ࡱ> % Mbjbj%% .GG Wl,,,8dxT54"iii65858585858585$7  :\5iG"iii\57q5i865i65V% 3L4 Kf.,cl^4$4l5054H::4 Analysis of the Framework Agreement For The Modernisation of New Pay Structures. August 2005  The Issues 1) National bargaining or local bargaining NATFHE entered into the negotiations in 2002 with a firm policy of retaining national bargaining. The union currently holds national bargaining rights on the national academic contract for Post 1992 academic staff, national academic grades, annual pay increases, London Weighting and some conditions of service enshrined within the national contract for post 1992 academic staff. Throughout the 2 years of negotiations NATFHE has prioritised the retention of national bargaining. This has influenced our approach to grading, job evaluation and remuneration, and is the guiding principle against which we can assess what would be gained and lost if the proposals were to be accepted. The HE employers have been keen to introduce much more local flexibility. This objective fits with government public sector pay policy. The cross cutting review of public sector labour markets undertaken by HM Treasury in 2001 stressed the perceived need to introduce flexibility into the public sector pay structure. This desire for greater flexibility is expressed in terms of regional pay levels, incentives to encourage productivity and performance and differential pay awards. This agenda has been adopted by HEFCE through its Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative (RDS) and through proposals to introduce Golden Hellos in shortage subjects. A number of local employers were reportedly, willing to consider leaving national bargaining, in favour of introducing local pay arrangements. The RDS funding is without doubt having an influence on institutional thinking regarding the future of pay bargaining. The Framework creates a national model applicable to all HEIs. However, within the model some flexibility is possible. This flexibility is expressed in terms of local employers having the scope to develop variations or alternatives to the national pay model. This ability to move away from the national pay model outlined in Appendix C is constrained by the fact that all HEIs must use the national pay spine, must adhere to the principles in Appendix A (dealing with equality and fairness) and can only develop alternative structures with the agreement of local unions. The term partnership is used throughout the document to describe joint work between employers and trade unions. On page 1 of the document partnership is defined as negotiating to reach agreement on a timely basis. The use of the term agreement is key to the approach reflected throughout. The ability to vary the agreement is described on page 2 under the heading of grading. In previous drafts of the document, the employers inserted an Appendix on local flexibility which encouraged HEIs to vary the terms of the Framework i.e. level 1, level 2 and level 3. At the insistence of the unions this Appendix was removed and replaced with the more minimalist statement on page 2. The bullet point on page 2 states that Appendix C describes a commended model pay structure which JNCHES believes will meet the needs of many HEIs. Some institutions will want to negotiate variants of or alternatives to this, in partnership with their recognised trades unions and in accordance with the principles set out in Appendix A The interpretation of this statement was the subject of (literally) hours of debate during negotiations with the unions wanting great majority instead of many. The wording above represents respective positions at the end of negotiations. It allows employers to move away from the national pay arrangements subject to certain conditions: They must do so with the agreement of local unions in effect agreement will not be achieved unless there are real benefits on offer through local variation. They must adhere to the principles of Appendix A these principles include references to partnership and negotiation as outlined above, any local arrangements must deliver equal pay for work of equal value and must use Job evaluation and the single pay spine with trade unions being involved in the process, staff must have access to review (or appeal) mechanisms. The degree of detail in Appendix A reflects the needs of the non-academic unions who have not sought to retain national grades for their members. The national pay structures within Appendix C are the baseline arrangements applicable throughout the UK. Local employers will without doubt seek to vary the terms of the agreement, a number of Post 1992 employers already vary the existing arrangements i.e. some do not use the Lecturing scale etc, however any variation or local development of new pay structures can only proceed with the agreement of our local branches. It must be recognised that some employers will seek to negotiate improvements to the national provisions, however other employers will seek to negotiate inferior provisions (I.e. more barriers to progression). Branches will have to carefully consider the merits of agreeing to improvements and will have to resist local attempts to undermine the national provisions. In the event that no agreement is reached on applying the national pay structures and no agreement is reached on developing local structures, the status quo would apply. Page 1 of the preamble states that Existing national agreements on pay and grading will remain in force until superseded by implementation of new arrangements under the terms of this agreement. The effect of this clause is to preserve existing arrangements until agreements are reached on the application of new pay structures. Employers who refuse to implement the national model can only develop alternatives with the agreement of our branches. If they refuse to implement the national arrangements and cannot get agreement to the development of local structures the status quo prevails. This would compromise any institutions ability to bid for HEFCE funding under RDS and therefore most HEIs may prefer to adopt the national model which ensures they meet the HEFCE (RDS) funding criteria. 2. The HE Pay Spine The new HE pay spine has 51 pay points at 3% intervals. The pay spine starts at 10,560 and finishes at 46,296 in 2004, the pay sine will be up-rated each year in accordance with the general pay award. Pay points in all the national grades are drawn from this spine. Hourly paid lecturers (and other hourly paid staff) are specifically mentioned within the text on page 2 and must also be paid according to the pay points on the new spine. This brings the employment (and pay) of hourly paid staff into substantive national bargaining. NATFHE concerns over the single pay spine related to the interval between pay points. The closer the interval between pay points, the smaller the relative value of incremental points within academic grades. The employers objective was to introduce a new common pay spine at minimal cost. They advocated a single pay spine due to concerns over institutional vulnerability to equal value claims. Hourly paid rates will be taken from the spine and many hourly paid lecturers may have the opportunity to transfer to one of the substantive academic grades following role analysis provided they match one of the new academic role profiles for more on this subject see the section on grading below or follow this link (Link to section on hourly paid lecturers). The pay spine is to be found within Appendix B of the agreement. Existing incremental gaps are between 3-4%, therefore transfer to the new pay spine which has consistent 3% intervals would result in a reduction to the value of a limited number of existing incremental points. All HE employees within the scope of national bargaining in every HEI will be paid at rates drawn from the common pay spine. 3. Job evaluation and Grading NATFHEs policy on job evaluation (role analysis) has been to ensure that the process is clearly linked to national bargaining and new national grades. Job evaluation will be used in a light touch way, using national academic benchmark role profiles to ensure that only a small sample of academic roles are subject to the job evaluation process, whilst the majority transfer automatically to the new grades. NATFHEs local branch representatives must be given sufficient additional facility and remission time, the employer should also resource and provide proper training for local reps. The approach to grading within the agreement is complex. Different systems are proposed for academic as opposed to non-academic staff, this approach is outlined on page 2 and is illustrated within Appendix C. The following principles apply to the allocation of all staff to grades: Allocation to grade will follow institution wide job evaluation, the application of which will be agreed between unions and management. JNCHES has produced detailed guidance on key aspects such as facility time for trade unions reps, provision of time of and resources for training and access to an appropriate appeal and review mechanism. Detailed grading arrangements, including their links to with job evaluation outcomes whether in the national model pay structure or within locally developed variants or alternatives, will be negotiated with the trade unions. Academic staff will be graded using the JNCHES library of academic profiles as reference points to ensure fair grading for all staff This means that all grading decisions are underpinned by job evaluation or role analysis. The way in which that process is carried out must be agreed locally in accordance with JNCHES guidance. The way in which roles are allocated to grades will be agreed locally. This means that the timetable, trade union involvement in the process and arrangements for appeals will have to be agreed between the unions and management. The library of role profiles are described within Appendix C on pages 9 11. An academic role profile has been developed for most of the common roles found within UK universities. There are three profile families with 5 grades in each conforming to the Appendix C grading structure (with the exception of grade Ac1 for which there is no profile for use in Post 1992 institutions). The Technical Working Group produced guidance on how the profiles should be used (Link to guidance and library of profiles) , this guidance details the procedures that should be used to allocate academic staff to grade. The profiles are designed to be compatible with a number of different role analysis schemes, including HERA and HAY. The grading structure is set out on page 10. 5 academic grades cover research staff & post graduate teachers (i.e. post graduate students teaching under close supervision), lecturers, senior lecturers, principal lecturers and heads of departments or professors (with equivalents in the Pre 1992 sector). The grade structure has been designed to broadly reflect the status quo in terms of numbers of grades across both sectors of HE. Ac1 Grade The Ac1 grade is intended to be the basic grade for researchers and post-graduate teachers. It would replace the existing Researcher A grade and the Researcher B grade in the Post 1992 institutions. Ac1 would replace the Researcher 1B and 1A grades in the Pre 1992 sector. The new grade has 8 incremental points. The existing Researcher B grade has 11 increments, the new grade consists of 8 increments, 3 less than the existing grade. However the increments are worth 3% rather than 3-4% in the existing structure, this follows for each of the grades listed below. The exploitative Researcher A scale would disappear from the structure. Ac2 Grade The Ac2 grade is intended for Lecturers on first appointment and also for more experienced researchers in both sectors. It replaces the Lecturer grade in the Post 1992 sector and the Lecturer A grade in the Pre 1992 sector. The existing Lecturer grade has 7 increments, the new grade consists of 5 increments up to the contribution threshold. The academic trade unions argued long and hard for a further reduction in the number of increments to ensure that the Ac2 grade was akin to a training grade. The reduction in increments reflects the union objective of eliminating grade overlaps below contribution thresholds. Ac3 Grade The Ac3 grade is intended for Senior Lecturers and experienced Researchers in the Post 1992 sector, Lecturer B and grade II Researchers in the Pre 1992 sector. The existing Senior Lecturer grade has 10 increments, the new Ac3 grade has 9 increments up to the contribution threshold, a reduction of 1 increment. The reduced number of increments in the Ac2 grade resulted in a reduction of 1 rather than 2 increments from the existing Senior Lecturer grade. At present there are 14 increments between the bottom of the Lecturer scale and the top of the senior lecturer scale (excluding the 3 increments where salaries overlap). The new Ac2 and Ac3 grades also have 14 increments (excluding increments beyond the contribution threshold), therefore an employee will still have to accrue the same length of service as at present before they reach the top automatic increment of the new grade. Ac4 Grade The Ac4 grade is intended for Principal Lecturers and Senior Researchers in the Post 1992 sector, and Senior Lecturers and grade III Researchers in the Pre 1992 sector. The existing Principal Lecturer grade has 10 increments, the new grade has 6 increments (up to the contribution threshold) a reduction of 4 increments due to the elimination of grade overlaps below the contribution threshold. Ac5 Grade Existing national bargaining rights for NATFHE, AUT and EIS extend to the minimum salary rates for Head of Department in the Post 1992 sector and the Professorial minimum in the Pre 1992 sector. This is reflected in Appendix C where only the first 2 increments of the grade are included, however local agreements may extend the scope of the pay spine and include both minimum and maximum salaries. NATHE branches face a challenging agenda. The national model pay structure retains academic grading and provides the means to deliver light touch job evaluation using national grade profiles. Branches will be required to work with employers in order to allocate staff to grades using the grade profiles. There must be a sufficient number of profiles for each of the new grades so the need or opportunity for employers to vary the profiles should be minimised, unless agreed variation is required due to the particular circumstances within specialist institutions. Branches will require additional facility time and training. JNCHES Guidance has addressed not only facility time and training but access to appeal and review panels which must have trade union involvement. NATFHE continues to provide training for every branch officer who is involved in the process, whilst our officials can provide branches with assistance, local activists will be required to provide day to day support for members. 4. Staff Development and Review NATFHE is opposed to performance reviews. The national contract contains provision for appraisal but not for performance reviews. Many branches take the view that a performance review may be abused by local managers and may in some way be linked to pay. The employers are keen to improve their ability to exercise managerial prerogatives over academic staff. HEFCE within their RDS criteria specify that in order to receive funding HEIs must introduce institution wide systems of performance reviews. The White Paper states that HEIs should take measures to monitor and reward good performance and address poor performance. The document contains provision for Staff Development and Review on page 2. The first clause of this section deals with staff development and training and is generally helpful. The second clause states that regular development reviews must take place which facilitate the improvement of performance to meet institutional objectives and career development for individuals. This represents the final position of the employers side who were insistent that some mention of performance be included within the document. JNCHES will produce guidance on operating Staff Development Reviews in the near future. Branches will be required to agree systems of Staff Development and Review consistent with the forthcoming JNCHES guidance at institutional level. Most existing appraisal systems should provide the basis for local development. 5. Progression between grades NATFHE policy on progression between grades stresses the need to facilitate more rapid progression for all academic staff. Existing arrangements for progression between Lecturer and Senior Lecturer grades must be maintained. The employers seek to restrict progression between grades on the grounds of cost. They are prepared to countenance greater progression opportunity, but only within the context of progression that is justified by job evaluation. They sought to limit progression by insisting on assessments of contribution and performance (see section below). The section on progression between grades (page 3) is deliberately brief for 2 main reasons. Firstly because non academic staff will have to agree arrangements for grade progression locally, outside the scope of national bargaining, and secondly that for academic staff progression between Ac3 and Ac4 will take place on the basis of meeting the national academic role profile, provided that the employer agrees to adopt the national model including national academic grade profiles. The document does address the issue of progression between Ac2 and Ac3 (progression from L to SL). This issue was the subject of many hours of discussion during the negotiations. The final agreement on wording stresses the need to acknowledge progression arrangements between L and SL. This means that if HEIs are to reach agreement on the application of the national structure, they will have to allow existing progression arrangements to continue. The existing paragraph 4.6.1 within the National Staff Handbook regarding progression from L to SL is retained. The production of appropriate national role profiles for the Ac2 grade should ensure that this grade is in practice used as a training grade. If the profile is set at the correct level, staff may be able to transfer to the next grade in the future as soon as they have met the criteria set out within the Ac3 profile. If this is not the case, the normal progression arrangements will apply once they have reached the maximum automatic incremental point of the scale. The employers resisted any further changes to the wording on the grounds that many thousands of other staff are employed in equivalent grades in the single grade structure i.e. research staff etc. Such staff do not currently have the right to progress automatically to the next grade. Branches will be required to agree progression arrangements consistent with forthcoming JNCHES guidance, taking into account the need for employers to acknowledge existing arrangements. Retention of the relevant paragraph in the staff handbook will allow staff to rely on existing contractual provisions which guarantee progression. When reaching agreement (in accordance with current practice) employers will be keen to stress the existing arrangements for denying progression on the grounds of poor performance (i.e. the negative bar). JNCHES guidance on progression, focussing on the use of grade profiles, will be produced in order to facilitate progression throughout the grade structure. 6. Progression within grades NATFHE policy is to maintain automatic incremental progression within grades. NATFHE is opposed to all forms of performance related pay, research clearly shows that PRP is discriminatory and that it is virtually impossible to assess public service performance in a fair or accurate way. However in accordance with the paper agreed by the 2003 HE sector conference, the union may consider additional incremental progression beyond the existing grade boundary (maximum pay range for grade) on the basis of an assessment of contribution subject to clear conditions, i.e. the additional pay should be available to all, the system used must not be overly bureaucratic or demanding, the system must be equality proof, contribution pay should not be an alternative to promotion and the financial reward should be worth the effort. NATFHE notes that HEIs currently operate policies relating to accelerated incremental progression, our policy is to ensure that such procedures are applied fairly and do not discriminate against one (or more) groups of members. Decisions to award accelerated increments must be based on clear, objective and transparent criteria and must be capable of justification under equal value legislation. The employers wish to introduce performance-related pay. However research carried out for UCEA (by Michael Armstrong) indicates that whilst many HR Managers favour PRP, they are ill prepared in terms of developing robust models to measure performance and deliver pay, the majority believe its a good idea that can never be implemented successfully. HEFCE is keen to encourage performance management but is reluctant to recommend PRP. The DfEs has been clear that one of the aims of the White Paper is to encourage HEIs to reward excellence in teaching and research. Many Pre 1992 employers are keen to introduce PRP within existing grades as well above the existing grade boundary. UCEA initially wanted assessments at the bottom of each grade, at the mid-point and again at the top of the existing grade. This would have disrupted and hindered incremental progression for many staff. Employers are also keen to introduce more accelerated incremental progression, especially in shortage subjects, as reflected in HEFCEs consultation on Golden Hellos for Lecturers in shortage subjects. a) Incremental progression The employers conceded the right to retain incremental progression. This right is highlighted within the text on page 3 of the document which states that staff will have a normal expectation of annual progression up to the contribution threshold for their grade, subject exceptionally to established procedures for dealing with performance problems. The clause dealing with automatic progression is underlined within the document for added emphasis. In practice there will be little to agree locally on this issue as the agreement states that staff progress automatically to the contribution threshold on the basis on continuos service. The clauses within this section relating to the exception to this rule, mirror the existing provisions within the national contract whereby an increment can be withheld due to unsatisfactory performance. Local agreements will be necessary for manual staff and others who do not currently enjoy the right to incremental progression. b) Contribution related pay The original UCEA proposals set the contribution threshold within the grade, under the current grade boundary. This would have resulted in a reduction in the automatic pay ranges in all the grades on the new pay spine. The final outcome of negotiations is that the contribution threshold is above the existing grade boundaries, level with the minimum salary for the next (higher) grade. Therefore staff will not have to accrue contribution increments in order to achieve parity with the minimum salary of the next grade. As a consequence, progression between grades will not be dependant on obtaining all the contribution increments or points. Staff therefore progress to the maximum automatic increment and must then be successfully assessed in terms of their contribution before progressing through to the contribution increments, or contribution points. There are 3 contribution increments at the top of the Ac1 grade providing 3 increments of 725, 747 and 768 thus extending potential earnings within grade by 9.27%. There are 3 contribution increments at the top of the Ac2 grade providing 3 increments of 841, 865 and 892 thus increasing potential earnings within grade by 9.28%. The retention of the normal expectation of progression from Ac2 to Ac3 will in practice mitigate against the use of contribution increments for Lecturers in this grade, however researchers do not have the normal expectation of progression and may wish to extend their earnings through contribution points. There are 3 contribution increments at the top of the Ac3 grade providing 3 increments of 1097, 1129 and 1163 thus extending potential earnings within grade by 9.27%. There are 2 contribution increments at the top of the Ac4 grade providing 2 increments of 1309 and 1349 thus extending potential earnings within grade by 6.9%. Despite considerable efforts on the part of NATFHE negotiators, we were unable to secure an agreement on the allocation of contribution points. However these points are not PRP - they are more like `mini-promotions - the increment being consolidated for the future. Appendix D on page 12 of the document sets out the proposed approach to all forms of progression within grades. As stated above, the issues relating to incremental progression are dealt within the main text of the document on page 3. Appendix D lists a series of principles which must apply to all systems of discretionary progression on the basis of contribution. This form of pay progression applies to all grades of staff. The procedures must be equality proof, and must be based on the application of new skills and expertise developed over time in the job. Systems should be fair, consistent and transparent based on defined expectations of success, expressed in clear criteria. The agreement gives a clear indication that contribution pay for academics should be awarded in respect of teaching and research, with emphasis placed on the need to provide parity of esteem in terms of remuneration. It is suggested that pay should be increased (through contribution increments) for membership of the ILT, links with business, equal opportunities and widening participation. NATFHE has secured robust national guidance which provides: Clear guidance on maintaining transparency and promoting equal opportunities throughout the process. Clear guidance on eligibility based on 1years service on the maximum automatic increment within each of the new grades. Examples of activities which may merit the award of a contribution increment - including examples of appropriate activities within each grade. Guidance as to best practice in terms of procedures for application, decision making and appeals. Branches will be required to negotiate and agree a local policy based on JNCHES guidance on good practice. Colleagues in the Pre 1992 HEIs already work within a similar framework. 7. Working hours NATFHE supports the harmonisation of manual workers hours provided this has no detrimental effect on academic conditions of service The agreement specifies that manual workers hours should be harmonised by 1st August 2005, this applies to staff who have defined working week, thus excluding academic staff who do not have their working hours (as distinct from scheduled teaching hours) defined on the basis of payment for a fixed number of weekly hours. Branches will need to ensure that the harmonisation of working hours does not affect, or contravene the provisions of the national contract. If applied correctly, the harmonisation proposals would have no effect on our members. 8. Attraction and retention premia NATFHE is opposed to market supplements on principle, a position re-affirmed by the 2003 HE sector conference. Following the publication of the White Paper HE employers have intensified their efforts to persuade the unions to accept market supplements. HEFCEs RDS initiative stresses the need for flexibility with HE pay systems. Some HEIs have already introduced market supplements for Lecturers in certain subjects such as law, IT, accountancy and business studies. The White Paper specifically mentions using market supplements to recruit and retain staff in problem areas or within different regions. HE employers are keen to provide differential rewards to different groups of staff. The framework agreement (on page 4) sets out an approach to market supplements. This requires employers to negotiate agreements with local unions on the operation of any supplements. Appendix E details the recommended approach, stressing the need to justify any market supplements in terms of robust data on local and national labour markets and compliance with equal value legislation. The provisions of Appendix E were not agreed by the unions. However, whilst all the unions are opposed to this approach, the content of Appendix E represent a model of good practice. Appendix E stresses the need to review the impact of market supplements through the use of equal pay reviews. Whilst the agreement provides the opportunity for employers to offer market supplements, it is clear that any employer who imposes market supplements without agreement is at risk of litigation. Branches can negotiate agreements on market supplements, however if no agreement is reached the framework document does not allow employers to impose market supplements. London branches will need to continue to campaign for a realistic increase in London Weighting. Unless the pay offer can be improved further joint campaigning by all the HE unions will be required. 9. Equal opportunities NATFHE policy is focussed on delivering equality at institutional level in respect of pay systems, promotion procedures, freedom from bullying and harassment, delivering equal pay, ending discrimination on the grounds of part time and casual status and ending institutional racism this is not an exhaustive list. Primarily NATFHE is campaigning for local implementation of agreements on equal pay reviews and casualisation and believes that JNCHES should monitor implementation. HE employers continually fail to implement national agreements or guidance on equality. Many HEIs have stated that they will not address the equalities agenda until job evaluation is introduced, which many see as a cure to many equality issues within the sector. However, in view of pressure from unions, government, new legislation such as the RRAA and pressure from the equality commissions, HEIs have little option but to reluctantly comply with best practice, the only remaining question is the time-scale for that compliance. The entire content of the framework agreement is underpinned by the need to deliver equal pay for work of equal value. This must be reflected in every aspect of an HEIs pay policy. A commitment has been obtained which clearly states that JNCHES will monitor the impact of all the current guidance in 2005/6. The document mentions negotiating agreements on bonuses (for non-academic staff), honoraria and responsibility allowances (for academic staff). Where institutions reach agreement on providing responsibility allowances, they must ensure that they adhere to best practice in terms of equal opportunities. As stated above under the pay spines section, hourly paid lecturers will be paid using rates drawn from the pay spine. This will require the employers, both nationally and locally, to justify pay levels with reference to role analysis and job matching, allowing many hourly paid staff the opportunity to achieve conversion to pro-rata contracts at an appropriate level within the national grade structure. Branches must continue to campaign for the implementation of national guidance on casualisation, equal pay reviews, equal opportunities and maintaining the work life balance. Close liaison with regional and national office will be required for the purposes of monitoring implementation of the guidance. Where branches develop and agree policies on honorariums and responsibility allowances, such agreements must conform to best practice in terms of equality. 10. Implementation (for assimilation provisions see next section below) NATFHE believes that employers should implement the agreement from 1st August 2004 without delay. HEFCE RDS stage II funding is allocated in August 2004 and HEIs should have sufficient funding to implement the agreement from that date. NATFHE believes that HEIs who cannot implement the agreement on 1st August 2004 should backdate the pay increases accrued through transfer to the new pay spine from that date. Employers wish to phase implementation over a longer period of time and do not wish to be constrained by an effective date of implementation. The document states various aspects of the agreement must be agreed locally, this applies to detailed agreements on job evaluation as well as agreements on contribution pay and other issues. If the national model is varied in any way, employers must agree the terms of variation with local unions otherwise the status quo applies. Agreement on the application of new pay structures must be reached by 1st March 2004, after which HEIs will use their best endeavours to introduce new pay arrangements by 1st August 2006, some 2 years following the start of implementation. The employers claim with some justification that many HEIs are ill prepared in terms of HR capacity, and will take a long time to move to implementation. However other HEIs are ready to implement the agreement in advance of 1st August 2004 (subject to receiving academic grade profiles) and may wish to become early implementers. NATFHEs extremely effective boycott of job evaluation has resulted in a shortage of available data on academics. Every Post 1992 HEI will have to test and trial the new role analysis and grading system in advance of implementation and every HEI will have to reach agreements on the application of the national pay structures with NATFHE and other unions locally. The interim pay spine (and existing grades) will be up-rated annually and will apply until such time as new pay structures are implemented. Employers will claim that implementation will include both the cost of conducting job evaluation as well as the consequential increase in the pay bill estimated to be between 3% and 6%. Local branches will need to campaign for prompt implementation of the national model by 1st August 2005 or sooner. Discussions should take place with devolved government(s) regarding the allocation of additional funding to provide parity with funding streams within England. 11. Assimilation to the new pay spine following grading and role analysis NATFHE believes that if role analysis and job matching confirm that a member should be up-graded then the transfer should take place immediately with an immediate increase in pay. In the event that role analysis shows that the member should be downgraded, then pay protection should apply for up to 4 years. A period of pay protection longer than 4 years would be contrary to established case law. If a member is downgraded the employer has a responsibility to provide training and development to enable the employee to fulfil the criteria for grading at their previous level. Appendix F details the agreement on transfer to the pay spine. Where current grade is confirmed staff transfer to the increment on the pay spine that is equal to, or immediately above their current salary immediately prior to transfer. If an employee should be up-graded following role analysis, they will be paid at the bottom point in the next grade. They will receive the salary for that grade immediately, unless the difference in pay is more than 10%, in which case the increase can be phased over 2 years. There is also provision for an employee to decline an upgrade in favour of a reduction in workload. If the employee is shown to have been placed in a grade that does not correspond with the results of job matching, and/or role analysis, then the employee will be protected for 4 years, during which time they will have the opportunity to undergo training and development to increase their skills and expertise in order to develop their role to comply with the grade profile. The employee also has the option of moving to a post at a higher grade when one becomes available, this will enable employees to increase the scope of their duties to avoid downgrading. 12. Transfer to the new pay spine The effect of transfer to the new pay spine is outlined below. It must be noted that a) the employers have costed transition on the basis of point to point transfers i.e. transfer to the next highest increment on the new scale within existing grade, and b) final destination must be confirmed by role analysis. The likely final destinations of staff post transfer are listed below. INSERT EXCEL table 13. Progress towards implementation Implementation of the agreement has been slower than envisaged. This is due to several reasons not least of which is the fact that many Post 1992 institutions were unprepared for the challenges of implementing the new agreement. Other institutions have chosen to delay implementation on the grounds of cost. Where agreements have been ratified by NATFHE academic staff have been provided with salary levels at least as beneficial as those within Appendix C.     PAGE  PAGE 1 Private and Confidential for internal use only The Framework Agreement was negotiated over a 2 year period and was ratified by NATHE in March 2004. It will result in fundamental changes to the way in which academic staff are graded and will facilitate transparency, openness and fair pay for academic staff within a national framework. The agreement must be implemented within England by 1st August 2006, devolved Countries may implement after this date. This background briefing is intended to assist branches and members when considering the implications of the Framework Agreement. Further information can be found on the NATFHE web site ( HYPERLINK "http://www.natfhe.org.uk/" www.natfhe.org.uk) please email questions or queries to hedepartment@natfhe.org.uk [op!*!""~,,2/>DDPPYYZ[]]\l]lm$mmmnnoorrPuRuwwfy߂NO݃ރrtڅ܅xz4Y5\H*>* 56>*j5UmHnHsH u5 5CJ\5CJKH\^JaJ j5U\O\noqrstuvwxyz{|}~@&$a$  ^ ` wLd 2 45))?  8.!""-%%@& & F %&&&&L&'()*-,~--2/>?_ABCDDDDDDDEFHLNPPPPUJXY@&YYY][]]>aacid efghQjjjjkk\l]lmm#m$mmnno & F@&oooorrPuQuRuvvwwwwxxyyzz{{N|O|||}~ǀȀefNO݃ރ*+مՈֈbc2344'(Z[}~Y|/S !#$&')*,-34578>?@ABCDEFu͗ϗ̘͘.HM6]0JH*6CJCJ0JCJmH sH 0J50JmHnHu0J j0JU jU5' !"#$%&'()*+,-./S "#%&()++,567BCDEFuvwIJKLM$a$$a$&`#$,&P 1h. A!"#$%7 ]Dd$ f  C BA*NATFHE logo red&greyR?5HL~)GᯟDFw?5HL~)GᯟJFIFhhPhotoshop 3.08BIM Resolutionhh8BIM FX Global Lighting Angle8BIMFX Global Altitude8BIM Print Flags 8BIM Copyright Flag8BIM'Japanese Print Flags 8BIMColor Halftone SettingsH/fflff/ff2Z5-8BIMColor Transfer Settingsp8BIM Layer State8BIM Layer Groups8BIMGuides@@8BIM URL overrides8BIMSlicesqIbLOGO0006bI8BIMLayer ID Generator Base8BIM New Windows Thumbnail `DpY@ DJFIFHHAdobed            pD"?   3!1AQa"q2B#$Rb34rC%Scs5&DTdE£t6UeuF'Vfv7GWgw5!1AQaq"2B#R3$brCScs4%&5DTdEU6teuFVfv'7GWgw ?TI%)rY14+vC?փIN0d47M_a}_{*]p4?J)̓nK!j8 ~iN?1}[Vu|'>.ޝotN|BǣcWM@5oU PIKx O?I"ƤI%?Uhj/5p7T?wGm,n9e_FXc?s\kC5`Tbi(#|19Lqd:'!B tuk3^ f.h\G5R9l j]U1qe0WU`5oD@Dxyv|w~HKCin^q[u⍌!?yso16ZusQ9잯]+|.=7g\] 5;c];_lv!$G j'Ъ9MX{92Xz#̹ԙ[ R*]- hsO* ^C-ҜzLy]Y6WQn}+J"'O9JS2k2r$Ycok7j:c]gh[\/.7cY7[aݓglu4W[%)sg sJ>^['\?V-^zyq*Xkum 6٫7HG< ~*I$CTGW^E֥sj픷{[鹻؇ko;=OE%;Ytf?!kAױߘ;Ǭ,Α}q+7Z슫w/lS"? Alv/ӱ/WƾGNWct}v7g}/kUyXX2:gO7Z.gC[cG@wJ\9T DXyq]z}?`3-ȹ sM۸ _m"OA]*ƻ#[m-kskc?E4NGP{3 nֲi 4nƜA|p1dQN=zKq}yUcT[]nuu۾\zv(,Z2(S,h wou]2DwPH$9saʩ׺7N47dXnZ=77{2Gafcb%Z gQvtC]f=/ZK\7m-Y>oTf-vN:5>2^CK{׷/T5wCh=2Wc%ޣ}۷)zUrq\AY>)zc|^~߻l?z$ߴ߿v_7?a{wQ[3cv k%FȪK C\?*YEwٯжMƣWinRRues3{_n__zՋssl5J??UIa,H9 s?EErEV=\k%lsk]ҤuQiw{}]GVgZ"1Zl#}rVcNٳUncCU& ٵ}as"k:bǶ.cj6zՐn~kR,q3*:e۳Զ6?DwX a.sHf֍\[>kWT5Oq2kf~27}^Zmn-2Gžߤ~}A)H}1v߻M%rI)8BIM!Version compatibility infoUAdobe PhotoshopAdobe Photoshop 6.08BIM JPEG Quality XICC_PROFILE HLinomntrRGB XYZ  1acspMSFTIEC sRGB-HP cprtP3desclwtptbkptrXYZgXYZ,bXYZ@dmndTpdmddvuedLview$lumimeas $tech0 rTRC< gTRC< bTRC< textCopyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard CompanydescsRGB IEC61966-2.1sRGB IEC61966-2.1XYZ QXYZ XYZ o8XYZ bXYZ $descIEC http://www.iec.chIEC http://www.iec.chdesc.IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB.IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGBdesc,Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1,Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1view_. \XYZ L VPWmeassig CRT curv #(-27;@EJOTY^chmrw| %+28>ELRY`gnu| &/8AKT]gqz !-8COZfr~ -;HUcq~ +:IXgw'7HYj{+=Oat 2FZn  % : O d y  ' = T j " 9 Q i  * C \ u & @ Z t .Id %A^z &Ca~1Om&Ed#Cc'Ij4Vx&IlAe@e Ek*Qw;c*R{Gp@j>i  A l !!H!u!!!"'"U"""# #8#f###$$M$|$$% %8%h%%%&'&W&&&''I'z''( (?(q(())8)k))**5*h**++6+i++,,9,n,,- -A-v--..L.../$/Z///050l0011J1112*2c223 3F3334+4e4455M555676r667$7`7788P8899B999:6:t::;-;k;;<' >`>>?!?a??@#@d@@A)AjAAB0BrBBC:C}CDDGDDEEUEEF"FgFFG5G{GHHKHHIIcIIJ7J}JK KSKKL*LrLMMJMMN%NnNOOIOOP'PqPQQPQQR1R|RSS_SSTBTTU(UuUVV\VVWDWWX/X}XYYiYZZVZZ[E[[\5\\]']x]^^l^__a_``W``aOaabIbbcCccd@dde=eef=ffg=ggh?hhiCiijHjjkOkklWlmm`mnnknooxop+ppq:qqrKrss]sttptu(uuv>vvwVwxxnxy*yyzFz{{c{|!||}A}~~b~#G k͂0WGrׇ;iΉ3dʋ0cʍ1fΏ6n֑?zM _ɖ4 uL$h՛BdҞ@iءG&vVǥ8nRĩ7u\ЭD-u`ֲK³8%yhYѹJº;.! zpg_XQKFAǿ=ȼ:ɹ8ʷ6˶5̵5͵6ζ7ϸ9к<Ѿ?DINU\dlvۀ܊ݖޢ)߯6DScs 2F[p(@Xr4Pm8Ww)KmAdobed         ""   Ib-  s!1AQa"q2B#R3b$r%C4Scs5D'6Tdt& EFVU(eufv7GWgw8HXhx)9IYiy*:JZjzm!1AQa"q2#BRbr3$4CS%cs5DT &6E'dtU7()󄔤euFVfvGWgw8HXhx9IYiy*:JZjz ?ثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbTmn}OʲLRN&XuSg&A 2v*5{&\[J2Qh:Vi-ͳTFG̘CQ)phv*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbثWb]v*UثWb]v*Uث g8t[=OԴNTKbx6̧Hٕa3)ثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb_ثWb]v*UثWb]v*Uy͜yk[ž1o}Ϻɐ񰌡v*U:''3{N[EVY=6 Xp(: SfdGRUثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb_ثWb]v*UثWb]v*¼<5-OO?7g>vgd?xFP]v*ys˓zc}_C'[֌",mm on8cD̐)32e#)*`UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb_ثWb]v*UثWb]aki%2JUO_o@ǐS[ ]Wb]^\ޱ{/rqku'[Ak[۠@3$ y9̙HJJX;v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbثWb]v*UثWb]6y=7MuS8MϠz/ ]Wb]^\ޱ{/rqku'[Ak[۠@3$ y9̙HJJX;v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb_ثWb]v*UثWbX?<˞ú\)g&D=g}VL.ثWbS.yr}b~oXc??d p5фPem-G b&A |UثWbח<>?7v1ܟ2ph(zZ#1DA Ns3&R;?dl/)w]v*ys˓zc}_C'[֌",mm on8cD̐)32e#)*`UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb_ثWb]`lg.znqpq@Y2^6b]N嫍^Q#;4^O؏N_Gޙmm on8cD̐)'32e#)*`UثWb]v*UثWb]<0)\ ?KmSh>?d~?.*^o|U ʋ…#wtz!4jb֣ıTd:xƸj;FmEb]v*UثثWb]6y=7MuS8MϠz/ ]Wb]Zڼެ3;}7d uh(zpA )#1z@;?d$.ثWbS-yjm^oVZa2pna=Yd ∽̠Rs26}R,]v*UثWb]v*UتW$5 < ~GHIYRpf*UثWb[OpaBǹ>gM֍r. `Jg)*abVI R8a\Udn Oww 8*UثWbثWbK^c6t7̃)?C*:vn#Mf;;v*Uت{-MX#?~N]֌",@8QNfFϪRTŋWb]v*UثWb]HPYܓҘCj-aتMnvOfeثWbث]1WyX:;q؁ t~i>Av*Uت{-MX#?~N]֌",@8QNfFϪRTŋWb]v*UثWb]̪F䞀bwSQ cqT v*Uea5>ڐձVGki |"f=I|UثWb]v*Uث Pʬ.~jp%تASCR{%:?޷+*dzpxl2gv*Uت{-MX#?~N]֌",@8QNfFϪRTŋWb]v*UثWb]̪F䞀bwSQ cqT v*U0Ӵ"I*\UD#P0%~*UثWb]v*UFOJY?I:m(N<5X ؀>_ `Jyث|~nuh0;r?4a <8+ݣWbϗ<.uU,?ui[d p5?oo #0tfP%9#IS.]v*UثWb]v*2cEzOSk1DHR(v*UثTKM0#͸ :b]v*UثWb]z-5?,UB;Gr~ ⬛]Ɗa)'KثWbS=/K346K `**UثWb]v*UثV-]}f~LU v*aâ_H6>(>=?#>Վ7ہ,P xWb]v*UثWbRbз]KGcPU/-B/RN*%ث~p$yr|Ow3˳݊"9[0Ok WKںcd<۱Wb]v*UثWb]̪F䞀bwSQ cqT v*U39L)+n@6b]v*UثWb]Y4 M,bW/s;LOA; (Q]UI{"X͸b_pR\3Id\?$zȑF9;&bV|iPwvdA5IEiv*UثWb]v*UتuE.*'Ե7&8ݽ UثWbS=/K346K `**UثWb]v*UثWbwWĞg1„v*UhzVJJyEv*{ܘ\Qˇ,O,{dVB\U-~cOwc]oiG鹒n]v*UثWb]Z܅U$cMUNûl(@b]v*zY}oY1VWb]v*UثWb]JuGSm xð_*CWbְ5Bw>*UBUU`KxW"F*Bլ-[22p.aEp〗?.+ۂ7fHT37IrA2DUثWb]v*UتuE.*'Ե&oN: v3aBv*UثTKM0#͸v*UثWb]v*UتSV8!6?lij'pUثTBtwcw?NWbث|u~hFݑD\7.'ޏ_鲬ӻv*UثWb]iUK1=X槩$@??p/]v*U39L)+n@6b]v*UثWb]v*5#i'ljIWi$bƤ(Yv*kl]uYR"QEQ@=]تY (j\|$_22+G Q_JQodFWzG+v}DUثWb]v*#RBI銱KS{1Jێ{%Wb]z^g"i!em@( UUثWb]v*UثWbPSJa?'cSM$4NN)]$*NbL|_>|?c(UثWbثTLkr=fs01_ƽS{8O[(۱ /Kcv*UثWb]\\CoV⣧>cmO)[ XWb]fg"i!7ہ)1VWb]v*UثWb]AjvAL~xثY&;nI…WbSOw(JNXWb]ثWb]v*UثX]yVK/3W3\?9…,UثWbS7G-Iz%;Aov*UثWb]v*UثVO|Uj6LsUv*U1rw(.*ȀPlA-]v*ثWbPK[-h_#S* hH=ʚ LU݉Y~k4skv#f/* {?X[s]#Ȼ.!Wb]Uk =$Mv*UثWb]v*UثWb]SbUO1V3}c-[x Tv5j Y""FE`JUثWb]ثWb]ot{s8wZuյK$u͸P]v*Uتw7FX7AqTAQF~_/O%5(@(EتUثWb]v*UثWb]v*UتEtG宙ثWb]v*UثWb3*)f!UEY-kY-a`ԳK(!UcwzN\+;b]Z,DޔC~G/:u,zrpO )<$Azs( MLb]v*UثWb]ثWb]v*UثWbXGn]! kv*U62w D.zMbGĿ[.å͏f?̒# SWb]v*UثUIQ0Hwc@I1&7rj,vDMѥ#c#1;S;v*Uت,˫J'MG'nd!n]G paP$H(fKFFԿ.]v*UثWb]ثWb]v*UثWbR:YgB2>CG ˳2SЁY˧9_v ?ekv*UثWb]Rq1AgJg#Ry<>!`NrƩNC"ϫ/$9[v*UثVC+Kv z2)OIB5p՗"b$ (ґ/ŋWb]v*UثWb]ثWb]v*UثWbVMM QLjaņ,#%חuԽXtKI{ F:?m. C&3 ꊶ]v*UتQԭ4f~ 7a,ybzPv?>cJvzMpY?iNAv*UثVW(=KEJZlvi=b{MF??g*"E*@̇$ev(v*UثWb]v*UثWbثWb]v*UثWb]=hxWTZpSgGNHw}>wtʞe:\V$JjOS>B?4^(HGI]20XBd+CWb]zl41'+~O!)4 zpgtD*ED> <1G!ثWbIdXR9O`(2Yķy(yoP/>HUثWb]v*UثWb]ثWb]v*UثWb]@`UTAqP^m->1Rl%;SM7?iž(~_UޒD=;Oĵ1鞳AۏF_twKԔ}Vu2 `zāyL18tRC̺5"[y/+Ͳ`9t9rr0_h ;*By;7eldI$ԝ9Sv*UثT~jޝ4ffW%j5P.GǢ~[V= Ռ~D`jwSN2n Wb]v*UثWb]v*UثثWb]v*UثWb]Y,QE*T{c" l>н֚O|Ǟ:>dMʝ*=°ՉxxL8$VϨ_܊\\0Fa N$ #5ثWbU-.e' a9"xb4o!>GQj #2tV38-ඉab6TQ@2 dnGJXv*UثWb]v*UثWb]ثWb]v*UثWb]v*U#d's4@ >.M1m?6!y'Y%UwѩƜ򓌇u1O${[fq "?Y#-DfUGv Y@N($iu˲=;GE?/<yƿrB5aC[#ӿ//}282ыc*lt+8Vns,6\ngثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWbثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثVUz *CY,s!k6FASO%i jƸ8BN)<䊎b5x(~&Hg~,]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]ثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]ثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]MRNdbto5b3}Ow[rXLm#j]gGoV*:?W~G'ՊΏ-9?Uߦto5b3}Ow[rXLm#j]gGoV*:?W~G'ՊΏ-9?Uߦto5b3}Ow[rXLm#j]gGoV*:?W~G'ՊΏ-9?Uߦto5b3}Ow[rXLm#j]gGoV*:?W~G'ՊΏ-9?Uߦto5b3}Ow[rXLm#j]gGoV*:?W~G'ՊΏ-9?Uߦto5b3}OE+t!*zqUثј~d0XEmui8/P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E*P][E**ͬt+`kP1X|⨼UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]ثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]ثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]v*UثWb]՝+3i;]Qց)ZeY 㲰f\B3XNdKc#ON_\r]szM7P%$At#2 2]yu}R\{bUDbv| 7g2e/Ro[د 9F!v-J+Ip{W c#宝ثV#j{Egw`e9%[;҉8$^]\kiO"#8WSd!3{nx#N>D^/(U s[9{xk?nj2] ?3_d?һA|g3޿w\#ͿsW2] ?3_d?һA|g3޿w\bH{]6 PY!X?IiƳy/N-P`27ɸLw $g+óUh?/ ?VK cv %B>3cQLWf3ԳZ=mwpR\ l̽>0<2(LJ)AIK/owAI>_\JVT PpL~I㙆,A}[],iT!3/O/= 1a_3Ë?]_3W7ҦV-+YPn_fdmFyX/*J) l>Գy7űՊ_?ϕJ<)%Rd1Noiq/?O"8Iy!bo̗v*Ud('z⳾Pœs'b۳Ҙxa=<(lʇ'&v*1VO֙FWnS5+W0'A8}7ӳ%݊v*1VO֙FWnS5(wMI9Ŀze<˼)%Q.O7M&\x.ml/t]v*Йbsa2ԓ_cLř.c+oYtazW]um=Ėc31Dɚ;M.z>Y[ v9.5}??ٖ\݊οl޳N.Z?1_?ՓW7)B }v n$H y*mwh RލW oՙC?+?Mߦo[xzW/2MpX_dI7~ѿm#\l7ϗwSYY"JrNS;'%%K)%RdqNWiq/?O"8IyGwl9IƑ)ޞppካ20e%YMUeNDV"cl?Eߥ5?lF?Տ_a*3\g+Kj|`qcwRCuu #&18S{Wv\k~DW|#$ $b~+a`?2V%y=SY6̨rx_N2n U9S,<_0SzVeC qp]`X'L+7)+R?Փ |ْܾn]`X'L+7)y;RK?&c_H=G2Eqyɨ'ݛN.c<vOWJӶmb]әbsa2ԓ_cON̗v*Uy>}R?twd|$:uW?+c{sauճ3P{[ʁqrD_LZר=D@{2V*0ٶ&xG7G-;g?ewqYw/؅ N9i46,fr.n%IXv52m,T[I]BKs0 bÊ_fD +wvAK&?/?Ւ/wOĿO5cC?ܻ'b_' ^s魦jsX'^K%eA=Kit~5c'=2R{_Hd0˝"XQ/OxO)=e2C~?8ɸ.TOOIJ0|{ǪyOQ/[&ٕO)Mv*Ub}a2CܧjWH`VOdqrSofKɻv*Ub}a2CܧjQI,!s{KM yyRK&\Svo?M;<]\)Nٶ^v*Uԙbsa2ԓ_cON̗v*U;zSyǛ(|·'?O/>C!+bձ巡ձڏzrț38`>ѯXVՂӐZQ6܂D֤6gU`0b>cg\f#ёy;FҢ[ed)F ^!OY$suS$ϖǩjs#D} 4'~OƔxn!C, GYwl,uN]RKy(R=-&c!!Ey#^YR%t~j*٨O|G0bmk' ! e x?iZ'Qԩ7&?^a|/O12ʘ;ɞshַ hPAG/̑ɖR$$Y*u*@F)OW #jo _2gZ=%!z7Q(<$re18]_8z-YFDNEiU$wLjK\(,gXT0uoFr0kdcg{ϻv*UCԵYmZ0%peZr+O}'V Yx];MJ&TLOo8yC_Zi^^H!$$/hnu+Sl'!b'(;Wb]v*Uثثyuk~U_̯B/Q:Z]j1ʒ;a^HգF]T$Y!D!X}ڇ<ܛ[F4SCT?gsg2Oo&,d2bid⬧b:WRL*]D7"(Z̠V4*eS$+ǫ4SS<ѠkN鷩<*c#~IUW@%JNm+/?WK9V{y+D5*s.*KY UKCޕ@jj Q;z*u]7UƝr0օև]~7``4$'̟n}1hwk&i *fΞW[;]F7s4`ɎcyUB6*u.dծ%arSSTvZAE竪F4[n}3/"eVYii ,J"e_R\UR%X-9\ #0EGn]ͩp'ck\h|OY4k&HT cC~_N+ڋ brw>⨜Uyto>[˔٢OyxxwZVni Fp+#Cb4VǨq]$O/o/-dO$~[R/;R[[jQUpOei5o8ڟ'#Phʿу ث%ltf-] *i~oޭqk ޑѳSeaw05o%`=تO9]`S;_Lח1jr^;+6wW4"74&Xb*Uثyuk~U_̯B/QՎXNAiNjޥ~M_]o*t'y-^Z&48fW"k_+9i>mfazG~oQ^Qӵ-kS]0zMYRqEXYA1VaO.8O7d/k*LDr+X=O.*0 h>*vWbK%AO}?cUVZQ* ܖXYUKO\Ć*ECCoPx? *K9vnclU'l彇84jFNLxES &^O8.)Ҭ.ah"3gNόcfby3IU׵zZ+Kp_N>Řg--敳4Đ<`\ љW,|ǡ7^dv+YD!i-=6<1Vc].?=&0V#m#RLPk*լ)}Z_kV)G4<.j?~qbc^c jWq49G% =Gvc+帼'-$v?DQ$YO:%ӵcçLX@H~*ɱVt.YӞݛ9 Ί0]X=Ik~[ 9"}ѧYi)T44-eXL׷W_wvZS1 N<AT\{<L:l8K1zX\|2?*ߙa.b"_,,Yދb:0oVO,UcUkw!!>?E/UWVWZ(Mj)ڐVM1TSPM(D[D%Ueմf/-5l-軶-+#fRVu^S"j|KX*ث^}FԮ.!'-⪞z5/+_YXfx_ Uz c+J:y${TxǧÊtC_tCJU;K2^5c7E_SN[~yglSN8rx*bg_E!SIx5W_O*|^dC_?𘪷t-F+{\t}^DK[FO~T4hZ}KҒ(-WyO#+è[O  FqW^iyN"lᵚ9ew#ҼVyN KJRھ(@u?YcK|1T_shVW. ۖ_n_ͻzxGd`->Ѱڵe%<*uhmj~bo?F(p1@G_EU'1US,M}n#u[*A'O㊦:Χmh&-uqظ{oXƤ$]m>;{'*1V)/#y⩴:}Q1dz@TP%RqT M#wZtڍpq.Fr>*1/nǵDٳ\U*[~ WFmGOuoRm9j?4Qlo5 qm b'W`szka\)276HοB9쮤"y&\UOy}NSsr#P:$UW6`[8"+9N*_{}Z1hH$_Wv'ׄIoqȪ'.<7m8#?Js(TP}}YU!TU9A/ ?T4]g+O7v)=>'ʿbzyAnh{05}s4-5ò cqTC8]qs$ [>}GMկƭl2,E),DzlqVǬ\^yU >g1*+)Ƽ<ѩj_[tv^"y%Զ*/᜖#4GO1U+}oP*{"xf*SU ƍa}jwrK%Mo4QoK_M+*JQWЯrDmGHF&]v*UثWb_ثWb]v*ſ2 ԿDC,bT͍osM6s `.Q0ۍ?oW׼{h.[E+$Su98Aa*yz/ȱI,?g|~b= PYE.mnb7]Rukb?5*@J.4$WP\:/WqoVռuhڍ=cb:Eo1Tɟ_׽U HZJ[jNy#2 B/,Uב]o97 2K(> G? +/Ta_J<SS9Ob %VF}qTm6i~e[UP94qKg?eU3>޶n$Ր6o4Wʛy5"\ЯQ`Ҳ~)԰sӨ*UثWűՊث²űՊ*yϵ'ŰȣS?ɳ)ڏOĿH Title$d@&a$5CJ(KH\^JaJ .0@". List BulletF12F List Number & Fe^e`, @B, Footer  9r 6)@Q6 Page Number5CJOJQJTbT  Footnote Textqdx\$^q`CJaJF&@qF Footnote Reference5CJH*OJQJ:U@: Hyperlink5>*B*OJQJph@!@ List Bullet spaced \$<1< List Number spaced@@ Body Text Not SpacedJV@J FollowedHyperlink5>*B*OJQJph8Y8  Document Map-D OJQJXX xl24$dd9D[$\$a$#5B*CJPJ\^JmH phsH RR xl25dd9D[$\$#5B*CJPJ\^JmH phsH >> xl26 dd[$\$CJPJ^JmH sH BB xl27!dd9D[$\$CJPJ^JmH sH L"L xl28"dd9D[$\$B*CJPJ^JmH phsH L2L xl29#$dd[$\$a$CJOJPJQJ^JmH sH HBH xl30$$dd9D[$\$a$CJPJ^JmH sH MM5 ))?  8.-!!""""L"#$%&-(~))2+<+N,,,,--50?0233M5W566699::;_=>?@@@@@@@ABDHJLLLLQJTUUU]WYY>]]_i` abcdQfffjgg\h]hii#i$iijjkkkknnPqQqRqrrssssttuuvvwwNxOxxxyz{{{||e}f}}}~~NO*+فՄքbc234‰'(Z[}~ !"#$%&'()*+,-./S 7BCDEN0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 0 000000 000000 00 000 00 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0@0@0@0@0 0 &VVYYMNX%:Yo4+MOQRSTUVWYZLP  Y!!U}X8@(  T  C 333Ԕ B S  ?oM #BtTSXShhkkllEmIm ""##%&()+,7AwN333333333333333333333 Babs FotherbyW:\down\frameanalysis.doch·vz̨Hkب?s  S%&P \SL3D! 98 Jrg|?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F[fData \]1Table:WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPoolwZfwZf  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q