Manchester 2020 Strategy M2020 Programme M2020 Programme Programme - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Manchester 2020 Strategy M2020 Programme

M2020 Programme Programme Objectives: – Realising our ambition for excellence – Delivering our agreed Manchester 2020 strategy – Improving efficiency and effectiveness – Achieving financial sustainability “M2020 will require a significant step - change in performance in some areas” Led by the Deputy President and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Colin Bailey; governed by a Programme Management Board and supported by the M2020 Programme Management Office

Proposed implications for staff numbers • Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health - a reduction of 65 academic posts is proposed • School of Arts, Languages and Cultures – a proposed reduction of 35 academic posts and post involved in primarily academic activities • The Alliance Manchester Business School – a proposed reduction of 40 academic posts in certain areas of the School • Directorate of Finance in the Professional Support Services (PSS) – a proposed reduction of 18 PSS posts • Faculty of Science and Engineering (PSS) - a proposed reduction of seven PSS posts in the Faculty Office - a proposed reduction of three PSS posts in the National Composites Certification Evaluation Facility (NCCEF) - a proposed reduction of three PSS posts in the Photon Science Institute (PSI)

National Composites Certification and Evaluation Facility (NCCEF) • Originated in 2009 from a £8.4m funding package including a £2.6m contribution from the University of Manchester • The testing equipment in NCCEF is state-of-the-art, calibrated to industry standards and provides associated benefits for research • Intended to be self-financing within three years with the potential to deliver a surplus • For the last four full trading years it has produced a deficit of £574k • The operating costs for NCCEF are too high for the level of income generated and the facility lacks sufficient technical staff to undertake contract, income generating work

Current situation • The latest accreditation assessment report provided by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) recognised that the laboratory’s technical competence in the field of composites testing was excellent and that the main test operator had significant skills and experience • However, it also highlighted that the technical support is limited and this is a significant issue for the future viability of the facility

Proposal • Invest in the specialist technical support needed to deliver increased small contract income for SMEs by increasing technical support and reconfigure the administrative support • With a revised, lower cost structure focused more on the operational delivery for businesses, the unit could generate sufficient revenue to cover its costs, generate income, improve its profile with industry and act as a far more successful springboard for generating research grants and income

Current structure Proposed structure

Proposed implications for staff • Staff ‘in scope’ – staff working in an area that has been identified as potentially affected by the proposals • Staff at risk - staff ‘at risk’ are those who are identified as potentially at risk of redundancy • The criteria for identifying at risk pools are subject to consultation with the Trade Unions • Only those staff identified as at risk would be eligible to apply for voluntary severance in line with agreed Voluntary Severance Scheme • We would hope to achieve all reductions on a voluntary basis and only if this is not achieved would we move to compulsory redundancy • The University proposes to follow the process outlined in its Introducing Change to Organisational Structures Procedure, the Security of Employment Policy and the Redeployment Policy as agreed with the Trade Unions

Manchester 2020 Strategy M2020 Programme HR Process Faculty of Science and Engineering

What we will cover today • Collective consultation – general • Collective consultation – Faculty of Science and Engineering • Meaning of “in scope” and “at risk” • Voluntary severance scheme (VS) • After collective consultation ends • Individual consultation if compulsory redundancy (CR) is necessary

Collective consultation • S.188 letter issued to trade unions on 4 May – sets out detail of what our proposals are and what we are consulting on. • Collective consultation starts today, 10 May • Consulting with trade unions on the proposals concerning application of voluntary severance (VS), affected numbers, selection pools, selection criteria for compulsory redundancy (CR), alternatives to redundancy • VS scheme proposed for each project, timing of launch may differ

Collective consultation The University will operate within the following Statutes, Ordinances and HR policies and procedures: • Statute XIII, Part II – Redundancy – Academic and Academic-Related Staff • Ordinance XXIII, Procedure for the Dismissal of Members of Staff by Reason of Redundancy • Introducing Change to Organisational Structures Procedure • Security of Employment Policy • Redeployment Policy

Collective consultation The University will ensure that a rigorous, fair and transparent process is applied to each area and to members of staff who are ultimately identified as “at risk” of redundancy . The University will explore opportunities for the avoidance of redundancy as set out in the Security of Employment Policy and as agreed with the trade unions. This will include: • Seeking redeployment opportunities within the University; • Retraining the individual where this is practical and reasonable; • Restricting or reducing external advertising where this is practical and reasonable; • Reducing the use of agency staff where this is practical and reasonable.

Collective consultation Key terms “In scope” pool • affected by the exercise “At risk” pool • affected by the exercise and subsequently identified as being at risk of redundancy

Proposals - “in scope” and at risk”? Proposed number of PSS posts “in scope” and “at risk” 3 Proposed reduction in the number of PSS posts 3 Current in scope Total number of posts at Proposed reduction in risk posts Grade 8 2 2 2 Grade 7 1 1 1 Total 3 3 3

Collective consultation voluntary severance • Subject to consultation, we will write to staff who are identified as “at risk” and therefore eligible to apply for voluntary severance (VS), explaining the application process • “At risk” staff will also be placed on the Redeployment Register (RDR) and have the opportunity to apply for alternative roles as a redeployee. • It is proposed that: – VS would only be offered to those “at risk” – Scheme is likely to be open until the end of collective consultation – VS will not overlap with CR, i.e. CR will only begin after VS ends, if insufficient numbers achieved – Once VS closes it will not be made available again

Voluntary severance scheme It is proposed that: • Applications for voluntary severance will be considered by Rachel Brealey (DoFO) and Sarah March (HoHR) on the basis of business need. • Applications are likely to be declined from colleagues who hold a business critical skill which is not available elsewhere in the Faculty and/or is not easily replaceable or where a reduction of this skill would impact on the ability to deliver core activity.

Voluntary severance terms Under the current scheme: • Up to five years continuous service – six months basic salary • Between five years and ten years continuous service – 12 months basic salary • Beyond ten years continuous service – 14 months basic salary • Normally first £30k is tax free • Leave date – to be determined locally (colleagues will generally be allowed to work their notice period, otherwise notice period is part of the VS package and will be subject to tax and NICs)

After VS – Individual consultation It is proposed that, subject to consultation: • If we have not achieved the required numbers through VS it may become necessary to proceed with CR. • Selection criteria for compulsory redundancies would be applied to staff in the “at risk” pool. • Staff would be entitled to provide written submission in relation to the criteria. • Criteria would be considered and scored by a panel of senior staff (including where appropriate senior subject matter experts)