Equal Pay Audit 2014
All Employees on grading structure
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Context
3. Scope
4. Inclusions/exclusions
5. Methodology
6. Results
7. Conclusion
8. Future Action
Equal Pay Audit 2014
1. Introduction
Bucks New University supports the principle of equal pay for work of equal value and recognises that
we should operate a pay structure that is free from bias. A grade structure, derived from a nondiscriminatory job evaluation scheme (HERA), plus harmonised terms and conditions was negotiated
and agreed with the trade unions in April 2008.
As part of its commitment to equal opportunities, the University believes that its male and female
workers should receive equal pay for:

the same or similar work

work related as equivalent under our job evaluation scheme (HERA)

work of equal value
The University aims to ensure that it operations a fair and transparent pay system based on objective
criteria and free from gender bias. The University will do this by:

carrying our two yearly audits of pay for existing employees, including those on maternity leave,
sick leave and career breaks.

evaluating job roles and pay grades, where appropriate, to ensure that these are structured
fairly, using benchmarking, where applicable.

Informing employees how their pay has been determined in each salary review; and

treating any grievance in relation to equal pay as a priority.
2. Context
The Public Sector Equality Duty came into force in April 2011 and was created by the Equality Act
2010. There is a requirement for employers covered by the duty to provide information such as the
gender pay gap and an equal pay statement.
3. Scope
The primary purpose of an Equal Pay Review is to establish any pay gaps between groups of
employees and to ensure there is no underlying bias in the grading structure. An Equal Pay Review
involves comparing the pay of women and men doing equal work and investigating any gender pay
gap.
4. Inclusions/exclusions
The Equal Pay Review covers all Academic and Professional Service Employees that are on the
grading structure, and therefore excludes anyone on a SPOT salary.
5. Methodology
Initial analyses is undertaken and if there are differences over 5%, then these will be investigated
further to gain a better understanding of why the differences have occurred and to identify any actions
needed.
6. Results
The tables below indicate the percentage value of any pay gaps. This is shown as -% if females are
paid less than males and +% if females are paid more than males.
6.1 Professional Service employees
Pay Gap SUP Salary
Grades:
Salary Grade
SUPB
SUPC
SUPD
SUPE
SUPF
SUPG
SUPH
SUPI
Female
4
24
65
25
38
31
17
3
Average
Salary
£16,610
£18,824
£21,788
£24,891
£28,907
£34,213
£42,553
£51,781
Male
3
13
13
29
30
27
9
2
Average
Salary
£16,415
£19,390
£20,982
£25,796
£29,278
£34,412
£41,899
£55,409
Pay Gap
+1%
-3%
+4%
-4%
-1%
-1%
+2%
-7%
The pay gaps on a grade by grade basis are within acceptable limits, with only one of the eight
established grade, Grade I, being above the accepted 5%.
The difference is attributed to a function of the grading structure itself as it allows for increments that
give progression up to the contribution point threshold and beyond for each grade, reflecting the
growing experience and skill of the person; however, this will have an effect on the results as will the
long service of employees. Bearing in mind the small numbers involved in this grade we have
examined the profiles and concluded that the reasons behind the 7% pay gap is due to long service
and new managers being appointed at the bottom of the grade.
6.2
Academic employees
Pay Gap ACAD Salary Grades
Salary Grade
AC2
AC3
AC4
Female
5
113
13
Average
Salary
£33,788
£43,041
£51,622
Male
8
114
23
Average
Salary
£32,024
£44,089
£52,300
Pay Gap
+6%
-2%
-1%
The pay gaps on a grade by grade basis are within acceptable limits, with only one of the three
established grade, AC2, being just above the accepted 5%.
The difference is attributed to a function of the grading structure itself as it allows for increments that
give progression up to the contribution threshold and beyond for each grade, reflecting the growing
experience and skill of the person.
The specifics have been reviewed and it is felt that individuals have been placed on the correct spine
point within the grading structure accounting for the job holder’s experiences, skills set and
competencies.
7.
Conclusion
There are no significant pay gaps when comparing work of equal value. This reflects the
consistent use of Higher Education Role Analysis (HERA) to determine the size of roles.
8.
Future Action
The next Equal Pay Review will be undertaken in 2016 to ensure compliance with equal pay
legislation.