Update on a national demonstration in Newcastle against HE job cuts and Wednesday’s negotiation.
Firstly, solidarity to all colleagues in pools of redundancy.
UCU Congress last weekend passed our motion for a national demonstration in Newcastle against the job cuts which will take place on 11 June. If you wish to get involved in building this please email ucu.office@ncl.ac.uk. Congress also passed other motions for UK-wide industrial action over jobs losses, which is something the branch have been pushing for.
We want to make 11 June a big success to keep up the pressure on our management as well as our imminent reballot and the very significant impact of industrial action on semester two. So far our management have undertaken four VS schemes as well as significantly improving the VR offer as a result of our pressure. These are small wins and the threat of compulsory redundancies is very real. All this happens in a context where many universities are getting away with redundancies or looking at branches like ours or Dundee or Cardiff and thinking better of it. Delegates at Congress voted heavily for our motion and Newcastle University was seen as an example of a intransigent employer and a model of how to resist.
We continue to attract considerable press attention. Several members are reporting that they have lobbied their MPs. The Change.org petition is going strong, please circulate. Now at over 4000 signatures https://chng.it/GJBZpLykF7
Member update from the negotiations from Wednesday 28 May
Firstly, the timeline on Voluntary Redundancies (VR). We tried unsuccessfully to move the imminent deadlines for pool counterproposals (3rd June) and the deadline for VR (1st June). Colleagues in those pools strongly feel that they have not had sufficient time and that the process has been opaque and rushed. The management refused to move further on this request because the decision had been made on UEB. This is not in the spirit of consultation over redundancies, which ought to be ‘tantamount to negotiation’. The timeline was thus imposed outwith the negotiation. When we pointed that out, Jackie Scott once again asked whether UCU believed that consultation was at an end. To which we replied that we are approaching consultation in good faith and that there are substantive issues (selection criteria, equality impact assessments, amongst other matters) that are yet to be agreed, irrespective of management’s attitude to their statutory obligations with regard to matters such as pool selection ‘when at a formative stage’.
Business case discussions: Redundancy is not about individuals or their performance but about roles becoming redundant due to work ceasing or diminishing.
We insisted that there was unfinished consultation about the business cases for redundancy. On the SAGE, we challenged a pool of one in Geotechnical and Structural Engineering. We challenged the SAGE business case’s indisputable focus on individuals, counter to employment rights legislation (section 139 Employment Rights Act 1996), with a discussion of scrutiny of their skills and knowledge in the establishment of pools. We have asked that pools of one (and narrow pools) should be voided as they can rarely be justified as fair and not in this case. [Morgane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals 2022 EAT 139; Williams v Compare Maxim [1982] ICR 156; Polkey v AE Dayton 1988 ICR 142].
Consideration of individuals rather than roles is revealed in the SAGE business case discussion, conflating individuals with their role. Exemptions of individuals from pools were on the basis of holding specific ‘one deep’ officer positions or ‘specialist’ current teaching roles and hence exclusion from pools for geotechnics and structural engineering and geospatial engineering, even ‘one colleague’….. ‘ so this colleague is excluded from the pool’ (SAGE business case, p15-16), a similar discussion that cannot be about anything other than of individuals occurs for the physics pool (SAGE business case, p21-22). This mistake even appears in the definitions of redundancy [using ‘individuals’ rather than ’employees’] in all business cases. You cannot really claim the word ‘individuals’ does not imply individuals.
We followed up on the FMS business case. We believe that NUBI has been unfairly targeted. There are a host of inaccuracies and flaws in the documentation, underestimating the amount of teaching done in NUBI. Crucially from the union’s perspective, the smallness of pools combined with the culture of aggressive performance management is worrying. Colleagues may remember the Improving Performance Policy dispute that we had with the management. We did not take industrial action over this, but did declare a ‘failure to agree’ and a trade dispute. We did this because several members at the time came to us to complain that they were invited to ‘research catch-ups’ with a Dean, which were performance management meetings, which could be interpreted as coercion in relation to ‘protected conversations’ [a confidential conversation about terms to end a contract of employment] offered alternatively. A considerable number of those in the current NUBI pools were subjected to such catch-ups. When challenged that there was a culture of targeting, the FMS PVC defended the ‘catch-ups’ and that those who had been previously targeted were in pools. He stated that he was aware of the catch-ups. To exercise coercion with regard to a protected conversation is unlawful.
Health and Safety.
At the outset of this process we have asked for an updated health and safety risk assessment; none has been forthcoming. Without identifying which school or faculty, we also challenged the inclusion of a 8 ½ month pregnant woman in a pool for redundancy on the grounds of reasonable adjustment and duty of care and health and safety. This was rejected on grounds that it would be discriminatory to do so! This colleague had asked for a personal health and safety risk assessment and this has not occurred.
Equality Impact Assessments.
We challenged the equality-proofing the redundancy process. The patchy data that the university has on protected characteristics was largely drawn from what people enter at recruitment ‘and other census dates’. Despite HR refusing on GDPR grounds to allow us ‘appropriate access’ to those in pools, our Equality team—a massive thanks from the negotiators—have surveyed staff in pools, revealing disproportionate numbers of those with ‘protected characteristics’ under the Equality Act of 2010. Colleagues in pools responded with a good spread of respondents across the three Faculties FMS – 10, HaSS – 18, SAGE – 11. Of the 39 responses, there is significant over-representation, compared to the wider academic colleague population, of colleagues who identify as having the following protected characteristics: Disabled (30.8%) Racially minoritised (30.8%) Sexual orientation (11.1%) Religion or belief (22.2%). In addition, 27% of responses came from migrant colleagues, which indicates a significant over-representation of this group. We challenged a pool of 3 of exclusively racially minoritised colleagues in a section where that ethnicity constituted 60% of staff. We have serious concerns about the pools being riddled with indirect discrimination (namely structural or unintentional discrimination due to wider social inequalities) and associative discrimination. The pools were not consulted at a formative stage and HR confirmed that the equality analyses were conducted after pool formation.
The update on the numbers applying for VR was 8 colleagues (‘headcount’) amounting to 6.4 full-time equivalent (FTE), which we calculate would mean that the savings gap would amount to £3.16m, less than 0.5% of annual income. HR confirmed that the cash position of the university at the end of April was £220m.
Pool Counterproposals
The entire consultation of has been unsatisfactory from the perspective of transparency. Consultation should allow appropriate time ‘with a view to reading agreement’ and this should include the consideration of revised counterproposals. We received pool counterproposals on Bank Holiday Monday and later. We have not even seen the pool counterproposal from Music. We have asked for more time regarding both the VR deadline and the deadline for counterproposals. We argued that the imposed timeline potentially constitutes duress. UEB have imposed a timeline, despite UCU requests otherwise.
The timelines should be subject to consultation. A proposed timeline was written into the business cases and then moved slightly but not sufficiently to allow meaningful consultation in this aspect of the redundancy consultation.
We asked for clarity about the character of counterproposals that would be considered given the range of pool responses from fractionalisation to additional student numbers and workload, or a mix of approaches. Their answers were opaque and circular: we are encouraging counterproposals for consideration, we require a saving of recurrent staff costs.
These are difficult consultation meetings and the employer is not moving as you can see on several issues that they really ought. All UCU negotiators can do is not concede principles of appropriate consultation. Negotiation is not going to win the dispute. We know that to be the case. We are exposing where they are not acting in line with ACAS or their statutory obligations. This is making them nervous and the branch needs to campaign on these failings.
Meetings for those at risk with HR or management
If you are in a pool and invited to a 1-2-1 meeting (or a pool discussion) with management, we recommend you invite one of the UCU reps to this meeting.
If a manager speaks to you informally in a way that you find uncomfortable regarding the selection process for redundancy, particularly as it pertains to the dispute. Please make a note of the discussion immediately afterwards, and contact ucu.office@ncl.ac.uk.
New jobs
On our request, HR supplied us with new vacancies since January. It is noteworthy that there are several job advertisements in schools with pools of redundancy. These will be offered to colleagues in pools for redundancy but we questioned whether it was consistent to claim financial grounds for redundancy pinpointing particular schools but at the same time advertising jobs in those same schools.