|
A warm thank you once again to all those who attended the FE Forum for HR and Payroll in Colleges at the National Space Centre on the 14th May 2009. As promised in my previous email, here is a summary of the day’s main activities as well as the main concerns raised by delegates during the discussion sessions.
A large number of HR and Payroll professionals attended the Forum, providing an excellent opportunity to network with each other and discuss current challenges in an FE College environment.
New College Durham shared their experience of developing an online recruitment system specific to the College sector. The presentation covered current lifestyle expectations which highlighted a rising shift towards the use of the Internet for job search and application. It was also clear that many colleges believed that the traditional paper based recruitment method is still necessary although it is gradually becoming obsolete. Mr Ian Alexander, Head of Managed Service at NCD, described current recruitment expectations, the reasons why the college chose to develop online recruitment, the benefits as well as the challenges of implementing and using this technology.
Nicholas Smith, of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, presented a detailed report of the Vetting and Barring Scheme. Although the Scheme operation is not due until July 2010, most college representatives were keen to find out more about the implications of introducing it.
Mr. Smith gave a comprehensive description of the Scheme starting with a clear definition which referred to the background and reasons behind introducing the Scheme. The most important reason was summarised in Recommendation 19 by The Bichard Report which states that "New arrangements should be introduced requiring those who wish to work with children, or vulnerable adults, to be registered. The register would confirm that there is no known reason why an individual should not work with these client groups."
The Vetting and Barring Scheme is a ‘new, improved checking and monitoring scheme aiming to prevent unsuitable people from working or volunteering with children and/or vulnerable adults.’ The scheme does not replace CRB Checks, and employers retain the responsibility for ensuring safe recruitment and employment practices. The scheme also extends to anyone involved in ‘regulated activity’ including paid workers, volunteers, current workforce and overseas workers.
Nicholas Smith also explained Employers’ duties in terms of referrals and how communication will be maintained between them and the ISA. Costs of introducing the scheme were outlined and discussed during this session.
An overview was provided on recent changes to regulations related to LGPS (England and Scotland), Employment Act 2008, HMRC in-year submissions, new P45/P46 and Dispute Resolution (ACAS Code). Mr Hugo Fair, Director at Software for People Ltd, also provided details of forthcoming issues which include LLUK’s current review of SIR objectives & content, Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, HMRC Audit, Statutory Pays, EU Temporary Agency Workers Directive and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. All these updates were explained with an indication of how they may affect HR and Payroll departments in FE Colleges. The highlight of the FE Forum were a number of discussion groups covering different topics. Below is an outline of the different discussion topics together with a summary of the main points raised in each one of them
The increasing demands for information by LLUK dominated the SIR discussion group. Delegates who contact LLUK frequently offered an update on the current situation and possible future changes. Some delegates expressed dissatisfaction towards LLUK’s ongoing changes and in frustration stressed the fact that there is no legal requirement to complete SIR returns.
This discussion group focused mainly on issues specific to Payroll users in FE Colleges. It was clearly identified that Occupational Sick Pay is a major problem that most are trying to cope with. Agreeing a standard set of rules for Occupational Pay appeared to be the best solution, but it was argued that this is not easy to achieve.
Other main discussion points included Split NI, LGPS, Salary Sacrifice, processing multiple payrolls and In-year and End of Year returns. In addition to these issues, Payroll Bureau users identified other data related problems, especially those associated with data input errors and how this leads to delays in receiving essential reports.
This was a fairly focused discussion group for those who are considering using this technology in the near future. Delegates explored the practicality of implementing an online recruitment solution as well as the challenges and benefits that can be achieved.
It was agreed that online recruitment is an effective way of reducing costs, increasing administration speed and accuracy, improving the quality of hired candidates and enhancing the external image of the college. Managing cultural change was the main challenge identified as an obstacle to overcome in order to introduce and benefit from online recruitment in FE Colleges.
Many issues were raised in this discussion group related to the management of hourly paid lecturers.
Paying the correct amounts and managing and tracking absence were major points of discussion. Payroll demands the highest accuracy level possible, and paying hourly paid lecturers contracts can sometimes affect this accuracy, especially when the systems used or departments responsible for managing hourly paid staff and payroll are not communicating effectively. Some delegates pointed out that this situation is usually more difficult considering a typical employee could have different contracts with different rates of pay. Some solutions were suggested based on individual colleges’ experiences. There was a clear consensus that streamlined workflow processes with the implementation of suitable software were steps to the right direction to solve this issue.
Using agencies for the management of Hourly paid staff was suggested as an alternative to doing it in-house; however, many delegates were opposed to the idea in light of the government’s decision to charge colleges 15% tax on the total agency wage bills. This, it was argued, has dramatically increased the cost of hiring and managing visiting teachers; the annual VAT bill for colleges could go up by £20 million pounds. For Colleges who rely heavily on agencies the price has become so high that using agencies was no longer a viable solution.
For further information on any of the above topics, please contact us and we will put you in touch with the appropriate person to answer your questions.
Our main objective is to make this forum for Colleges by Colleges, so we would really appreciate any feedback regarding topics, location, timing etc. Please do not hesitate to email us your comments and suggestions and we will take them into consideration when planning next forum.