 honours degree being lower than white students in every one of the last ten years (range 6.9%-points to 18.9%-points). The difference in proportions of white and BME students attainment in achieving a 1st or 2.1 Honours degree is reported across the sector (Russell Group difference in range 10%-points to 14%-points over the last five years, sector wide a 15%-points overall difference after modelling other factors, and seen by a variable degree across all entry qualifications from between 5%-points and 18%-points and in each country in the UK). EDMARC will publish a more detailed report on the UG BME journey from application to outcome in the spring of 2017. Over the 10 year period for PGT a higher proportion of white UK-domiciled entrants exit with a qualification than do BME entrants (range 2.5%-points to 12.1%-points difference) whereas for non UK-domiciled entrants the proportion of BME students exiting with a qualification was similar to that of white students (range 1.9%-points to -0.1%-point).
In every year over the ten year period UK-domiciled PGR BME students were less likely to successfully complete their programme than white students (range 2.1%-points to 7.30%-points) whereas there is little difference in completion rates between non-UK domiciled BME and white students. EDMARC will monitor this going forward. 2.4 Age The large majority (80%) of our UG entrants continue to be 21 or under on entry, with the relative decrease seen from a peak of 89% in 2008/09 maintained in 2015/16. 2.5 Comparison data Peer group comparison with Russell Group and institutions in Scotland is provided for the dimensions of gender, disability and ethnicity.
3. Staff 3.1 Gender Staff data is a snapshot of the staff database, as at 31 July 2016. For 2015/16 overall 42.6% of academic staff are women and 60.0% of professional services staff are women. There remains an under-representation of women in senior posts. For academic staff women make up 34% of staff at grade UE9 and 24% of staff at UE grade 10 and for professional services staff women make up 51% of grade UE9 staff and 35% of UE grade 10 staff. Women are more likely to be employed on a fixed-term contract (more pronounced for academic staff than professional services staff) and this pattern has not changed significantly over the last six years.
EDMARC Executive Summary
4
GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING (GASP) THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
3.2 Disability Staff declaring a disability are presented here separately and at an aggregated University level as the figures are too small to by split by staff type and college and support group. The overall headcount of staff declaring a disability has risen from 202 (1.9%) in 2010/11 to 394 (2.9%) in 2015/16. The proportion of staff disclosing a disability since 2013/14 is broadly in line with the benchmarking data for higher education in Scotland (3.3%, ECU statistical report 2016). 3.3 Ethnicity The proportion of UK-nationality academic BME staff is 6.3% and for those staff from outside the UK it is 27.6%, both of which show a general upward trend since 2008/09. The proportion of UK nationality BME professional support staff is 2.7% and for non-UK nationality staff is 23.6% with the trend showing no appreciable increase for the last four years for either category of staff. The University of Edinburgh has a higher proportion of both UK-nationality BME academic staff and BME professional services staff than the average for other institutions in Scotland but a lower proportion than that for Russell Group institutions. There is a tendency for UK staff overall to be on higher grades than non-UK staff, and that within each of the non-UK and UK nationality groups, there tends to be a greater proportion of white ethnicity staff than BME staff on higher grades for both academic and professional services staff. Both UK-nationality and non-UK nationality BME academic staff are more likely to be employed on a fixed-term contract than a white academic member of staff, a pattern has not changed significantly over the last six years. UK and non-UK BME professional services staff are each more likely to be on a fixed term contract than their white counterparts over the last six years, except for non UK-nationality staff in 2015/16 when the gap has been closed. 3.4 Age Since the removal of the default retirement age the proportion of all staff age 66 & over has increased slightly year-on-year but there remains a consistent spread of staff across all age groups. 3.5 Specific Duties from the Equality Act To meet the Specific Duties for public bodies in Scotland, figures on sexual orientation and religion are included in the EDMARC report. In 2015/16 the number of staff declaring their religion or belief was 5,515 and 7,891 were unknown. 58% of those declared were of no religion. The number of staff declaring their sexual orientation was 5,506 and 7,900 were unknown. Of those that declared, 87% were heterosexual. Full breakdowns of the figures are available in the EDMARC report.
4. EDMARC actions Following the publication of this EDMARC report, student data will be made available to all Colleges and Schools within the University and will also be made public on the Equality and
EDMARC Executive Summary
5
GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC PLANNING (GASP) THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
Diversity website to create greater transparency. By providing a greater granularity of data on entry profiles, the information will be used to inform any further analysis Schools may wish to take forward. Professor Jane Norman, Chair of EDMARC and Vice Principal People & Culture Kevin Harkin, Governance and Strategic Planning 6 February 2017
1
PAPER H
PEOPLE COMMITTEE
15 February 2017
People Report
Description of Paper
1. This paper provides an update on work instigated by People Committee and on
other People related matters being taken forward by University HR Services, including
in consultation with the devolved teams and other University departments.
Action Required 2. People Committee is asked to note the content of this paper and comment or raise questions. Recommendation 3. People Committee is recommended to consider and comment on the report. Background and Context 4. This paper provides a summary report on progress on People related matters being taken forward by University HR Services since the last meeting of People Committee on 19 October 2016. Attract 5. Ambitious Futures The University had confirmed its participation in a pilot of the Ambitious Futures graduate trainee programme for 2017/18. The programme is a 15-month rotational graduate scheme (divided into three project-based placements of 5-months) targeted at graduates seeking a career within the HE sector. The first and last placements will be based with us, with the middle placement at a regional partner institution (e.g. Glasgow, Stirling or Dundee University). An assessment centre to select our trainee will take place in March/April 2017. 6. Relocation Support UHRS Resourcing Team have been holding workshops with stakeholders from across the University to review the current relocation support service with a view to making the current service more efficient and effective for incoming staff, improving data quality and reducing the duplication of effort by those involved in the process. Workshops have identified a number of issues and opportunities for improvement, which are currently being written up with recommendations. Reward 7. 2016/2017 Pay Dispute Following member consultation, UCU, UNISON and Unite formally concluded and
2
settled the 2016/17 round of pay negotiations at the end of November 2016. EIS remains in dispute with HEIs/UCEA over the pay claim and with effect from 1 January 2017 has escalated its action short of a strike by advising its members “not to promote, publicise, co-ordinate or administer the National Student Survey in 2017”. The University employs c80 EIS members, the majority of whom are based in Edinburgh College of Art and Moray House. 8. HR continues to update the Contingency Group regarding EIS’s action and will schedule further meetings of the group as and when required. 9. Staff Benefits Scheme Consultation conclusion
Following the consultation on the Staff Benefits Pension Scheme which took place
during the Autumn last year the updated Trust Deed and rules were signed by the SBS
Trustees and the University by the deadline date of 31 December, formalising the
agreed changes to the scheme. New member booklets and factsheets are being
drafted which will give more detail of the new benefit structure and what the changes
mean for staff. The main changes can be summarised as; change in accrual rate from
60ths to 75ths, increase in member contributions form 7.5% to 8%, normal retirement
age to be aligned with State Pension Age, introduction of lump sum payment at
retirement of 3 X pension in addition to annual pension.
10. Employee Financial Wellbeing
Following consideration at the last meeting of People Committee the Reward team
have engaged with three suppliers of affordable borrowing for staff and are currently
evaluating their offerings.
Maximising Performance 11. Managing Capability A revised policy, titled ‘Performance Improvement Policy’ has been developed which reduces the number of formal steps and simplifies the process and accompanying documentation. Following local union consultation, we currently await feedback from UCU’s Regional Office. We hope to be in a position to seek CJCNC ratification of the revised policy at its March meeting and to commence roll-out from April, which will be preceded by a dedicated HR Advisor workshop, facilitated by the legal firm Pinsent Masons who have helped the development of a ‘bolder’ policy/procedural approach to managing performance. 12. Development of University-wide sabbatical principles University HR Services are developing a set of governing principles and operational guidance for the administration of academic sabbatical leave. It is proposed that these will be ‘signed-off’ by Heads of College (and College Heads of HR) before they are shared with and consulted on with the trade unions, with a view to publication ahead of semester one of academic year 2017/18. Learning & Development 13. Leadership Talent Development Following approval of a paper at People Committee, a pilot Leadership Development programme for staff at Grades 8 / 9 has been designed and was launched in February. There are 30 participants in the cohort; 18 from CSG and 12 from USG. Following evaluation of the pilot, the programme will be made more widely available to senior managers across the university.
3
14. A working group will be set up early in 2017 to explore and develop the university’s approach to talent management. This will include creating a tiered framework for leadership and talent development based on core common characteristics which will underpin our programmes and define our leadership development approach. 15. Support for development & recognition of technical staff Following approval of a paper at People Committee, a working group has been set up to advocate for technical staff and explore actions to support CPD, shared learning and a sense of community within the University of Edinburgh for this population. The working group aims to address concerns raised by technical staff around the lack of support for their continued professional development (CPD) and perceived lack of recognition of the importance of their role in supporting the achievement of the University’s goals of excellence in teaching and learning and excellence in research. The group comprises representatives from that population, along with staff from HR, the unions and the department for Sustainability. Organisation Capability 16. HR Transformation The outcomes of the Options Identification phase of the Programme were shared with the HR Transformation Programme Board at their December meeting who endorsed these to the Service Excellence Board for continuation to detailed design. The Service Excellence Board supported this continuation of activity. 17. The HR Transformation Team continue to work on planning of activity for 2017 and are contributing to the development of the core systems strategy lead by the Chief Information Officer Academic Work Allocation Principles and Operational Guidance 18. Following external benchmarking with other Russell Group universities and
consultation with UCU, a revised set of academic work allocation principles, supported
by operational guidance has been developed to ensure the fair, equitable and
transparent allocation of work to academic colleagues in parts of the University. The
principles and operational guidance were reviewed as part of the work undertaken by
the Enhancing Teaching Performance Group. Link here: :
http://www.ed.ac.uk/human-resources/policies-guidance/a-to-z-
policies/Academic_Work_Allocation_Models_Development_Principles_and_Operational_Guidance.pdf
19. Recruitment of new Principal The process to recruit a new Principal for the University has concluded the appointment of Professor Peter Mathieson as the University’s new Principal & Vice-Chancellor was announced on 2 February 2017. Professor Mathieson is currently President & Vice-Chancellor at the University of Hong Kong. 20. Recruitment of Head of College of Science and Engineering Perrett Laver have been appointed to support the University in the recruitment process for the new Head of College of Science and Engineering. A longlisting meeting took place on 19 January. Shortlisting is scheduled for mid-February with interviews anticipated toward the end of February. 21. Review of Guaranteed Hours (GH) Model of Resourcing for Teaching Delivery A separate paper is being presented to this meeting of People Committee (15 February 2017)
4
Equality, Diversity & Wellbeing 22. Race Charter While we were very disappointed not to be successful in our recent re-submission for the Race Charter the University remains committed to delivering on our action plan and to creating a positive an inclusive working environment for staff and students from all nationalities, cultures and ethnic backgrounds. 23. Equality Outcomes A separate paper is being presented to this meeting of People Committee (15 February 2017) 24. Student Disability Review A separate paper is being presented to this meeting of People Committee (15 February 2017) 25. EDMARC report A separate paper is being presented to this meeting of People Committee (15 February 2017) Employee Experience & Communication 26. Review of Support for EU and Non EEA staff As a result of recent developments and announcements in relation to BREXIT, University HR services have surveyed other institutions about the support they are providing to their EU staff and have contributed to a paper being presented to Principal’s Strategy Group by James Smith, Vice Principal International. We have recommended that we continue to monitor the situation and in the meantime enhance support to EU staff by working with our employment lawyers to provide further open legal briefing sessions, opportunities for short individuals legal consultations (paid for by the University) and that we negotiate preferential rates for staff with our employment lawyers for staff who require more detailed individual support an advice. In addition, we propose to extend the interest-free loan facility (developed to support non-EEA staff with their visa fees) to EU-staff seeking to secure documentation evidencing their right to be permanently resident in the UK and/or British citizenship. 27. Developing approach to HR Communications Work has begun in the Learning and Development team to explore ways in which communications from the team can be made more effective. The work includes developing a digital strategy to encourage more staff to engage with the L&D function via the website and reviewing how information is communicated out from the team via different media and formats. Learning and insights from this work will be used to inform our approach to all HR communications. Systems and MI 28. On-Line payslips The University introduced online payslips in September 2016 and ran these in parallel with paper payslips until December 2016. From January 2017 the University stopped producing paper payslips all together apart from those for a small number of staff including those staff on maternity leave and long term sickness. Further information is available here.
5
Legislative Compliance 29. UKVI Audit During October 2016 the University hosted a mock compliance audit for both Tier 4 (students) and Tiers 2 and 5 (staff). While the mock audit was in progress we received notification that we would be visited during November by the UKVI Higher Education Assurance Team (HEAT) to carry out a formal audit, also of both staff and students. Compliance Officers visited the University between 8 and 11 November to audit the University’s compliance with its obligations as a sponsor of non-EEU students and workers. The Tiers 2 and 5 auditor interviewed the Authorising Officer (Zoe Lewandowski, Director of HR), the Key Contact (Linda Criggie, Deputy Director of HR) and a College HR representative (Katarina Morrison, HR Co-ordinator, MVM) and reviewed the files of 48 sponsored staff and 117 staff of other immigration status. Whilst the formal UKVI report has yet to be received, we are optimistic (from indications provided by the auditor whilst on site) that any issues identified will be relatively minor and will be administrative housekeeping in nature rather than any failure to comply. Work is underway to apply the internal lessons learned during the collation of the 165 staff files to ensure consistency of practice and record-keeping. 30. Expanded definition of Academic freedom University HR Services have informed the Joint Unions of the expanded definition of Academic Freedom set out in the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016 (* see emboldened text below) and revised grades 6-10 (and clinical equivalents) conditions of service to incorporate this change. These will be ratified and approved by CJCNC for publication by the end of February 2017.
* freedom within the law to hold and express opinions, to question and test established ideas, or
received wisdom, develop and advance new ideas or innovative proposals and to present
controversial or unpopular points of view without placing in jeopardy the appointments they hold
or any entitlements or privileges they enjoy.
Equality & Diversity 31. Equality issues will be considered on a case by case basis for each individual project/piece of work. Next Steps/Implications 32. Future reports will be presented to each meeting of People Committee. Consultation 33. A similar People report will also be presented quarterly to CMG and to each meeting of Policy & Resources Committee Further Information 34. Author Ms Zoe Lewandowski Director of Human Resources 24 January 2017 Freedom of Information 35. This paper is open
6
