Title Code System Workgroup Report

In the first meeting of the Workgroup, issues relating to the current central Title Code System (TCS) and the local campus Title Code Tables (TCT) were identified and categorized as data or process issues. Workgroup members then consulted with various functional offices on their campuses (Affirmative Action, Labor Relations, Compensation, Payroll, etc) and compiled a campus response to each issue. The Workgroup met again and reviewed and discussed the campus comments. UCOP staff represented the needs of Office of the President from a systemwide perspective and as a tenth location. Input from UCOP Labor Relations was solicited after the meeting. This report reflects the consensus of the Workgroup on the major needs identified.

The Title Code System is the University’s central repository of information about appointment titles. The system is used to record title attributes and pay rates for academic and staff titles, to generate range adjustments, and, in the past, has been the source of a hardcopy systemwide title and pay plan report. Transactions are entered online into the system by staff in UCOP Compensation and Data Analysis based on information received

from campuses and from UCOP Labor Relations. Rates are downloaded to a pc-based system for range adjustment processing and modelling, and new rates are uploaded back to the central TCS database. Periodically (monthly or more frequently) transactions are generated by TCS which are made available to the campuses so that the local Title Code Table can be updated. The Title Code Table on each campus is integral to the Payroll Personnel System and is the source for local title and pay plans. Campus TCT Tables reflect a true history of all titles and their attributes while central TCS reflects a history of only shift differential rates as well as base rates not residing in the standard grade table.

In reviewing TCS and TCT, the Workgroup identified unmet needs and made recommendations in three broad areas: 1) needs related to the process by which information is sent to UCOP and to the campuses and by which the systems are updated, 2) needs related to information about appointment titles which is not currently captured, and 3) needs related to access to title code data.

The workgroup focused on the current systems needs of campus and UCOP compensation units. Particular emphasis was given to bringing existing systems in line with new delegations of authority under the Human Resources Management Initiatives as these delegations are currently being exercised at the campuses. To date, no one compensation/classification model has arisen. Models being tested include pay for performance, incentive programs, market based pay, and an on-going response to unionization. As divergent compensation models are put in place throughout the organization, additional systems needs may arise. As UC moves away from a strictly title-driven compensation model, fundamental systems changes may be necessary in the next few years.

Process Needs

The process for updating the central TCS and then the local TCT simply takes too long. When campuses need to make a large number of changes, UCOP is unable to prepare the information and update the system in a timely manner. This happened this last year with health care titles and when the Patient Care Technical Unit moved staff titles from step-based rates to open ranges.

The Workgroup discussed the possible decentralization of the work to the campuses as a way of addressing this problem and determined that it was not desirable to do so. Several campuses indicated that they could not absorb the increased workload. The most significant factor, however, is that decentralization would remove a critical control point for UCOP Labor Relations and Academic Personnel. Changes for represented titles and for academic titles are determined centrally and a central update ensures that appropriate steps have been taken in the bargaining process. Approximately 56% of the staff and

academic titles are centrally bargained or administered.

The consensus of the Workgroup was that the TCS database should continue to be updated centrally and data be transmitted to the campuses and that steps should be taken to improve the timeliness of the process.

1. Provide an online mechanism (Web-based) for campuses to request single title add, change, and delete transactions to the central Title Code System. This would expand upon the current process for submitting changes via the TCS Web forms.
2. Improve the ability of UCOP to process "mass changes" in TCS in situations where a large volume of like transactions need to be processed. To the extent that it is possible to predetermine mass changes which may be required in the future and to the extent that it is technically feasible to do so yet still maintain the integrity of the central and local database data, an automated mass change facility should be developed. The current online updating of the TCS database does not meet Human Resources' basic update requirements, where, for example, updates for all titles in a bargaining unit are common. There is no facility to update a logical group or set of titles. For example, when the on-call rate for the titles in a particular bargaining unit change, the on-call rate must be changed manually, title by title. This creates an unnecessary clerical workload while multiplying the chances of error. At a minimum it should be possible to perform predetermined types of updates against a set of titles based on one or more of the following attributes: Bargaining unit, personnel program, campus, or link code. Such a set update facility should significantly reduce turnaround time on maintenance.
3. Increase the frequency by which transactions are sent from TCS to TCT. There is currently no system limitation to the frequency by which transactions can be sent to the campuses. Transactions should be sent as soon as they represent a completed logical set and as often as campuses have the ability to process them. Procedures for maintenance and range adjustment processing will need to be reviewed and modified in order to accomplish this.
4. Provide a mechanism for capturing and updating central TCS with campus-initiated TCT transaction updates such as the Skilled Craft range adjustments.

Information Needs

The current TCS and TCT do not capture and reflect all the information about appointment titles that is needed today for salary administration and reporting. As campuses have moved to implement new compensation models as delegated to them under HRMI, a number of shortcomings in current systems have been identified. The Workgroup had several specific recommendations in this area.

• FLSA Status.

The ability to differentiate exempt from nonexempt titles is accommodated in the current title code systems. However, several campuses intend to exercise their delegated authority to collapse titles and differentiate the FLSA status at the position/employee level.

Recommendation: Establish a new data element at the appointment level in the Payroll System to record the status for any position that has a status different from the standard one for the title (with a default to the standard one for the title). New edits in the Payroll System using this data element could provide enhanced functionality. 

1. Organization/Location within a Campus.

   Two campuses expressed the need to record varying pay rates and title attributes for the same title (the same body of work) between two organizations/locations (the medical center and the general campus). Similarly, Office of the President , since it uses the Berkeley campus payroll/personnel system, expressed the need to record pay rates and title attributes that differ from those in use by the Berkeley campus. Creating separate titles codes where needed for each organization was discussed; however, it was felt that, since a title code defines a body of work, the same title should be used for the same work in both organizations. If the body of work is re-defined, then a new title code would be established.

   Recommendation: Enhance TCS and TCT to permit the recording of varying pay rates and title attributes for multiple organizations within a payroll location.

2. Six Month Eligibility Flag.

   The current systems do not accommodate a Six Month Eligibility Flag which differs for covered and uncovered rates. As campuses are moving step-based titles to open salary ranges for uncovered rates, they are eliminating eligibility for a six month increase for uncovered rates, yet still maintaining steps and six month increase procedures for covered rates. The recording of one Six Month Eligibility flag for each title is insufficient.

   Recommendation: The systems need to allow for recording of Six Month Eligibility flag at the Pay Representation level so that covered rates can have a different eligibility than uncovered rates.

3. Salary Grade Assignment.

   Most campuses anticipate assigning multiple grades to a single Professional/Support Staff (PSS) or Managers/Sr. Professional (MSP) title. While the Payroll System currently allows assigning of differing grades to employees within a single PSS, MSP, or SMG title, central TCS and campus TCT tables currently cannot accommodate recording of multiple grades per title and their salary ranges. For this reason, the old MAP and Executive salary ranges were never stored in central TCS.

   Recommendation: While modifying central TCS and campus TCT tables to record multiple grades and their ranges per title would add another complex layer to an already complex structure, UCOP Compensation recommended that TCS and TCT be enhanced to permit the recording of salary ranges at the campus level for MSP and SMG titles and to permit the recording of multiple grades and their salary ranges for each location for PSS, MSP, and SMG titles.

4. Salary Structures.

   The Workgroup confirmed that TCS and TCT sufficiently capture the scope and diversity of pay structures for recording step rates; minimum, midpoint and maximum for open ranges; no rates for by agreement titles; and the standard grade table for look-up of covered and uncovered rates. Per Diem rates are currently recorded inconsistently and, as a result, may resemble either step-based or merit-based rates in reports. Campuses expressed the need to identify per diem titles and more effectively and accurately record and display their unique rates. UCOP Labor Relations described per diem employees as at-will employees who must be kept in separate titles.

   Recommendation: Establish a new data element in TCS and TCT to identify per diem titles and establish consistency on how the rates should be stored and displayed. Workgroup members agreed that the recording of quartiles and additional salary rate reference points should be handled locally.

5. Series and Level Identifiers.

   Campuses have a need to identify a related series of title codes for survey, compensation, and classification purposes. As new job series are developed, a series identifier would be useful for comparing salaries across UC and in linking to job families. From a systemwide perspective, it would also be valuable to identify the journey level title within each series.

   Recommendation: Add Series and Level identifiers to TCS and TCT as new title attributes.

6. Uniform Allowance and Perquisite Rates.

   Campuses have been delegated the authority to establish, change and/or delete uniform allowance and perquisite rates. The Workgroup discussed the merits of recording the actual rates for these in TCS and TCT and determined that they would have limited use. UCOP Compensation and UCOP Labor Relations favor a title attribute which would identify titles eligible for uniform allowances. This is not a high priority for the campuses.

   Recommendation: None

7. Salary Survey Administration.

   UCOP and the campuses have a common need to identify the benchmark titles used in various internal and external salary surveys and map those titles to the appropriate survey and benchmark survey job code. Currently this information is maintained manually or in local campus systems.

   Recommendation: The consensus of the Workgroup was that, while there might be a need for central support in this area, it is not core to TCS or TCT. No action needed.

8. Occupational Groupings.

   There was agreement on the need for meaningful occupational groupings to provide a common profile of the UC work force in internal and external reporting. The Workgroup reviewed the groupings in use today: Federal Occupation Code (FOC), Sub FOC, Standard Occupation Code (SOC), Class Title Outline (CTO), Occupation Subcategory Code (OSC), Linkage Code, and Job Group Identifier. For Federal affirmative action reporting there is a continuing need for FOC, SOC, and Job Group which is currently locally defined and maintained. Class Title Outline continues to be needed for academic titles as is Linkage Code for staff titles. Both code structures are satisfactory in their current form.

   Recommendation: The Workgroup recommended that Job Group Code be added to TCS and TCT as a locally defined data element, and that Sub FOC, which is actually a UC-defined data element, be combined with Occupational Subcategory Code to form a revamped code structure. The Workgroup also recommended that a small group with participation from Affirmative Action staff refine this proposal.

9. Title Code Sub-specialties.

   The Workgroup discussed the need to identify sub-specialties within the title code systems as campuses move to collapse multiple titles into generic schemes. Specialty detail is needed to match to market data. Adding a sub-specialty level of detail was considered not a viable option in that it adds another layer to an already complex system. The goal of simplifying the University’s pay practices is not accomplished if, by reducing the number of title codes, another level of complexity must be added.

   Recommendation: The group recommended that existing distinct title codes be retained for each sub-specialty that has a unique benchmark. It was also pointed out that "broadbanding" does not necessarily mean losing specialty detail currently reflected in title names.

   The group also recommended that the conflict between the goal of simplifying pay practices by reducing the number of titles and the need for specialty in a market-driven structure be brought to the attention of UCOP and campus management.

10. Supervisory Titles.

    Central TCS and campus TCT tables currently capture rates for supervisory, confidential, out-of-state and student employees within uncovered segments of represented titles. Labor Relations is moving towards establishing separate titles for supervisors since the work they perform is a different body of work than that performed by the non-supervisory employees in the same title. Separate titles are not needed for confidential and out-of-state employees since these employees perform the same body of work as the covered employees.

    Recommendation: The Workgroup concluded that there is no system issue in establishing separate new titles for supervisors and that the issue should be referred to the Human Resource Directors for discussion as the proliferation of new titles conflicts with the mandate to reduce the number of existing titles.

11. Access Needs

    Access to accurate, current, and complete data in the central Title Code System and the local Title Code Tables is viewed as a major unmet need in the current environment. Information is needed by central administrators as well as by departmental staff and individual employees. TCS has been the source of data for the voluminous hardcopy Systemwide Title and Pay Plan and, since the implementation of HRMI, this report has not been produced. Several campuses produce local versions of the report and, in order to reduce costs, several have eliminated the paper versions in favor of Web-based versions.

    Recommendations:

    The Workgroup recommended that the following be undertaken to improve access to the data recorded in the systems:

    0. Provide Web-based access to the title data stored in TCS. This would replace the systemwide Title and Pay Plan. At a minimum, this facility should allow search and selection by location, title, title name, title unit code, and type of pay (by agreement, step-based, etc.), provide a number of display options, and clearly and accurately indicate effective dates for all rates and which salary adjustments have been included. Campuses felt that a systemwide version of the Plan was useful even though greater divergence in pay practices is anticipated and that such a facility would eliminate the duplicative effort in developing local Web-based applications.
    1. Development of TCT history reporting. The local campus Title Code Tables contain a history of changes made to title attributes and rates but there is no mechanism to display or report this history. Staff in Compensation and Affirmative Action offices would find this information useful.

    Next Steps

    This report has been reviewed by Workgroup members and updated with their comments. Approval of the recommendations will be solicited from the Human Resources Directors.

    The Employee Systems Task Force (ESTF) was formed in Fall 1996 by Senior Vice President Kennedy to guide the future direction of human resource and benefits information systems. The Task Force has undertaken its work over the past several months to re-assess current systems, identify potential projects, and prioritize future needs. The enhancements recommended by the Title Code System Workgroup in this report have been included in the Employee System Task Force list of potential project candidates as "Title Code Systems Enhancements" with the goal to improve timeliness of data in both central and local title code systems, expand systems to capture data required for current salary administration practices, and provide improved access to data in the systems. The ESTF is scheduled to complete its work by June 30, 1997 and forward a plan, including recommendations, schedules for implementation, benefits to be obtained, and resources required to Senior Vice President Kennedy.

    ---

    Appendix A

    Title Code System Workgroup Members:

    Dorla Cantu, Berkeley
    Pauline Trevino, Davis
    Pat Gray, Davis
    Cathy Kawaski Oda, Irvine
    Mary Schumacher, Irvine
    Jeffrey Marr, Los Angeles
    Marilyn Voce, Riverside
    Judy Johnson, San Diego
    Susan Wright, San Francisco
    Carol Houchens, Santa Barbara
    Judith Martin-Hoyt, Santa Cruz
    Peter Lee, Office of the President
    Judy Coy, Office of the President
    Frances Parrish-Anderson, Office of the President
    Carmen Estrada, Office of the President
    Elly Skarakis, Office of the President
    Marit Marino, Office of the President