Index

Human Resources

Introduction/Background

Date of last assessment:  October 1999

The Affirmative Action Office's functional area received an overall good rating in the performance measure area currently agreed upon between SLAC and DOE/OAK in the FY 1999 Annual Appraisal. We had no 'marginal' areas in our last Assessment.

Departmental overview

 Laboratory Mission

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) is dedicated to experimental and theoretical research in elementary particle physics and in those fields that make use of its synchrotron radiation facilities, including biology, chemistry, geology, material science and electrical engineering.  This includes the development of new techniques in particle acceleration and detection, and of synchrotron radiation sources and associated instrumentation.  The center is operated as a national user facility for the Department of Energy by Stanford University.

Organizational Mission

The Human Resources Department at SLAC supports the scientific mission of the Laboratory by providing a full range of human resource services to the organization and all of its employees.  We are responsible for administering Stanford University Human Resources Policies within the SLAC environment and for assuring compliance with the Personnel appendix of our contract with the Department of Energy.  The Department includes 19.75 (full-time equivalent) employees in eight functional areas, including Employment, Benefits, Labor Relations, Employee Relations, Workers’ Compensation (effective October 1, 2000), Personnel Records, Training & Development, International Services, Housing, and Compensation.  (See the SLAC Human Resources organizational chart in Appendix 1.)  This assessment provides information on the provision of those services based on three Performance Criteria mutually agreed upon by SLAC and DOE.

Identification of Self-Assessment Report Staff

Names, titles, affiliations of participants

Teresa Cervantes, Manager, Benefits

Susan Hoerger, Manager, Employee Relations and Training

Karen Lawrence, Manager, Compensation

Lee Lyon, Director, Human Resources

Process Overview

Performance Objective:  #1 Attraction/Retention of Qualified People

SLAC will attract and retain highly qualified people by having a cost effective total compensation program that is competitive with the relevant job market.

Performance Criterion 1.1:  Direct Compensation Program.  Direct compensation (salary) programs will reflect the University’s mid-market compensation philosophy.

Performance measure:  Average Salary.  Average salary for benchmark positions, excluding bargaining unit positions, as measured by recognized salary surveys conducted annually will be within ± 5% of the aggregate average for jobs at the time of program implementation.  No more than 20% of benchmark positions should exceed ± 10% of their individual survey comparators.

Process used to measure Performance Criterion 1.1:  Stanford uses a variety of salary surveys and specific comparisons in order to analyze market position.  Because we look at about 70 jobs in multiple job families, the use of specific surveys and institutional data is tailored for the specific job family.  Currently, data from the following sources is used in evaluating our market position:

General Bay Area:

Salary Information Retrieval Systems (SIRS)

Radford Bay Area/Northern California

Public Sector/ Universities:

City of San Jose

City of Palo Alto

Santa Clara County

San Mateo County

California State University: Hayward, San Francisco

University of Southern California

Ivy Group Survey

Santa Clara University

University of California campuses:

   San Francisco, Berkeley, Davis, Los Angeles, and.   

   Santa Cruz

            University of San Francisco

            Stanford Hospital

Technical Market:

American Electronic Association (AEA)

Radford Select Companies

            Foushee (for Environment, Safety, and Health) (ES&H)

            Salary Information Retrieval Systems (SIRS):  Select Companies

We are reporting the market data that were used for the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year salary program.  The data were collected in Fall, 1999. The market data are examined individually and then are combined into an overall market number by simple averaging.

Performance Criterion 1.2:  Indirect Compensation.  Indirect compensation (benefit) program will be consistent with local practices and provide for the well being of SLAC employees.

Performance Measure:  Benefit Program.  The benefit program (to include programs such as:  retirement, medical, and dental, vacation, sick and other paid leave, life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment, workers’ compensation, social security, unemployment, short and long term disability, holidays, and tuition grant) as measured by agreed to survey will be within ± 7.5% of the local average when the above benefits are expressed as percent of salary.

Process used to measure Performance Criterion 1.2:  To calculate benefits as a percent of payroll, we will compare SLAC to all the nationwide companies who participated in the 1999 Annual Chamber of Commerce Survey. The data cover 1998 benefit costs. The benefits included are retirement, medical and dental, vacation, sick, holidays, and other paid leave; life insurance; accidental death and dismemberment; Workers' Compensation; social security; unemployment compensation; and, short and long-term disability. The only unusual SLAC benefit cost, which is not represented in this list, is the Tuition Grant Program for the children of faculty and long-term staff.

This Chamber of Commerce survey has changed its publication schedule from annual to bi-annual, so we will compare SLAC’s 2000 benefits with the 1999 survey.

Performance Objective #2:  Human Resources Policy Compliance.  SLAC will comply with Stanford University Human Resources Policies as stated in the most current Administrative Guide.

Performance Criterion 2.1:  Human Resources Policy Compliance.  Periodic self-assessment of SLAC Human Resources Department practices in Employment, Benefit, Compensation, Employee Relations, Training and Development, and Performance Evaluation will indicate complete compliance with University Human Resources policies.

Performance Measure 2.1:  SLAC Human Resources Department staff will assess two of the six areas every year such that each area is reviewed every three years and will find complete compliance with Stanford University policy requirements.  The self-assessment will be submitted to DOE for review and validation.  During FY00, Employee/Labor Relations and Training and Development will be reviewed.

Process used to measure Performance Criterion 2.1:  In the Employee/Labor Relations arena, we believe the most important policy compliance issues are those regarding termination of employment.  For this reason we reviewed all layoffs and terminations for cause during the past year for compliance to University policy as stated in Administrative Guide Memos 22.8 and 22.15 [See Appendix 2 (22.8 and 22.15)] and in the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Stanford and the United Stanford Workers.  In addition, we reviewed the pertinent side letters contained in the Labor Agreement.

In Training and Development, we reviewed a random sample of 60 training incidents (7.3%) for compliance with Administrative Guide Memo 22.11. (See Appendix 3.)

Performance Objective #3: Customer Needs. The Human Resources Department will monitor employee customer feedback in order to insure high quality service to its employees.

Performance Criterion 3.0: Requirements, expectations, and preferences of customers are collected and addressed.

Performance Measure 3.0:  Based on survey data analysis, the Human Resources Department will establish action plans to improve those areas which do not meet customer expectations.

Process used to measure Performance Criterion 3.0:  We conducted a survey that provided customer feedback on our effectiveness, responsiveness, timeliness, and clarity for each process performed by the Human Resources Department. The respondents were asked to rate a process on those variables as being:

To identify the respondent pool, the head of each major area in the Department was asked to submit names of customers who had used their services in the last year. This comprised the survey target group. Written surveys were sent to 169 customers; 34 were returned anonymously.  The responses were quantified by assigning 1 point to the highest rating, “beyond expectations,” 2 points to “meets expectations,” 3 points to “usually meets expectations,” 4 points to “sometimes meets expectations,” and 5 points to the lowest rating of “rarely meets expectations.”  Each process was given a “score” by calculating the average rating on each variable for each area identified. The customer survey is exhibited in Appendix 4.

The review included 72 benchmarks that matched jobs we maintain at SLAC (See Table 1).  The aggregate simple average of those benchmark positions is –3.22% below the overall market average, and within the mid-market range of +/- 5%.  On this criterion, we are within the parameter set in the performance measure. Of the benchmark positions, only 48  (67%) were within +/- 10% of their market averages.  Seventeen benchmark positions (24%) were more than 10% below the market; 11 positions (15%) were more than 5% above market, and an additional 7 positions (10%) were more than 10% above market.  On this measure, we have 33% (against a goal of 20%) of our positions outside the +or-10% goal.

Recognizing this, most of the benchmark positions that were more than 10% below the market were targeted by the University for special market adjustments in addition to the annual merit program.  Information Technology positions were targeted for special market adjustments on September 1^st.  We are considering market adjustment for engineers soon. 

The data demonstrates that the University’s merit increase programs slightly decreased the number of benchmark positions more than 10% below the market.  While it is true that some of these positions have a small number of incumbents, the overall impact is that we are still somewhat lagging behind the market.  We will continue to work with University Human Resource management to make our salary program more competitive in our local market.

Performance Criterion 1.2:  Indirect Compensation:  Benefits as Percent of Payroll.  The 1999 edition of the Employee Benefits Study uses data covering 1998, the SLAC data used for this report reflects 1999.  Benefits as a percent of payroll were calculated by adding the percent of gross payroll SLAC pays into the University benefit pool and the percent of gross payroll SLAC pays for paid leaves.  For 1999, this was 43.4% of payroll.  This is 5.2% higher than the 38.2% average for all companies in the Chamber of Commerce study.  This number still falls within the 7.5% range of market average called for in our performance criterion even though our data are one year more recent (and therefore more expensive) than the Chamber data.

As noted in the process overview section, two areas of the Human Resources Department were assessed for compliance with Stanford University policies:  Employee/Labor Relations and Training and Development.  The results are presented below.

As a measure of conformance, all three involuntary terminations were evaluated to determine whether they complied with University policy.  All the files contained a letter or memorandum addressed to the employee citing the reason for personnel action.  Two employees were terminated in their initial trial periods.  One had a record of prior written disciplinary action.  With the exception of employees terminated in their trial period, affected employees have a formal grievance and arbitration procedure (Administrative Guide Memo 22.10) (See Appendix 5.).  The grievance procedure has several steps culminating in an outside arbitration hearing.  No grievances were filed concerning these involuntary terminations. In addition, all six layoffs were evaluated.  All the employees were selected in accordance with policy based on their ability to perform the remaining work or by seniority when applicable.  Each file contained a letter or memorandum addressed to the employee stating the reason for the layoff.  Laid-off employees received notice and severance pay as required by University policy (Administrative Guide Memo 22.8.  See Appendix 2.)  The grievance procedure is available for employees to challenge layoff selections.  No grievances were filed concerning these layoffs. Based on this, the Employee Relations area is considered to be in conformance with University policy with regard to “just cause” termination.

As a measure of conformance, all three involuntary terminations were evaluated to determine whether they complied with the collective bargaining agreement.  All the files contained a letter or memorandum addressed to the employee citing the reason for personnel action.  One employee did not return to work after an approved leave of absence.  One was absent from work without approval or excuse and did not return to work despite the supervisor’s written request.  One engaged in gross misconduct.  With the exception of employees terminated in their trial period, affected employees have a formal grievance and arbitration procedure.  The grievance procedure has several steps including an internal hearing and outside arbitration hearing.  Either the employee or the Union may file a grievance.  No grievances were filed concerning these involuntary terminations. In addition, two layoffs were evaluated to determine compliance with the Labor Agreement.  All laid off employees were selected in accordance with the seniority provisions of the Labor Agreement.  In each case, the Union received notice of impending layoff as required by the Agreement.  All files contained a letter or memorandum addressed to the employee stating the reason for the layoff.  Laid-off employees received notice and severance pay as required by the Agreement.  In one case, the copy of the layoff letter sent to the Union was delayed based on a mailing error.  Steps were taken to rectify the error and minimize the possibility of recurrence.  The grievance procedure is available for bargaining unit employees or the Union to challenge layoff selections.  No grievances were filed concerning these layoffs. Based on this, the Labor Relations area is considered to be in conformance with the Labor Agreement with regard to “just cause” termination.

There are three “side letters” to the Labor Agreement dealing with arrangements for operations staff who work twelve and one-quarter hour shifts either on an ongoing four days on-four days off, or on weekends only.  Basically, the “side letter” agreements allow employees to work a twelve and a quarter hour shift by giving up their shift premiums (in the case of the four and four schedule), or some shift restriction premiums (in the case of weekend shifts), but not the overtime provisions of the Agreement.  Twenty-eight (28) employees are covered by these side letters in three different Departments.  A random sample of six of these employees was made and their time records and pay vouchers examined for a single pay-period when operations were underway in all three Departments.  The sample included employees from all three Departments and was divided equally with three employees working the twelve-hour weekend shifts, and three employees working the four and four schedule.  The examination revealed that all the time reports were properly prepared and all pay vouchers were in compliance with the “side letters”.  Based on this, the Labor Relations area is considered to be in conformance with the three “side letters”.

A fourth “side letter” to the Labor Agreement deals with the use of temporary agency employees working 20 hours or more a week performing bargaining unit work.  The “side letter” provides that after one year such individuals must be hired as regular or fixed-term SLAC employees or terminated.  Nine individuals reached the one-year limit, of whom nine received regular or fixed-term SLAC appointments.  The remainder were reduced below the 20-hour threshold or terminated.  Based on this, the Labor Relations area is considered to be in conformance with this “side letter”.

In Fiscal Year 2000, there were 816 instances where employees participated in training administered through the Human Resources Training Office. We reviewed a random sample of 60 training instances (5 per month constituting 7.3%,) for adherence to Eligibility, Applicability, Allowable Expenses, and Evidence of Completion Findings.  The following results were found when compared against Administrative Guide Memo 22.11 (See Appendix 3) and SLAC’s Tuition Reimbursement Program.  (See Appendix 3.)

In all cases, the employees sampled had their Staff Training Request forms signed by the appropriate Supervisor and/or Department Head.  In one case clerical error resulted in a claim for STAP funds after the benefit had been exhausted.  During the course of FY2000, extensive steps have been taken to communicate the nature of SLAC’s various training reimbursement programs, including eligibility, applicability, and appropriate expenses.  In addition, the reimbursement form has been redesigned to minimize the possibility of questionable claims.  Based on this analysis, the Training Office is in compliance with University and SLAC policy in the training and development process.

Performance Criteria 3.0: Customer Satisfaction.  Our customer survey for this year had only a 20% return rate. The data indicate a decline from last year’s results, but all of the anecdotal and observational information available suggests that we have improved our customer service.  Since we surveyed a select group of employees who had utilized the Human Resources Department’s services in the past year, the results may be somewhat distorted with primarily less satisfied staff responding.  This discrepancy between the survey data and the anecdotal data is surprising, but some of it can be attributed to the extraordinary economic times in which we find ourselves.  Recruitment and retention of staff has been a significant challenge during this last year. The combination of extraordinarily high local housing costs and a robust local employment market has created problems for SLAC.  We are largely unable to recruit outside the geographic area due to the housing costs and find ourselves only marginally competitive in compensation with many of the local startup companies.  This situation has created some tension between the Human Resources Department and our management customers whose positions remain vacant longer than in the past and whose staff are leaving at a much higher rate than in the past.  Retention has also created pressure on the Compensation staff in that mid-year salary adjustment requests have become more frequent and more urgent.

The Department’s overall rating across all categories and all functions declined from a satisfaction level of 2.2 (“meets expectations”) to a 2.5 (in between “meets” and “usually meets expectations”).  We believe the ratings declined significantly in the Staffing and Selection processes due to the factors described above.  We were also surprised to get lower ratings in Health Plan Administration, Retirement Plan Administration, Constructive Discipline, distribution of Human Resource reports, and in our International Visitor and Housing processes.  Many of these functions have historically been rated very high by our customers.  On the other hand, some of this decline in satisfaction is explainable by the circumstances described above:  housing is extraordinarily difficult to obtain for both long-term and short-term visitors; therefore our visitors have to wait longer for their housing needs to be met and they are often not met as completely as when many more options were available.  In addition, there has been extensive pressure on the International Services office to expedite the visa and labor certification processes for foreign nationals.  At the same time, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services offices have experienced serious delays in their processing of documents.  This has undoubtedly created some dissatisfaction.

On the positive side, we improved our customer ratings in salary administration, dispute resolution, recreational activities, and our staff development and training areas. 

As a result of the 1998 Self Assessment customer feedback, the Human Resources Department established six action items to address concerns:

1. To reduce the response time from the receipt of a “request to hire” to the mailing of an offer letter of employment to 4 days.  The Employment staff measured the amount of time by randomly selecting 26 offers (16.7 % of the total offers made) to be analyzed for their timeliness.  The average response time was 4.2 days—down from last year’s time of 4.4 days and down from the 4.8 days measured two years ago.  Although this decrease does not quite meet the goal of 4 days, it does represent a consistent trend towards improvement. 

2. We also reviewed the number of signatures required on the job requisition form.  The SLAC Director no longer signs off on requisitions and we will eliminate the Budget signature as well; however, we haven’t yet done the latter because the delay in the Budget Office is insignificant (less than two hours usually).  We reviewed the communications between the Employment Office and the hiring supervisors and concluded that we needed to keep them better informed when a requisition or request for hire was unusually delayed.  We have done this.

3. We did review the feasibility of a new hire orientation program.  In March, 2000, we conducted a pilot program with both current new hires and with invited previous hires.  All appreciated the program and we concluded that a new hire orientation program was worthwhile.  We conduct it on an as needed basis depending on the number of new hires we have.  Through the middle of September, we have conducted three programs.  SLAC’s staff also informed of and invited to the weekly orientation programs offered by the Stanford University Human Resources Department.

4. We did not review the communications regarding our student summer work programs, but will continue this action over to the next year.

5. The amount of time to conduct the average reclassification process will be reduced to 90 days.   During the period between July 1999 and June 2000, the Compensation staff completed 69 classification reviews with an average turnaround time of 68 days.  The Compensation staff more than met their goal for the year.

6. The Employee/Labor Relations staff have worked to resolve disputes and complaints informally.  No formal grievances have been filed by the non-represented staff and only one grievance has been filed by the bargaining unit under their Labor Agreement with the University.  To accomplish this, the staff has met frequently with workers and their Union representatives to resolve issues prior to the grievance process.  This has been very successful.

1. We will review the communications regarding our student work programs to be certain that the distinctions between them are clear and the guidelines for each clearly identified.

2. Although we continue to make progress in reducing the turnaround time on requests to hire, we have not yet reached our goal of four days.  We will establish that as our target for this next year.

3. We have made substantial progress in reducing our reclassification times down to an average of 68 days.  For this next year, we will establish the target of 50 days average turnaround time.

4. During this next year we will develop a different methodology for assessing customer satisfaction.  The current approach is not producing results, which we are comfortable relying on.  The new approach will be used in the next self-assessment.

As was noted in the Results section, SLAC did not fully meet the Direct Compensation measure since 33% of our benchmark positions were more than 10% from the local market average salary.    Our salary program this year, including market adjustments, has slightly improved our market position.  This erosion in our market position is primarily due to the recent University annual merit increase programs which for the last several years (until this year) have been somewhat below the local market.  SLAC will actively work with University management to assure that our future salary programs are more aligned with the local market.  We also believe the recently-implemented re-design of our classification system and pay structure will increase our market sensitivity.

Performance Criterion 2:  Compliance with University Policy. Our results indicate that SLAC is in compliance with University policy in the Employee Relations, Labor Relations, and Training and Development areas.  In Employee and Labor Relations all of our terminations and layoffs were in compliance.  Likewise, we found our Training and Development  processes to be in complete compliance as well.

In general, the SLAC Human Resources Department assures compliance with Stanford University Human Resource Policies by relying on the Administrative Guide and the Labor Agreement to guide our decisions and actions.  In addition, many of our staff members -- especially Compensation, Benefits, Employee/Labor Relations, and the Human Resources Director -- attend regular Stanford University meetings in which policies and practices are both discussed and written. In this way, SLAC remains current with University practices and influences policies ensuring that they work for SLAC and are consistent with our DOE contract.  The combination of these activities makes SLAC's Human Resources Department an ongoing partner with University Human Resource Services and assures compliance to University policies.

Performance Criterion 3:  Customer Satisfaction.  This year’s customer feedback was favorable, but shows a decline from each of the last few years’ data.  As was pointed out earlier, we are not confident in this data since it contrasts with other feedback.  Still, nearly all of our processes are meeting the needs of our customers.  We have identified specific areas where improvement can be made and have established action plans to address them.