Dear Ottoline and Chris,
As Trade Union representatives, we are committed to the success of UKRI and support its vision of harmonised and equitable pay scales across Councils. However, we must express our deep concerns regarding the recent pay settlement for MRC staff, which risks
undermining morale and trust within the MRC and threatening the long-term unity and effectiveness of UKRI.
The recent offer represents a marked departure from the goal of harmonising pay scales across UKRI's Councils. Under this settlement, MRC pay scale minima will fall significantly below that of other Councils, erasing years of progress and creating disparities that will take considerable time and effort to resolve. This will foster distrust between MRC staff and UKRI and such divisiveness will undermine efforts to position UKRI as a unified entity, instead reinforcing perceptions of it as a collection of disparate Councils overseen by a disconnected leadership.
We do not feel that the discussions on pay were carried out in good faith. We were repeatedly told that the Cabinet Office Civil Service Pay Remit Guidance stated that some of the 5% overall pay award had to be used to address any pay disparities. We cannot see this in the Guidance. To quote, it says ‘This year, departments have flexibility to target their pay awards in a way which best suits their needs. This will enable departments (and other organisations covered by its scope) to provide their workforces with a significant consolidated increase, whilst also providing flexibility to address pay anomalies or wider workforce issues, such as recruitment and retention challenges. That is, the decision to provide MRC staff a lower pay rise than those in other Councils appears to be driven entirely by UKRI Senior Management
From a practical standpoint, the current proposal poses serious risks to recruitment and retention. The MRC already faces significant challenges in attracting and retaining staff, particularly with its Institutes and Centres in the high-cost areas of London, Oxford, and Cambridge, where housing costs are consistently double the national average, adding further financial strain on staff. The lower pay rise for MRC staff compared to their peers will only exacerbate this problem, further threatening MRC’s ability to compete for talent, in particular with adjacent employers at Imperial College and Cambridge and Oxford Universities.
Whilst we were shown data that ‘on average’ MRC pay is higher than that of other Councils, we believe that this is very misleading and obscures much that is important. For example, it was also shown that 48.4% of staff on MRC terms and conditions are in the lowest pay zone (zone A) and that in almost all Bands (except Band 2), MRC pay for those in the A Zone is already lower than average pay in the equivalent UKRI Band. This disparity will now increase markedly. Notably, postdoctoral scientists are employed in Zone A and are not eligible for in-band progression. This crucial employee cohort will be permanently disadvantaged by the current settlement. Moreover, we argued that the justification for lower pay rises for MRC staff in Bands B and S lacks coherence or evidence. In-band progression can reasonably be expected to support staff retention, so comparisons made between staff in MRC Zone B and S (who by definition will have been with the MRC for a number of years) and the average pay in an equivalent Band in other Councils (for whom we have no data on length of service) may not be between equivalent staff cohorts. Once again, no evidence was presented to the contrary.
This pay deal was characterised by a near-total absence of meaningful negotiation. The failure of UKRI to secure funding for the 5% pay remit until the last minute meant that only one formal negotiation meeting took place, at which we were told that the offer was final. The role of the TUs this year was reduced to little more than administrative checks. We do not believe due diligence was sufficiently conducted regarding the likely impact of the pay settlement. It seems there has been very limited dialogue with Human Resources Business Partners and Directors to assess the potential damage to recruitment and retention within the MRC. In being pressed by a need for swift resolution (because of the problems with the SHARP programme) it appears that the decision-making process has greatly discounted the potential long-term costs to the MRC, including lost productivity, higher recruitment and training costs and harm to research outputs and the MRC’s reputation.
It is vital to recognize the profound impact that this decision will have on staff morale. MRC staff have already endured a substantial real-terms reduction in pay in recent years when inflation was around 10%. This pay settlement was seen as an opportunity to partially redress that, in line with the Government’s intentions. The recent Staff Survey clearly highlights pay as the area of greatest dissatisfaction among MRC staff. The 3.7% rise, particularly when compared to the 5.5% rise for the great majority of other Council staff, will be perceived as a profound betrayal. It will also be noted by staff that the highest paid – those in bands X and Y – will receive 5% (for those below the scale maxima or a 5% non-consolidated bonus for those above). Staff have known for months that the Civil Service pay remit specifies a 5% increase, and this has set clear expectations. Disappointment with previous pay decisions was often directed at Government policies perceived as anti-Civil Service, but this time dissatisfaction will land squarely on UKRI senior management.
Chris Ball’s statement in a webinar that staff would receive at least 4.5% created an expectation that this proposal fails to meet. Breaking this commitment severely damages trust in UKRI leadership—trust that is already fragile following the last pay round when few MRC staff were placed in the higher S1 pay category, following a process that was not transparent, remains poorly understood and which has resulted in job categorisations that remain inadequately defined
The divergence from the consensus previously reached through constructive discussions between the Pay and Reward Team and the TU further compounds these concerns. The TU plays a vital role in reflecting staff views, and disregarding this voice will only increase frustration and deepen the mistrust. This decision risks damaging the already fragile relationship between MRC staff and UKRI management, making future cooperation much more difficult.
We have always held the position of being supportive of harmonisation, but that harmonisation is not an end in itself. We are now of the opinion that for UKRI Senior Management, harmonisation IS seen as an end itself, outweighing the needs of the constituent Councils to undertake their research and the interests of their staff. We were told on more than one occasion that if the MRC doesn’t like the current offer, then staff should move from MRC to UKRI terms and conditions. This, despite the fact that the fundamental issue leading to the current divisive settlement is that the MRC is the only Council maintaining the sensible position of in-band progression– which indeed UKRI has ambitions to introduce for the other Councils. That the proposed solutions were either to degrade MRC pay (as has now been done) or that MRC staff abandon terms held up as a model for other Councils is perverse, profoundly disappointing and indicative of UKRI’s malaise. Indeed, whilst suggesting MRC staff abandon their system of in-band promotion, UKRI Management were at the same time writing to Cabinet Office suggesting that UKRI adopts that very same MRC in-band progression model, which they described as working well. In fact, this latter would have our support. Our opinion is that the model of Capability Pay, designed at high cost by external consultants, that UKRI had hoped to put to DSIT this year was not fit for purpose.
Whilst we all too well understand the iniquity of staff remaining at the bottom of a pay band for years, the current settlement was not the answer. The situation it creates is that staff who had been with UKRI for a day will get an immediate pay rise very substantially higher than MRC staff in post for twenty years. Clearly this is a long way from any Capability Pay process, the lack of which it was intended to partially mitigate. The only adequate solution is to harmonise up, not down; to press hard the case for in-band pay progression for all of the Councils’ staff. However, UKRI has made this current move on pay whilst not knowing what the new Government’s approach to in-band pay progression is.
In conclusion, we write not only to express concern but to seek a constructive way forward. We believe UKRI’s long-term cohesion and the MRC’s ability to attract and retain top talent will depend on fair and equitable pay practices. There are areas such as MRC postdoctoral researcher pay – where they have no access to in-band promotion; STEM scales; developing a coherent Capability Pay structure, that are high priority areas that may be open to resolution over the coming year. We invite further dialogue to address these pressing concerns and work together to achieve a solution that supports UKRI’s mission and the well-being of its staff.
Yours,
James Elliott (UCU)
Debbie Williams (Prospect)