EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) PRO-FORMA
Legislation says that the University must take steps to understand the effect, or potential effect, of its
policies* on different groups of people. This is to ensure that a policy is neither directly nor indirectly
discriminatory and to identify how it does, or could, advance equality and foster good relations
between different groups of people.
Legislation groups people by ‘protected characteristics’ and it is these protected characteristics’ need
to be considered when carrying out an EIA.
The protected characteristics are: disability, race, sex, age, gender reassignment, marriage and
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief and sexual orientation.
Your help is needed to do this, not just because the law says so, but because the University is
committed to equality of opportunity for all and to ensuring that all the University’s policies are
developed with an awareness of their consequences for different groups of people.
Heads of Sections/Departments are responsible for ensuring this form is completed for each policy
they ‘own’. It should take no more than 30 minutes to complete. Questions 1-6 only of this EIA proforma need to be completed for new policies. Policies should be assessed for their effect on equality
every 3-5 years.
* For the purpose of EIAs, the term policy refers to formal policies, procedures and processes. It does
not include informal policies, procedures or processes.
Name of policy
Collective agreement between the University and UCU Essex Local
Association on change of duties of academic staff
Web address of policy
http://www.essex.ac.uk/personnel/Pol&Proc/policies/changeofduties.pdf
Policy-holding
Department/Section
Human Resources
Is this a new or existing
policy?
Existing but revised and updated in 2011
Date assessment
completed
16 August 2012
Name and job title of
person completing proforma
Karen Bush, Equality and Diversity Manager, Human Resources
Q1. What is the purpose of the policy? Please explain in no more than 50 words.
To document a procedure to be followed when it is proposed to change the duties of a member of
academic staff on an A+R contract such that there will no longer be a contractual obligation upon that
member of staff to conduct research.
Q2. Does the policy involve, or have consequences for, the people the University serves and
employs? Please answer Yes or No. If yes, please describe all those affected. If No, there is no need
to answer any further questions.
Yes. Members of staff on an A+R contract whose research performance falls short of the
requirements of the University’s research strategy in either quality and/or quantity.
Q3. Does the policy require decisions to be made in relation to individuals or groups of
individuals? Please answer Yes or No. If Yes, please identify the responsible person(s) e.g. Human
1
Resources Manager.
Yes. Heads of Departments, Research Directors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors.
In addition, appeals are considered by two Professors, neither of whom can have been involved in
making the initial decision.
Q4. What is the decision-making process and is it fair and transparent? E.g. if the decision
relates to determining whether an academic offence has been committed, what is the decision based
on and how are individuals made aware of this?
Heads of Department, Research Directors together with the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the ProVice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) review the research performance of all the department’s
staff on A+R contracts. If, as a result of these review processes, it is identified that a member of staff’s
research is, over an extended period, not producing the outputs of the required quality and volume to
lead to their submission to the REF, there is a full discussion with the individual member of staff by
the Head of Department or one or more of the senior staff of the Department.
In any case where informal means have not proved effective and the cause for concern continues, the
Head of Department refers the matter to the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The PVC meets with the
member of staff accompanied by an officer from Human Resources and formally invites the member
of staff concerned to relinquish their contractual research duties and facilities, citing the evidence that
has prompted the invitation.
If an individual declines an invitation to relinquish their contractual research duties and facilities and it
is considered still to be in the best interests of the University to withdraw the requirement to undertake
research, the member of staff is advised accordingly and advised of their right of appeal.
Q5. Please give details of what equality training is/will be provided for decision makers? If the
decision-maker(s) has not had any equality training, s/he should be encouraged to complete the
University’s equality and diversity online training programme.
Training is important because it identifies the implications of not complying with legislation and
outlines the benefits of doing so.
Completion of the University’s online Equality and Diversity training is compulsory for all Pro-ViceChancellors, Heads of Departments and Research Directors. Should an appeal be received, the
Professors appointed must also have completed the online Equality and Diversity training before
considering the appeal.
Q6. Referring to the list of protected characteristics at the top of this form, how do you/will you
monitor the effect this policy has on groups of people with these PCs? You can get support and
guidance from Equality and Diversity on equality monitoring by emailing diversity@essex.ac.uk.
The equality profile of staff who have transferred from an A+R to an A contract since this collective
agreement was signed in August 2011, and those staff identified as being ‘at risk’ of having their
contract changed from A+R to A is monitored on an ongoing basis.
As at 16 August 2012, this procedure had not been enforced i.e. all staff who have changed their
contract from an A+R to an A have agreed to this change following a process of informal discussion.
Q7. Referring to Q6 above, have you identified any positive or negative impact on any group of
people who share a protected characteristic? E.g. the policy means that some groups of people
are charged for a service and others aren’t. Please answer Yes or No. If yes, what, if anything, has
been/will be done about this?
The equality profile of the 12 members of staff who have changed their contract from A+R to A
between August 2011 and 16 August 2012 is as follows:
Male = 7, Female = 5
White = 12, Ethnic minority = 0
2
Declared disability = 2, No disability declared = 10
Age range 26-35 =1 (8.33%)
Age range 36-45 = 1 (8.33%)
Age range 46-55 = 7 (58.33%)
Age range 56-65 = 2 (16.67%)
Age range 66+ = 1 (8.33%)
The evidence suggests that staff in the age group 46-55 are more likely to have their contracts
changed from A+R to A. As a percentage of the overall population of staff on A+R contracts (248 as
at 31 December 2011), those in the 46-55 age range comprise 23.8% - this equates to 59 members of
staff. Even though there are a disproportionate number of staff in this age range who have transferred
from an A+R to an A contract, because the percentage of staff who have transferred is relatively small
(4.84%) it is not appropriate to draw any meaningful conclusions from this information.
In addition, 41.67% of staff who have transferred so far are female. This compares to 33.1% of staff
on A+R contracts as at 31 December 2011. Again, because the percentage of staff who have
transferred is relatively small (4.84%) it is not appropriate to draw any meaningful conclusions from
this information.
The equality profile of the 33 members of staff identified as ‘possibly being at risk’ of being
transferred from an A+R to an A contract as at 25/06/2012 is as follows:
Male = 26, Female = 7
White = 24, Ethnic minority = 9
Declared disability = 3, No declared disability = 30
Age range 26-35 = 6 (18.18%)
Age range 36-45 = 8 (24.24%)
Age range 46-55 = 12 (36.36%)
Age range 56-65 = 6 (18.18%)
Age range 66+ = 1 (3.04%)
Staff in the age range 46-55 comprise the largest ‘at risk’ group with 36.36% of all those at risk being
in this age group. Given that 7 staff in this age group have already transferred from an A+R to an A
contract and the evidence from RAE 2008 showing that submission rates declined as age increased
75% of staff aged 35 and under were returned, 73.02% of staff aged 36-50 were returned and 71.82%
of staff aged over 50 were returned) the University may benefit from conducting further research into
this once a complete set of statistics are available. In addition, the recent removal of the default
retirement age may mean more staff continuing to work beyond what was the ‘normal retirement age’
and so, in the long term, the University may benefit from looking at ways in which staff can be
supported throughout a longer career.
In terms of gender, currently 21.21% of the staff ‘at risk’ are female. This is a lower proportion than
the percentage of female staff on A+R contracts as at 31 December 2011 (33.1%). Given that
currently 41.67% of staff who have transferred so far are female with females making up 33.1% of
staff on A+R contracts as at 31 December 2011, this could indicate that, when the final transfer
numbers are known, the percentage of female staff transferring is close to their representation in the
overall population.
Currently 27.27% of staff ‘at risk’ are from an ethnic minority. This is a higher proportion than the
percentage of staff from an ethnic minority on A+R contracts as at 31 December 2011 (18.6%). Given
that no staff from an ethnic minority have yet transferred this imbalance may well be negated when
the final transfer numbers are known.
As the situation is changing constantly and the picture is incomplete at this stage, no immediate
action is being recommended other than the situation should continue to be monitored.
Q8. Have there been any complaints or issues raised about the policy in relation to its effect
on people who share a protected characteristic? Please answer Yes or No. If yes, please expand.
3
No
Q9. Are there any (further) measures that could be taken to continue to ensure the policy is
neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory? e.g. additional data collection/monitoring or
training. Please answer Yes or No. If yes, please expand.
No - monitoring will continue at regular intervals throughout 2012 and 2013.
Q10. Have you identified any ways in which the policy does, or could advance equality or
foster good relations between different groups of people? Please answer Yes or No. If yes,
please expand.
Having a documented procedure which was developed in conjunction with, and has been agreed by,
UCU provides transparency and also offers staff who, because their research falls short of the
requirements of the University’s research strategy in either quality and/or quality, would be unlikely to
achieve promotion on an A+R contract, more time to devote to Knowledge Exchange and/or
Professional Practice activities therefore increasing their chances of making a successful promotion
application.
Please now email the completed form to diversity@essex.ac.uk. The Equality and Diversity
Committee (EADC) have responsibility for overseeing the completion of EIAs. Equality and Diversity
will assess the information provided in the first instance and will either:



Decide that no action is required and report this to the Equality and Diversity Committee;
Recommend actions to be taken and report this to the Equality and Diversity Committee *;
Refer the EIA to the Equality and Diversity Committee who have the option to require a more
detailed assessment be carried out.
The individual completing the EIA pro-forma will be informed of the outcome of the assessment by
Equality and Diversity as soon as possible after submitting the form.
*If Equality and Diversity recommend action(s) be taken, a report outlining the progress made against
the recommended actions will be requested one year after the EIA has taken place.
For completion by Equality and Diversity
Name of Policy
Collective agreement between the University and
UCU Essex Local Association on change of
duties of academic staff
Should this EIA be referred on to the Equality
and Diversity Committee for further
consideration?
No
If no, what recommendations, if any, should
be made to the Policy-holding
Department/Section?
Evidence from this EIA should be considered
when Human Resources and UCU discuss the
longer term implications for staff who change
from an A+R to an A contract.
Monitoring of this information should continue
throughout 2012 and 2013 as indicated in the
answer to Q9.
Date:
16 August 2012
Signed
Karen Bush
4