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.

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

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Viewed

Most Commented

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford will host a homeopathy conference next month

Charity says Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford is ‘naive’ to hire out its premises for event

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham