News Items



5 May 2009.  The issues that have provoked the current dispute with UCEA.  UCU Left have issued the following summary of the background and issues underlying the dispute. "At the national negotiations on the 30th March the employers (UCEA) claimed there was a linkage between job security and pay.  It is well known that the unions have not invented the threat to jobs in HE. When the trade union negotiators met the representatives of UCEA, it was the latter who declared that at a time of recession the unions would have to choose between jobs and pay. That was their bargaining position, and in just so many words. They came to the table clearly intending to use the recession, and what they hoped would be fear of job losses, to hold down wage settlements so as to reverse the small advances made by staff as a result of the 2006 dispute. Indeed, that was their privately acknowledged intention in the strategy seminars organised for the universities' personnel departments by UCEA over the last year. That was why they entered the national negotiations with an announcement that over 100 of their affiliated institutions were planning significant job losses. The unions therefore asked for a national agreement to protect jobs in Higher Education. All the unions in the sector are united in seeking a national agreement on job security.  Such an agreement should place the emphasis on forward planning to avoid compulsory redundancies and ensure that all HE institutions have good procedures related to redundancy consultation and redeployment. Other measures could be offered if jobs were under threat, for example UCEA could instruct their members to halt building programmes etc and therefore divert money from estates into money into staff instead. UCEA can therefore easily come up with plans to avoid redundancies - its up to their members to follow that guidance. That is why the unions in the national negotiations are now seeking, as a matter of urgency, a national agreement on the avoidance of job losses and the preservation of the service. A time of recession is when the education sector should expand as a preparation for the future. It should not be facing job losses, and intensified pressure on resources. There may be no immediate pressure for job losses in every institution but, if staff/student ratios worsen dramatically in other HE institutions, and if the fee cap is relaxed, the pressure on all universities and colleges will be to seek"efficiency gains".

All the unions in the sector are united in rejecting the employers' first offer (made on 27th April) of 0.3%.  This is not 'realistic' as UCEA claims.  It is an insultingly low offer.  All the unions in the sector are united in believing that we must not lose the gains of the previous pay settlement. The employers claim that the 0.3% offer is reasonable because, on one measure of changes in the cost of living (RPI), inflation is now negative at -0.4%.What they do not mention is that RPI is now negative only because of the reduction in tracker mortgage rates, the fall in property prices, and the small reductions in buildings insurance. In respect of other prices, inflation is far from negative. According to the CPI measure (which excludes property-related costs), inflation is now running at 2.9% (March 2009); according to the RPIX index (which excludes mortgage interest only) it is running at 2.2%. Because interest rates can no longer be reduced, the RPI index will now gravitate each month further towards CPI and RPIX figures, and will accelerate beyond them if the housing market recovers, and if interest rates are raised again from next January.

In other words, 0.3% would guarantee a return to the sedately declining real incomes of staff in HE that we had been experiencing for the two decades before the 2006 dispute. One does not need to be an economic wizard to realize that in the 2009-10 academic year inflation will be somewhere between 2% and 2.5% by any measure. So, a 0.3% settlement would be a significant cut in real incomes. Real cuts in wages can only lead to demoralisation and undermine the quality of our teaching and research.  Are we going to accept real wage cuts in 2009-10 to pay for the crisis, and allow the employers in many institutions to decimate the educational provision with widespread redundancies?"

5 May 2009.  Letter from Sally Hunt regarding the National Ballot for Industrial Action.  I have asked members to vote for national industrial action just twice in my entire union career. Both times your decision to support my recommendation has produced substantial financial benefits for staff.  Today for the third time I am asking you to vote yes for industrial action, but this time for a different reason.  This dispute is about protecting your job security and your pay. Both matter. UCU and its sister unions have all quite rightly rejected the employers' pay offer of 0.3% as 'derisory' as well as rejected attempts by the employers to ask staff to 'trade' pay for jobs. But this is a dispute about much more than just money.  Today, I ask for your vote not least because I believe that, as a UCU member, where you work should not determine how well you are treated should redundancies be sought by your employer.  I ask for your vote knowing industrial action is an absolute last resort for you only because I believe we must act to protect jobs, pay and education. The employers disagree - hence this dispute.

2/3 OF INSTITUTIONS TO FACE JOB CUTS
In their presentation to the trade unions on 27 April UCEA, who represent the HE employers, stated that 99 of higher education institutions are currently considering staffing reductions.  This represents two-thirds of all HE institutions, and means that the majority of you will be working somewhere that is going to make staffing cuts in the coming months. These cuts seem to be coming from three sources:
• restructuring - the RAE results show that more than 30% of entered staff scored 2* or below, and these areas face an uncertain funding future. Liverpool University for example says 8 of its 45 departments are 'at risk' of closure.
• government action - the NHS decision to put a cap on student support has placed at least 400 staff at risk in health education according to the Council of Deans.
• managerial ineptitude - for example, one in four staff at London Metropolitan University faces the sack because of budget failures.
Given the number of institutions involved, UCU has sought a national agreement on how universities handle potential redundancies.

WHY WE NEED A NATIONAL AGREEMENT
We have asked for a national agreement for four main reasons.
• First, because the job cuts and department closures implemented so far show little attempt by employers to look at alternatives to redundancy which would protect jobs and provision.
• Second, because governing bodies are failing to act as a check upon vice-chancellors and principals intent on reducing staff numbers.
• Third, because job cuts will mean increased workload for the staff who remain in the form of larger seminar, class and lecture sizes.
• Fourth, because the employers should not be able to use job security as an excuse for poor pay offers.
I think seeking to protect members jobs in this climate is a reasonable position to take. I regret to say the employers’ response has been anything but, reasonable so far.

THE EMPLOYERS HAVE FAILED TO ACT TO PROTECT JOBS
Initially the employers asked UCU members to be 'patient'. We replied that our members currently facing the sack quite rightly saw the situation as urgent.  Then they said I was scaremongering about the scale of the problem. We pointed out it was UCEA themselves who announced that two-thirds of institutions are planning cuts.  Finally they said it was impossible to have a national agreement to protect jobs because only pay could be agreed nationally. We responded that UCEA has reached agreement on numerous non-pay issues with the unions in recent years.  The unfortunate reality is that having themselves raised the issue of substantial job cuts; the employers have not made one single proposal to protect staff or a credible pay offer since negotiations began more than a month ago. That is why we are in dispute.

UCEA ISOLATED - UNIONS AND STUDENTS CALL FOR NATIONAL AGREEMENT
The position of UCEA and the employers is now isolated. Unison, Unite, GMB, and EIS have joined UCU to press for a national agreement on job security. Alongside the pressure of our ballot this has at last produced a commitment from the employers to negotiate over the next few weeks.  The unions have been joined in our approach by the National Union of Students (NUS) who in a joint statement with UCU and our fellow unions said: 'Given UCEA has raised the spectre of mass redundancies across HE at national negotiations, there should be nothing in principle to stop the HE sector from coming together to provide reassurances on seeking to avoid job cuts rather than their current position- hiding behind claims of institutional autonomy.  We therefore believe that a partnership between unions and employers to reach a national agreement on job security is essential if we are to defend education.'

UCU WANTS MEANINGFUL NEGOTIATIONS, NOT DISRUPTION
I am grateful, as I am sure are you, for the support of students to defend jobs. What a powerful message their statement sends to our employers about the need to act urgently. I think UCU members should reciprocate; campaigning alongside our students to highlight the impact job cuts and department closures will have on the education we provide.  I hope you give me a strong negotiating mandate by voting yes to industrial action. But, I am acutely conscious of NUS concerns about the impact of any action by UCU this term on students sitting exams, particularly in the current economic climate. UCU will therefore work closely with NUS. Our students need to know that UCU’s aim is to reach agreement without the need for action through meaningful negotiations with the employer. With negotiations now beginning, this is possible. The employers have a real window in which to resolve our dispute.

AS NEGOTIATIONS BEGIN, PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR UNION
You can help too. I have already said that I ask members to vote for industrial action only when it is absolutely necessary. This is such an occasion.  An agreement is possible but we must keep up the pressure. I have seen the messages from your employers seemingly aimed at frightening staff into not supporting their union. It would be better if such energy could be spent resolving the issue.

FAIR TREATMENT FOR ALL A PRINCIPLE WORTH VOTING FOR
Like many of you I do not understand what is so difficult for universities in agreeing fair procedures for the treatment of staff, including the most vulnerable on fixed term or hourly contracts. Working in partnership with the unions to avoid future redundancies wherever possible would have benefits for all.  For you as a UCU member it would mean that wherever you work now or in the future you will be treated fairly should job cuts arise.  That, in my view, is a principle worth voting for.  I and my colleagues will do everything possible to get an agreement, but my ability to deliver depends on your vote. Please support your union.
• Vote yes to support your union.
• Vote yes to defend jobs and pay.
• Vote yes to defend education.

9 June 2008.  UCU wins landmark fixed-term case.  UCU has successfully won a permanent contract for a researcher at the University of Aberdeen who had been employed on a succession of fixed-term contracts for nine years.  A tribunal ruled that Dr Andrew Ball, a research fellow in the department of Zoology, must be recognised as a permanent employee. Dr Ball was continuously employed at the university under three successive contracts which began in April 1999. Each contract had been linked to external short-term funding.
    The union used legislation, which became fully operational two years ago to specifically curb the continued use of fixed-term contracts, to argue that Dr Ball must be afforded the security of permanent employment. The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 state that employees who have had their contract renewed or who are on at least their second contract and have four years' service can regard their posts as permanent unless continued employment on a fixed-term basis can be justified on objective grounds.
    In finding for Dr Ball, the tribunal rejected the university's case that short-term funding could automatically provide a justification for employment on a fixed-term, and found that the university had failed to carry out any assessment as to whether Dr Ball could have been offered a permanent contract in 2002 when his third contract was offered.  The tribunal found that employment on fixed-term contracts gave rise to genuine disadvantage to the employee, particularly around the uncertainty of future employment, damage to career progression and professional development, and potential difficulties in obtaining credit. It found no objective grounds for continuing Dr Ball's employment on a fixed-term basis.
    UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt said: 'This is a very important victory for thousands of university and college staff on fixed-term contracts. Dr Ball had a just case and we will be using this victory to help take on other institutions who refuse to acknowledge the just call for full-time contracts from their staff.  'I think it is a source of great shame for UK higher education that only the hotel and catering sector employs a greater percentage of staff on temporary contracts. The widespread use of fixed-term contracts is the unacceptable underbelly of higher education in this country.  'Despite specific guidance agreed by the employers and trade unions to discourage the abuse of fixed-term contracts universities seem to be ignoring it and persisting with short-term and short-sighted employment practices. The best brains in Britain are held in positions of insecurity and it is no wonder that they look for jobs abroad or outside higher education.'

6 June 2008.  Greylisting of Keele University.  The dispute between UCU and Keele stretches back to December last year when the union accused the university of ignoring normal procedures to rush through plans which have left more than half (38) of the 67 academic staff in the world-renowned School of Economic and Management Studies (SEMS) and the Centre for Health Planning and Management (CHPM) facing redundancy.  The proposed redundancies were agreed after Keele University Council established an unprecedented 'redundancy committee', which bypassed normal decision-making processes. Members of the union felt they were left with no alternative but to consider industrial action and, in February, voted overwhelmingly to strike and to take action short of a strike.
  
Lecturers in SEMS took the strike action on Thursday 21 February and the following day all UCU members at Keele began the action short of a strike, which is still ongoing today. The action short of a strike is designed to cause the maximum impact on the university without disrupting the education of students. It includes:
    * Non cooperation with the institutional audit
    * Non cooperation with the development of new degree programmes for the new Business School
    * Non participation in Learning and Teaching committees and the design and approval of a new university-wide degree structure due to come into effect in September 2009
    * Non participation in visit days and open days
    * Non compliance with the collection of data for full economic costing.

Chair of the SEMS action committee at Keele University, Mike Ironside, said: 'It really is a sad state of affairs when Keele University finds itself facing an academic boycott because of the behaviour of management. Nobody associated with the university wants to see this happen and I urge the vice-chancellor to call off the dogs and get back round the table before further, and possibly permanent, damage is done to our proud international reputation.'

UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: 'The University's actions have already been condemned nationally and internationally. We do not want to have to further highlight the shortcomings of the university, but their actions so far have left us in this awful situation. Keele UCU members have the full support of the national union in their continuing action and can rest assured that we will be fighting these nonsensical redundancy plans with them all the way.'

Greylisting is the ultimate sanction available to UCU members and is only ever used where a university or college refuses to engage in meaningful negotiations with a branch or local association. No institution has ever been greylisted in UCU's two-year history.

The union has specifically asked the university to:

    * Engage in meaningful negotiations with the branch and regional officials
    * Remove the threat of pay deductions relating to the ongoing industrial action
    * Commence the engagement of academic managers with teaching groups in discussion about future teaching programmes
    * Agree an acceptable process for voluntary severance - including an extension to the time period of the current scheme

Greylisting Keele would specifically mean a voluntary boycott of academic and other university activities where appropriate. If the union is forced to pursue that course of action it would follow the greylisting of Nottingham University by one of UCU's predecessor union, the Association of University Teachers (AUT), in 2004 for imposing a new pay structure. That successful campaign resulted in a negotiated settlement and agreement on a constructive relationship between the union and management following the imposition of a new pay structure.

The union made clear today that it does not want to have to greylist Keele but warned that if it does it then it will be asking colleagues in the union, other trade unions, labour movement organisations and the international academic community to support its members at Keele in any way possible including:

    * Non attendance, speaking at or organising academic or other conferences at Keele
    * Not applying for jobs at Keele
    * Not giving lectures at Keele
    * Not accepting positions as visiting professors or researchers at Keele
    * Not writing for any academic journal which is edited from Keele
    * Not taking up new contracts as external examiners for taught courses


14 May 2008.  Academic Board.  At the meeting of Newcastle University Academic Board, the Vice Chancellor was asked the following question by Colin Brooks:  "Is the VC aware that academic staff in the University have been surprised at the massive investment in new buildings [at least £200M] that is taking place just a couple of years after the University stated that it did not have the financial resources to meet the pay claims of academic staff whose salaries over the last 20 years have fallen substantially behind those of comparator professional groups?  Could the VC provide a detailed breakdown of where the money is coming from for each of the new build projects that the University is currently committed to or is currently considering, and give an assurance that the University will not claim poverty in the forthcoming pay round?"

In his reply the VC provided a detailed breakdown of at least some of the capital expenditure which the University was currently planning.  This included £35M for the new Student & Administrative Services Building, part of which is intended to provide a new and impressive facade facing Haymarket designed to improve the image and impact of the University, especially in the wake of the new Northumbria building adjacent to the central motorway.  The vast majority of the money for this is coming from "University Funding" with a minor proportion from a HEFCE capital grant.  Other capital investments include
The total cost of all these building projects is budgeted at £203.6M, of which at least £41.6M and perhaps more than £60M will have to come from University Funds.  Surprisingly, the VC did not mention anything about Science City.  However, the University has already spent more than £11M in purchasing the site.

The VC then went on to discuss academic pay.  The first set of data he presented, "Average Salaries of Non-clinical Academic Staff at Newcastle University" [see Table below], appeared to show that during the period May 2004 to May 2008 the average salary of academic staff, including research staff and professorial staff, rose by 24.5%, a figure that will surprise many staff, especially those who are at the top of their pay scale.


Average Salaries of Non-clinical Academic Staff at Newcastle University, May 2004 - May 2008
Year (May) Total Salary Academic Head count Average Salary % Increase
2004 51,802,645 1,601 32,356
2005 55,312,832 1,630 33,934 4.9%
2006 62,459,778 1,733 36,041 6.2%
2007 69,075,230 1,826 37,829 5.0%
2008 75,254,577 1,868 40,286 6.5%




24.50%


In a second set of data he presented, for "Academics employed on or before 1 May 2004", it was claimed that pay had increased on average by approximately 9% each year for the past four years, giving an apparent total increase in average salary for this group of staff of a staggering 41.2% since 2004!!  This figure of course bears little relationship to reality for the vast majority of staff, due to the fact that the calculation contains an innate [but hopefully inadvertent] fallacy, namely that with increasing time the composition of the staff who remain at the University becomes increasingly different from what it was at the start point of the calculation, being enriched in senior established staff and depleted of junior rapidly turning over staff, mainly the research assistants.  Indeed, one fascinating aspect of the data supplied by the VC is that it appears that only about half of the total academic staff employed by the University on 1 May 2008 have been here for more than 4 years!  The remainder have been here for less than 4 years, with the vast majority of these new recruits likely to be research assistants.

Average Salaries of Non-clinical Academic Staff employed on or before 1 May 2004

Year (May) Total Salary Academic Head count Average Salary % Increase
2004 51,802,645 1,601 32,356
2005 46,931,730 1,332 35,234 8.9%
2006 45,606,529 1,178 38,715 9.9%
2007 44,762,210 1,066 41,991 8.5%
2008 44,955,635 984 45,687 8.8%




41.20%
‘Academic’ includes research and professorial staff.
These figures take account of the 3% pay award effective in May 2008


28 March 2008.  Glasgow Caledonian university signs secret deal with INTO.  Principal Pam Gilles stunned UCU members at Glasgow Caledonian yesterday when she announced that the university has signed a deal with private company INTO. Outraged members have called a joint union rally with local EIS members (Educational Institute of Scotland) and other campus unions. The rally will take place at 1pm on April 1 on the main campus (across from Buchannan Street Bus Station, 5 mins walk from Queen Street Station) to protest at this latest encroachment of profit making private companies into our public education system. The theme, in keeping with the date is "Only a Fool would privatise HE". Speakers will include Pauline McNeill (Lab) MSP and Bill Kidd (SNP). If you can attend the rally to show your support for colleagues at Glasgow Caledonian, please be there. Helpfully, the Vice chancellor has also invited comments on the venture to be passed on to Pro-Vice Chancellor for International students Graham Galbraith. Members should feel free to email their comments on this backroom deal to g.h.galbraith@gcal.ac.uk please Cc jstephens@ucu.org.uk .You can also fax the Principal directly, on 0141 331 3174. Please keep you're your messages polite!

INTO's tactics at Glasgow Caledonian depended on maintaining secrecy in discussions on the grounds of 'commercial sensitivity' and the lesson is that branches must be alert and vigilant and use their contacts on all governing bodies to find out what is happening at their university. Members are urged to contact their branches, regional offices and the national campaigns team if they hear anything about any discussions with any private companies on their campuses. Meanwhile, UCU members at Essex university are continuing their hard fight against a similar proposed joint venture with INTO. Please send messages of support to the branch by emailing Jonathan White at jwhite@ucu.org.uk and we will pass them on to the branch.

28 March 2008.  Talks on the Future of JNCHES.  Informal discussions took place yesterday between UCU and UCEA to explore ways forward following the ballot of HE members to reject the proposals to reform the national bargaining machinery JNCHES. General Secretary Sally Hunt, together with President Linda Newman, VP Alastair Hunter and Malcolm Keight Head of Higher Education met with officers of the employers' body the UCEA to present our concerns about the current proposals and explore improvements. UCU focused on two issues identified by the special conference in November last year and which the higher education committee considered had not been adequately addressed. Both relate to the principle of UCU's ability to freely represent its own members within a single table bargaining arrangement. The first is a clear commitment to establish a sub-committee to negotiate issues relating to academic and academic related staff and on which UCU would rightfully hold the majority of seats. Secondly was to remove timetables which sought to impose artificial limits as to when pay bargaining takes place. The employer's body shared UCU's commitment to retain national bargaining for pay and acknowledged the importance of ensuring that UCU was part of that process. They said they would reflect on the proposals that UCU had put forward and respond following the UCEA board meeting on 24 April.  Branch/LA representatives will be meeting next week, 2 April to discuss the situation and how to respond to any threats individual employers may have to break a way from national bargaining. The briefing will take place at ULU, Malet Street, London.