Second Report of the Working Party on University Lecturers without Tutorial Fellowships (ULNTFs) - (1) to No 4399

<br /> Oxford University Gazette: Report on University Lecturers without<br /> tutorial fellowships (supplement)

Oxford University Gazette

Second Report of the Working Party on University Lecturers
without Tutorial Fellowships (ULNTFs)

Supplement (1) to Gazette No. 4399

Monday, 6 May 1996

Contents of the supplement:

To Gazette
No. 4400 (9 May 1996)

Gazette Home Page

The following second report of the Working Party on University
Lecturers without Tutorial Fellowships (Chairman of the General
Board, President of Wolfson, Chairman of the Senior Tutors'
Committee (Mr R.J. Smith), Dr K. Flint, Ms J.M. Innes,
Dr W.J. Kennedy, Dr H. Morphy, and Dr W.H. Newton-Smith) will be
on the agenda for Congregation on 28 May 1996—see
explanatory note and special resolution in
9 May 1996.

1 In Trinity Term 1995 the working party
reported to Council and the General Board recommending a scheme
under which the salaries of university lecturers without tutorial
fellowships (ULNTFs) would be increased by three additional
points, the top point being equivalent to the top point on the
national senior lecturer scale. The working party recommended
that, not least for legal reasons, the additional payments should
be made by colleges and the report then proposed arrangements
by which the costs of this scheme would be met in part by the
University and in part by the colleges. It was suggested that the
college contribution should consist of two elements. The first of
these was to be tutorial earnings for the equivalent of three
hours' single tutorials per week, and the second a straightforward
contribution of £500 per annum per lecturer by the college.
It was recognised that in some cases the colleges would not be
able to afford the £500 and the University would have to pay
this in addition to its own general contribution. A fundamental
principle of the scheme was that the ULNTFs should accept an
obligation to undertake three hours of tutorial teaching or special
graduate tuition in order to generate the necessary contribution.

2 The report was published in the
Gazette (Supplement (1) to No. 4370, 10 July 1995) and
Council and the General Board agreed to consult colleges,
comments being requested by 3 November 1995. Although most of
the comments which were received were supportive of the general
intention to resolve the perceived inequity of the ULNTFs'
position and although colleges containing the majority of ULNTFs
supported the proposed scheme, a considerable number of detailed
objections were made to it (such as administrative complexity,
uncertainty about legal and VAT implications, and similar matters).

Return to List of Contents of the

3 The working party has therefore
considered whether there might be any alternative scheme which
would achieve the same objective in a way likely to command
greater support across the collegiate University as a whole. It
now believes that it has devised such a scheme which it puts
forward for consideration.

4 It is now proposed that the extra
payments to the ULNTFs should be made by the University rather
than the colleges. This would mean lengthening for eligible
ULNTFs the university salary scale by three points (i.e. in
1995–6 terms £29,532, £30,446 and £31,357) to
reach the equivalent of the national senior lecturer maximum. In
its original report (para. 12) the working party said that it
believed that there would be serious legal objections to any
scheme in which the payments were made through the university
payroll. It now believes, however, that if the formal university
duties of ULNTFs are revised by amendments to their contracts,
there will be legal justification for paying this particular group
of lecturers more than the University pays university lecturers
with tutorial fellowships. The substance of the alteration in the
contract would be the introduction of a clause requiring
individuals to undertake three hours' tutorial teaching per week
per term (or three hours' special tuition of graduate students).
The working party recognises that in certain subjects or for
certain individuals it may not be possible for such teaching to be
undertaken and the scheme would have to provide for this.
Proposals on this point and further discussion of the legal issues
are set out below in paras. 11 to 14.

5 The working party further proposes that,
as with the original scheme, the latest proposal should not apply
to those ULNTFs whose combined university and college
pensionable stipend is already capable of reaching at least the
national senior lecturer maximum. This therefore excludes most
ULNTFs who hold fellowships at All Souls, Nuffield and Templeton.
Since its previous report, the working party has received details
of the arrangements which apply to ULNTFs at St Antony's and
it considers that they too will not be eligible for the new scheme.
[Note: see now
explanatory note and
.] The working party
has considered the legal issues involved in
excluding such ULNTFs and on the basis of the advice it has
received does not think that to do so would open the University
to a major risk of successful legal challenge (see para. 13).

Return to List of Contents of the

6 The original scheme proposed that tutorial
earnings should contribute towards the costs of the extra
payment and the working party maintains this view. Details of
how this might work in practice are set out below but the effect
will be to provide (where possible) a contribution of £1,107
per lecturer per year (in 1995-6 terms) to the cost of the scheme,
as in the original. That scheme also accepted the argument that
payments made to ULNTFs for special graduate tuition (which is
linked to senior tutors' rates for tutorial teaching) should count
towards the tutorial earnings and the working party proposes
that the new scheme should operate similarly.

7 The working party has, however, agreed
to abandon the suggestion that all colleges which can afford to
do so should make a contribution of £500 per lecturer
towards the cost of the scheme. Given the number of colleges
which could not afford this and the somewhat controversial nature
of the proposal as revealed by the consultation with colleges, the
working party considers that what will be a relatively modest
addition to the costs as far as the University is concerned ought
to be accepted in the interests of simplicity and in the interest
of securing general assent to the proposals. Moreover, the
provision of a college contribution fitted much more logically into
the earlier scheme in which payments were to be made to ULNTFs
by colleges, not by the University, and where colleges
(not individuals) were allowed to choose whether or not to join
the scheme and therefore could decide whether or not to incur
this expense. Estimated costings of the new scheme are set out
below in para. 29.

Return to List of Contents of the

8 During its discussions of the latest
proposals the working party has consulted the Senior Tutors'
Committee and the Estates Bursars' Committee and there has also
been informal consultation with the governing bodies
of the colleges chiefly concerned (i.e. those in which the bulk of
the ULNTFs whose joint stipend is not capable of reaching the
equivalent of the national senior lecturer scale hold fellowships)
and with the ULNTFs themselves. The working party understands
that the Senior Tutors' and Estates Bursars' Committees do not
oppose the latest proposals and that the governing bodies of
those colleges are similarly not opposed. Inevitably in discussion
with the ULNTFs a large number of detailed points have been
raised, many of which are addressed later in this report. It is
recognised, however, that (if Congregation accepts the scheme)
ULNTFs already in post who are prima facie eligible
for the scheme will need time to consider whether or not to
accept the proposed changes in their contracts. The working
party is clear that acceptance of the scheme must be voluntary
for each ULNTF now in post who will have to assess his or her
own position. There must, however, be some time limits for the
acceptance of the arrangements, and these are also set out in
detail below. The working party also proposes that for ULNTFs
appointed in the future, the new arrangements should be part of
the normal terms and conditions of service.

Return to List of Contents of the

Effect of the Education Reform Act 1988
on those who accept the new proposals

9 The working party recognises that for all
ULNTFs who accept the proposals one disadvantage is that they
will `lose tenure'. Under s.204 of the Education Reform Act 1988
university employees become subject to the new provisions
governing employment of academic staff (in Oxford's case Tit. XVI
of the Statutes) if they are appointed on or after 20 November
1987 or are promoted on or after that date. S.204(3)
defines promotion as follows

`... a person shall be taken to be promoted ... if ... the terms of
his appointment or of his contract of employment are varied ... so

(a) his rate of remuneration is increased to a rate
which exceed the highest point on his former pay scale at the
date on which the increase takes effect, or

(b) he is paid on
another scale on which the highest point at the date of variation
takes effect exceeds the highest point on his former pay scale at
that date ... '

Established academic staff appointed or promoted on or after
20 November 1987 can still hold their appointments to the age of
retirement. However, the act adds redundancy to the long
accepted grounds on which such appointments can be terminated
prior to the age of retirement (the so-called `good cause' reasons
such as medical incapacity or misconduct). At Oxford, though,
these redundancy provisions can come into play only if
Congregation so decides. `Loss of tenure' refers in essence to the
loss of protection against termination of employment on grounds
of redundancy.

10 The working party sees no alternative,
given the above provision, but to face the fact that the
appointment of those who accept the scheme and were appointed
after 20 November 1987 will in theory be capable of termination
in future on grounds of redundancy. The working party notes too
that this will be the result even if there were no other change
in the contract of employment, apart from an increase in salary.
It hopes, however, that ULNTFs will recognise that, given the
very extensive procedures which must be gone through before a
member of academic staff can be declared redundant (see
Statutes, 1995, pp. 161–2), including (as stated
above) a decision by Congregation, the risks involved for those
whose current appointment was made prior to 20 November 1987
will be relatively small and that the advantages of the new
scheme to improve the pensionable salary of ULNTFs outweigh
those disadvantages. It should also be remembered that anyone
promoted to senior lecturer at another university after
20 November 1987 will be in the same position.

Return to List of Contents of the

Legal issues

11 On the legal position the working party
is (as stated above) now of the view, on the basis of legal advice,
that the University can, without serious risk of successful legal
challenge, make additional payments direct to ULNTFs. Equal pay
legislation is concerned to achieve equality of pay between the
sexes. The challenge to a scheme in which the University paid a
ULNTF more than a university lecturer with a tutorial fellowship
would have to come from a female (or male) university lecturer
with a tutorial fellowship, citing the payments made to a male (or
female) ULNTF. The University's defence would in the first
instance rest on the existence of a contractual term which
required more work from ULNTFs than from other university
lecturers. This would either constitute a situation of unequal
work (thus defeating a claim ab initio) or
it would constitute a material factor, other than a difference in
sex, which would justify the difference in pay. The wording of
the new contractual term is given in para. 16 below. This term
would not itself be related to the sex of the ULNTF (if it were it
would be prima facie discriminatory) but would apply
to all eligible ULNTFs who opted into the scheme regardless of
sex. The difference between duties which can justify higher pay
has to be a substantive one. It is not possible merely to refer to
a contractual term which states that an individual has duties
greater than another. It must be shown that the duties are in
fact greater. The second part of any defence would therefore
have to consist of evidence that in fact a ULNTF was undertaking
more work for the University. None the less, the existence of the
contractual term would be an important foundation for a defence
and so the working party proposes a common clause for all
ULNTFs who join the scheme, even if it is clear at the outset that
it is unlikely that the holders of posts in certain categories (e.g.
lecturers in Continuing Education) will ever be able to undertake
much, if any, undergraduate tutorial teaching and perhaps little
if any special graduate tuition. Where an obligation to undertake
three hours' tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition can be
fulfilled and the earnings made over to the University as a
contribution to the total cost of the scheme, the working party
hopes that the matter will not prove controversial. ULNTFs in this
position are obviously accepting an extra duty, in return for
which extra payment is made.

Return to List of Contents of the

12 Even for those who, for various reasons,
cannot undertake tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition, the
removal of a recognised equity is thought to be good grounds for
making the extra payments and could be seen, in the event of a
legal challenge, as a material factor justifying the payments. In
such cases, it would then be argued in addition that
self-evidently a person must by virtue (a) of not being
able to undertake the required teaching and (b) of not
holding a tutorial fellowship have more time to undertake
university work. A significant group which will not be able to
undertake the teaching is made up of university lecturers in
Continuing Education and in Educational Studies and their work
may be sufficiently different from that of university lecturers in
other subjects to provide a firm basis for a defence if any claim
is brought comparing extra payments to them with the absence of
such payments for a university lecturer who is a tutorial fellow.
As stated above it is important, however, to include a new term
in all contracts of those eligible for the scheme who agree to take
part in it since this gives a formal point of reference in any
challenge. Moreover, it is intended to review the position of
ULNTFs regularly to see whether or not such teaching can be
undertaken, even if exemption has initially been granted. Apart
perhaps from lecturers in Continuing Education and in Educational
Studies there will be relatively few postholders who cannot, at
least from time to time, undertake some of the required teaching
and they will be bound under the contracts as worded to
undertake such teaching unless exempt.

Return to List of Contents of the

13 Legal advice suggests, moreover, that
even if it could be shown that a ULNTF of one sex was doing for
the University no more than, or less than, a university lecturer
of the opposite sex with a tutorial fellowship it would be hard for
the latter to bring a successful case for the following reasons.
The working party has in essence proposed both in the original
scheme and in the present scheme a joint minimum salary for all
university lecturers and hence is excluding ULNTFs who already
reach, or are eligible to reach, this joint minimum when both
university and college stipends are taken into account. A tutorial
fellow will still be obtaining, or be eligible to obtain, at least
joint minimum (and in fact more) in both combined stipend and
allowances, and a relatively recent case in the European Court of
Justice (Roberts v. Birds Eye Walls) is authority for
the point that the employer is entitled to have regard to the
totality of emoluments as a material factor not related to
differences in sex justifying differences in the level of
contributions from different sources. The way in which such
emoluments are made up and the fact that possibly the relative
proportions may be provided from different sources and may vary
from one person to another is irrelevant if the total is the same.
The working party relies on the same point in reaching its view
(see para. 5) on the legal risks which might be incurred by
omitting from the scheme ULNTFs at certain colleges where
payments are already made which bring the joint university and
college pensionable salary at least to the national senior lecturer

Return to List of Contents of the

14 Two other legal points have arisen
during the discussion.

(a) First, the working party has noted that some
ULNTFs are already required by their university contracts to
undertake college tutorial teaching (usually six hours). Some of
these are fellows of colleges which already provide a stipend
bringing the joint university/college salary to the figure now
proposed. Like other ULNTFs at those colleges they will not be
eligible for the scheme, as stated in para. 5 above (and they will
of course retain all their tutorial earnings). As for those who are
prima facie eligible to join the scheme, who do not
receive and are not eligible to receive a joint stipend at the
required figure, the working party is advised that there should
be no legal difficulty. If they do not join the scheme, they will
continue to receive all their tutorial earnings direct. If they do,
they will surrender some of these earnings for an increase in
pensionable stipend. They will continue to receive (but henceforth
via the University) earnings for any teaching in excess of three
hours and their existing obligation to teach above this figure will
be unchanged. Perhaps the most important difference, however,
will be the ability in these cases to substitute up to three hours'
special graduate tuition for three hours' undergraduate tuition.
This will of course potentially somewhat reduce the total amount
of tutorial teaching capacity in these subjects but, as far as the
individual ULNTF is concerned, a slightly greater element of
flexibility is thereby introduced into the contract of employment
which should be welcomed in the context of the general
discussions about the desirability of increasing flexibility within
the contracts of academic staff.

(b) The other legal
issue is the relationship between the proposals for ULNTFs and
the salaries of readers. Eligible ULNTFs will henceforth achieve
a maximum salary equivalent to the top point of the reader scale.
The working party has been advised that, from the
legal point of view, this does not present difficulties.
Provisions relating to equal pay as between men and women
require only that pay is the same for work of the
same or greater value. There is no legal
requirement that work of greater value than the other work with
which comparisons are made must be more generously
remunerated. Second, the reader scale in any case contains
discretionary points and exercises to make payments and these
are held every three years. At present, 39 per cent of readers so
benefit. Thus, regardless of the legal position described earlier
in the paragraph, the University does in fact make provision for
readers to receive additional remuneration.

Return to List of Contents of the

The working of the scheme in practice

15 As stated above, the extra points are to
be added at the top of the normal university lecturer scale.
Eligible ULNTFs who opt into the scheme or those for whom it is
a part of their standard contract (see para. 25) will receive the
first of the three new payments 12 months after he or she
reaches the top of the present scale (normally at 41 but up to
two years earlier where the starting salary of a ULNTF has been
initially fixed, within the flexibility approved by Congregation, one
or two points above the age-wage point). The relationship between
incremental dates and obligations under the proposed new
contractual position is discussed in para. 24 below.

16 Those ULNTFs now in post who are
eligible for the scheme will be asked to accept the following
additional clauses to their contracts and the same clauses would
be inserted in all contracts for eligible ULNTFs appointed in the
future with appropriate wording to indicate that the additional
duties will apply from 1 October following the first of the three
new increments (see para. 25).

`(a) You must undertake without additional
remuneration, three hours per week of tutorial teaching (subject
to (b) below) for colleges or of special graduate tuition
unless the General Board [and faculty board or other appointing
authority] agree that tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition
are not available in your subject or branch of the subject (for
example because of the nature of the subject and branch of the
subject), in which case the extent of your duties under the
relevant clauses of the core duties as set out above [i.e. the
general provisions in the contract defining the obligations to
undertake teaching, research and administration] will be
correspondingly greater than in the case of university lecturers
with tutorial fellowships.

(b) The requirement
to undertake three hours' tutorial teaching or special graduate
tuition is reduced to one hour while you are paid at the age 42
point and to two hours while you are paid at the age 43 point.

(c) You are required
to arrange for all your earnings from college tutorial teaching to
be made over by the colleges concerned to the University. The
University will retain a sum equivalent to the earnings for three
hours per week of single tutorials at the rates set by the Senior
Tutors' Committee (or for two hours or one hour in the case of
those covered by (b) above) and pay the balance to the
ULNTF (less tax and, if appropriate, national insurance).

(d) You are required
to inform the University through the graduate supervision claim
form how much special graduate tuition you have undertaken. In
so far as your earnings for tutorial teaching under (c)
above do not amount to the equivalent of three hours per week
(or two hours or one hour in the case of those covered in
(b) above) of single tutorials, the University will retain
payments due to you for special supervision and will pay you the

(e)Any request for exemption from the requirement
to undertake tutorial teaching or special graduate tuition, for the
reason given in (a), shall be made to [the faculty board
or other appointing authority] which shall make a recommendation
to the General Board for final decision.'

Return to List of Contents of the

17 If the scheme is accepted, it is
suggested that it might be administered in the following way.
Individual ULNTFs to whom it applied would instruct the colleges
for which they had taught to make over all such earnings to the
University. The normal claim form would have to be amended to
allow this. It has been established that such transfers would not
be liable to VAT. Similarly, they would indicate on a revised
graduate supervision claim form what special graduate tuition
they had done. Earnings from both sources would be monitored
by the University. Once they totalled the equivalent of earnings
for three hours per week throughout the year at the single
tutorial rate, any surplus would be paid to the individual (net of
tax and employee's national insurance). Such fluctuating payments
would not, of course, be superannuable.

18 In all cases it would be necessary for
faculty boards or any other relevant employing authority to
establish the position of each ULNTF who wished to join the
scheme or for whom the scheme was a normal part of their
contract and for this to be noted centrally. At the end of each
year, the position would be reviewed and the Chairman of the
General Board would initiate enquiries into those cases where
earnings from tutorials and special supervision appeared to be
falling short of what is required. The working party takes the
view that there should be no payment to the lecturer by the
University of any relevant earnings until the required
contribution has been met. In other words, if a ULNTF earns in,
say, Michaelmas Term more than one-third of the annual sum but
less than that sum, the whole should be retained by the

19 Individuals on sabbatical or any other
form of approved leave would not, of course, be expected to
contribute earnings to the scheme. A year's leave would exempt
them from any contribution in that year; leave for shorter periods
would reduce the required annual contribution pro rata.

Return to List of Contents of the

Failure to achieve earnings

20 If a ULNTF for whom the scheme formed
part of the contract and who had not been exempt from the
requirement to contribute the required sum through tutorial
earnings and special tuition failed none the less to make such a
contribution in a particular year, appropriate action would have
to be taken by the General Board after appropriate consultation.
If there were no good reasons (e.g. that less teaching was
required in the subject in that year) and if a case could not be
made for exemption, the working party considers that the
individual would have to leave the scheme and return to the
former salary scale. This would apply whether the ULNTF had
opted in to the scheme or whether the scheme had formed part
of the conditions of employment from the outset.

Return to List of Contents of the

Phasing in of the scheme

21 The working party proposes that, if
approved, the scheme should be phased in as proposed in the
report on the original scheme. In other words, it should apply in
full with (retrospective) effect from 1 October 1995 to all eligible
ULNTFs over 50 at that date who opt to join the scheme and in
any case to those who will retire at 30 September 1996. All
eligible ULNTFs under 50 who opt to join it should receive one
increment. From 1 October 1996 those aged 42 should receive one
increment and those aged 43-49 should receive two. From
1 October 1997 the scheme should be implemented in full with
those of 44 and over receiving three increments. (References here
to ages should be interpreted as meaning the age
points on the scale as in para. 4 above.) The position
of those who retired at 30 September 1995 or who will retire at
30 September 1996 is set out in paras 26-7 below.

22 The working party recognises that
backdating may possibly weaken the University's legal position
(and it has been so advised), in that payments will be made but
it will not be possible to know whether the additional duties
required under the amended contract have been carried out (and
of course it will not be possible for the University to recover any
contribution to the costs for that year). The working party has
discussed this at length but considers that in equity the scheme
should be introduced from October 1995. This was the hope and
expectation of the original scheme and it does not seem reasonable
to withhold one year's pensionable salary in these circumstances.
It will in any case be true that many ULNTFs will have in fact
undertaken the additional work in 1995-6. The working party has
considered an alternative under which the scheme would be
introduced from 1 October 1996 with no phasing (and with
ex gratia payments to those who retired at
30 September 1995 or who will retire at 30 September 1996 as set
out in paras 26-7 below). Notwithstanding the advantage of this
approach to those ULNTFs under 50, the working party is none
the less of the view that, as the funds have been set aside, it is
not appropriate to hold back one year's stipend.

23 For these reasons, the working party has
made the proposal for backdating in para. 21. If such backdating
were to be cited as part of any legal challenge to the new
scheme, the University would have to rely both on the facts of
the particular case (and show that the ULNTF whose earnings
were the object of the challenge had in fact undertaken more
work for the University than the person who made the challenge)
and on the general point that the scheme had been introduced to
remedy an inequity and the solution was not based on the sex of
those concerned.

Return to List of Contents of the

Incremental dates

24 At present most university lecturers
receive an increment on the age-related scale at the beginning of
the quarter following their birthday and the remainder at the
beginning of the month following their birthday. The working
party has considered the relationship which should apply from
1 October 1997 when the scheme has been fully implemented
between incremental dates and the increase in the obligation to
undertake tutorial teaching or special tuition as individuals
advance up the three new points. It has agreed to recommend
that to avoid complications caused by obligations changing in the
middle of a year, such changes should take place from 1 October
after the increment has been received.

Return to List of Contents of the

Time limit on joining the scheme

25 The working party proposes that

(a) eligible
ULNTFs already in post should have until 30 September
1996 to join the scheme if they wish to receive the
benefit of payments for 1995-6;

(b) eligible
ULNTFs already in post or who have already been
offered contracts of employment (which inevitably do
not include any reference to the new scheme) who do
not join by 30 September 1996 should otherwise have
until 30 September 1997 to decide to join but should
not be able to do so after that and no backdating
should apply to those in post before 1 October 1996 but
who do not join until 1996-7.

(c) thereafter

(1) ULNTFs below the 41 age point, who are already in post,
should be asked six months before they reach the date at which
they receive the increase which takes them to the top of the
existing scale if they wish to join the scheme, and
should be given until that incremental date to decide, and

(2) the scheme should form part of the normal conditions of
service of all eligible ULNTFs (i.e. those whose college
remuneration will not in due course bring their joint stipend to
the new top point) appointed after the scheme has been approved
by Congregation (and any new contracts issued before such
approval is given should describe the scheme and state that it
will be part of the formal duties if Congregation endorses it). At
appointment, therefore, new ULTNFs will either taken
on additional duties at once if they are eligible to be paid at one
of the new higher points or they will accept an
obligation to undertake the duties at 1 October following the
payment of the first of the new increments.
The working party is clear that existing ULNTFs should not be
able to join the scheme other than as set out above. Moreover, no
ULNTF who has been required to leave the scheme under para. 20
should be permitted to rejoin.

Return to List of Contents of the

Those near retirement age

26 The working party proposed in its first
report that those who were due to retire on 30 September 1995
should receive ex gratia payments to make their lump
sum what it would have been if their pensionable salary on
retirement had been the proposed new top point of the ULNTF

27 The working party repeats this
recommendation. Since its first report it has moreover been
realised that the proposed additions to salary will not count for
pension purposes in the case of those aged 65 and over, and only
in part for pension purposes for those between 64 and 65 at the
date of introduction of the scheme. The working party therefore
proposes that those due to retire at 30 September 1996 should
receive similar ex gratia payments as those who
retired at 30 September 1995; and that those aged 64 and over
who continue to be employed after 30 September 1996 should,
if they opt into the scheme, receive similar
ex gratia payments on retirement as well as the
appropriate addition to stipend for the remainder of their

Return to List of Contents of the

Effect on OMIS

28 The working party has considered
whether any increase in salary under this scheme should be
reflected in any OMIS benefits (if OMIS is reintroduced as is
proposed). If, for example, a ULNTF aged over 50 opts into the
scheme by 1 October 1996 and retires under OMIS at 31 March
1997, the OMIS benefits could be as much as £6,200 (round)
greater than would otherwise have been the case. As at present
drafted, OMIS rules would permit this (in that any salary
increases between the date at which it is formally agreed that an
individual should leave under the scheme and the actual date of
departure is to be taken into account in calculating OMIS
benefits). The working party considers that no amendments should
be made to the OMIS rules to exclude additional pensionable
salary payments under this scheme.

Return to List of Contents of the

Cost of the scheme

29 In the 1995-6 budget, £500K was set
aside for the ULNTF problem. The estimated net cost to the
University of the original scheme was of the order of £370K
(minimum). The estimated net cost of the revised scheme is
£410K (minimum). The extra cost incurred by abandoning the
£500 contribution per lecturer from colleges is balanced in
part by a reduction in the number of eligible lecturers. It should
be noted, however, that both estimates assume that all ULNTFs
who receive the additional payments can contribute the equivalent
of the earnings from three hours' teaching, except university
lecturers in Continuing Education and Educational Studies.

30 Moreover, the calculation does not
include one further extra cost which will fall to the University
under this scheme. All tutorial payments which it passes on to
ULNTFs will attract employer's national insurance contributions at
10.2 per cent. The University will have to pay this; were the
payments made direct by the colleges to the ULNTFs, the colleges
would bear this cost. It is not possible of course to calculate
what the annual cost of this would be to the University as it
depends on the value of the `surplus' earnings.

Return to List of Contents of the

General time-limit for the scheme

31 The working party has hitherto taken the
view that whatever scheme it is devising is to be temporary, until
replaced by more fundamental changes which may be introduced
as a result of the Commission of Inquiry. In its most recent
discussions it had thought that perhaps four years was the likely
length of time for which the scheme might last. It is clear,
however, that if ULNTFs already in post are to be asked to
accept that their appointments will in theory be terminable on
grounds of redundancy if they join the scheme, it has to be
regarded as more permanent (other than in the case of those who
fail to observe its terms—see para. 20). The working party
therefore thinks that the scheme (if introduced) must continue
until it is replaced by one which is at least as beneficial to
ULNTFs in terms of pensionable stipend.

Return to List of Contents of the


32 The working party considers that the
scheme which it now puts forward is preferable to the original
scheme for a number of reasons. First, it is somewhat less
complicated to administer than the original in that it does not
require money to be transferred from the University to the
colleges (the transfers in the opposite direction under the new
scheme being effected by the colleges through existing machinery)
and the University does not have to negotiate with colleges on
the level of contribution which it must make to each. Second, the
scheme is available to individuals who do not have to rely on
their colleges agreeing to take part. This therefore makes it
possible to include it in the contract of employment as a matter
of course for new staff. Moreover, those already in post without
college fellowships are able to join if they wish; the original
scheme necessarily excluded them.

33 Third, the proposed new contractual
terms may perhaps provide a point of reference for continuing
discussions about general flexibility within the contracts of
employment of academic staff and about interchangeability between
graduate and undergraduate teaching in particular.

34 None the less, the working party
recognises that the scheme is not ideal, notably in that it remains
somewhat complex to administer especially in its initial years, and
no absolute guarantee can be given that the University will be
free from a successful legal challenge. While, as stated in
para. 31, the working party recognises that any replacement will
have to offer terms at least as beneficial as those now proposed,
it is also its view that in the long run a more logical and simpler
scheme ought in any case to be found.

35 Arising from the preceding paragraphs
the working party makes three further proposals. First, it repeats
the recommendation in its first report that there should be a job
evaluation survey to compare the workloads of ULNTFs with those
of university lecturers with tutorial fellowships.
Second, it wishes the present report to be made available to the
Commission of Inquiry. Third, as in the original report, the
working party recommends that Council and the General Board
should authorise the Chairman of the General Board (with
appropriate consultation) to act on their behalf in all matters
related to the implementation and operation of the scheme if it is

Return to List of Contents of the

Further consultation, etc.

36 Given that the outlines of the scheme have
been discussed with the Senior Tutors' and Estates Bursars'
Committees, the working party hopes that it will not be necessary
to consult colleges again. It is proposed that, if Council and the
General Board approve the scheme, it should be sent to all
eligible ULNTFs for information at this stage and to officers of
the Oxford AUT. If necessary, the Chairman of the General Board
would hold an open meeting with ULNTFs during the Easter
vacation. In any case, Congregation would be asked to approve
the scheme as early as possible in Trinity Term. The process of
implementation would then begin.

Return to List of Contents of the