Sheffield union questions pay-review process for professors

Union claims that meetings to assess pay rises spend less than a minute per professor on average

June 26, 2014

Discussions of pay rises for professors at one university lasted little more than a minute per academic, a union has claimed.

At a single session lasting roughly three hours, some 163 professors were assessed by the University of Sheffield’s professorial review committee, according to the local University and College Union branch.

That meant that just over one minute on average was spent considering each individual’s merits in the 2013-14 review deliberations, it says.

Unlike most academics, professors do not receive automatic incremental rises linked to the national pay spine and instead have to apply for pay uplifts each year.

But Sheffield’s UCU branch says that the institution’s professors have no right to check the statements made by their heads of department on their behalf before they are submitted to the committee.

With no minutes taken of the meeting and no opportunity to appeal, the process is “open to arbitrary decisions or even abuse by heads, pro vice-chancellors or other members of the committee who might wish to reward or punish a given professor”, a UCU spokeswoman claimed.

The branch urges other academic staff to campaign against extending performance-related pay to other pay grades given that the professorial review process is “devoid of meaningful transparency”.

According to Sheffield’s website, almost four out of five professors assessed in this year’s review received either a salary rise, a bonus or a move to a different prestige level, although the value of awards was not stated.

Ian Wright, associate director of human resources at Sheffield, said that a “transparent” professorial pay framework was introduced in 2010, for which details are publicly available and outcomes published each year.

“Every professor has the opportunity to have their salary reviewed on a yearly basis in light of their continued and increasing contribution, through a process which is published annually,” said Mr Wright.

Full records of the process, which involves input from professors, heads of department and pro vice-chancellors, are “readily available to the professor on request”, he added.

jack.grove@tsleducation.com

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Forrest Post Doctoral Research Fellow

University Of Western Australia

Research Fellow in Statistical Epidemiology

London School Of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (lshtm)

Phone Advisor

Gsm London
See all jobs

Most Commented

Felipe Fernández-Armesto takes issue with a claim that the EU has been playing the sovereignty card in Brexit negotiations

Female professor

New data show proportion of professors who are women has declined at some institutions

opinion illustration

Eliminating cheating services, even if it were possible, would do nothing to address students’ and universities’ lack of interest in learning, says Stuart Macdonald

John McEnroe arguing with umpire. Tennis

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman explain how to negotiate your annual performance and development review

Man throwing axes

UCU attacks plans to cut 171 posts, but university denies Brexit 'the reason'