51¸£Àû

Ìý51¸£Àû/1084 Ìý30 April 2021ÌýÌý

University and College Union

Carlow Street, London NW1 7LH, Tel. 020 7756 2500, www.ucu.org.uk

ToÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Branch and local association secretaries

TopicÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý unconfirmed minutes, Higher Education Sector Conference, Congress 2019

ActionÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý for adoption by conference 2021

Summary ÌýÌýÌýÌý Minutes of HESC 26 May 2019ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý

 

 

Unconfirmed minutes

HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR CONFERENCE, Harrogate Convention Center, Sunday 26 May 2019

 

1            Opening Business

1.1         Douglas Chalmers, Chair, welcomed delegates, called conference to order and introduced officials and 51¸£Àû staff at the head table. The Chair informed on housekeeping matters and gave an overview on how the business for the day would proceed.

1.2         Conference was asked to note that matters on pay will be taken in private session followed by open session and USS business will be taken after lunch, also in private session, then followed by an open session.

1.3         Delegates were further asked to note the section of the agenda with HE business and proposed motions for debate as well as the third report of CBC which was available and formed part of the day’s business.

1.4         Conference agreed the appointment of 51¸£Àû regional officials as tellers.

1.5         The Chair further advised delegates on seating arrangements for speakers for or against motions, timings, motions which were marked as ‘EP’, standing orders as it related to the debate, in particular standing orders 54 and 55 and on voting and use of voting cards.

CBC moved the agenda

1.6         Alan Barker, Chair of CBC, moved the agenda and the third report of the CBC and encouraged delegates to hold a good and useful conference. These were adopted.

1.7         Conference further adopted 51¸£Àû/948 – Higher Education sector conference minutes of 31 May 2018; 51¸£Àû/949 – special Higher Education sector conference in Manchester, 7 November 2018; 51¸£Àû/950 – special Higher Education sector conference to review JEP/USS, Wednesday 7 November 2018 and 51¸£Àû/960 – Higher Education special sector conference on USS, Thursday 21 June 2018.

1.8         Paul Bridge, Head of HE, moved his report to conference and acknowledged the outstanding work of 51¸£Àû elected officers and staff in progressing the work of the union and protecting and supporting members during the year. In regards to HE pay, pensions, gender pay, gender equality and workload, the Bargaining and Negotiations team had prioritised the campaigns and were committing resources in order to make a difference for members. Paul Bridge commented on the recent pay dispute and ballots where despite a tremendous co-ordinated effort to GTVO the ballot results meant 51¸£Àû was not able to take effective industrial action on pay. Paul Bridge further commented on the failure of New JNCHES negotiations to meet the demands of members and the frustrations with a number of aspects with UK level bargaining. Paul Bridge added that to make JNCHES respond, 51¸£Àû needs to actively consider how best to shake the UK arrangements from the bottom up with branch leading campaigning and wins on matters such as gender pay, precarious contracts and workloads. Paul Bridge also commented on the pattern of 51¸£Àû responses to the outcomes of JNCHES and suggested a longer term strategy was needed that did not mean 51¸£Àû balloted members each year on pay but instead, built the campaign over a 2 or 3 year period.

1.9         An update was also provided on USS and the proposed three options from the trustee to conclude the 2018 valuation, the JEP report, the JNC and the call for conference to support Jane Hutton. In his address, Paul Bridge noted the threat of large scale redundancies affecting institutions and how branches were responding effectively to that threat by campaigning and mobilising for industrial action. Paul Bridge congratulated Winchester where the branch had campaigned effectively, members had voted for action and where employers had moved to remove threat and that there had also been successes at Cumbria, the Open University, Queen Margaret and Writtle College had won recognition. 51¸£Àû is right to celebrate these successes.

1.10      Paul Bridge also provided updates on the devolved nations, REF consultation, TEF, TPS and the Academic related Professional staff who had managed to resume work as a specialist committee and had called a successful annual meeting this year.

1.11      Over the past 12 months, 51¸£Àû had actively supported branches. This work will continue in order to meet the challenges ahead and to campaign to improve the New JNCHES. Conference received the report by acclaim.

2             Debate of motions

2.1         The Chair introduced the debate on motions. Conference was asked to note motions to be taken in private session: motions HE1-HE10.

HE pay and equality, paragraphs 2.1-2.4

HE1, HE pay, Higher education committee was moved by Douglas Chalmers, President elect (Glasgow Caledonian University) and seconded formally. Pat Hornby-Atkinson, HEC Vice Chair (Edge Hill University) took the Chair. Speakers in the debate included Robyn Orfitelli (University of Sheffield), James Brackley (University of Birmingham), Jo McNeill (University of Liverpool; HEC), Sean Wallis (UCL; HEC), Carlo Morelli (University of Dundee; HEC), Joanna de Groot (University of York; HEC). A vote was taken however Conference called for a count which was agreed. HE1 was subsequently lost following this (70f/89a/20abs).

HE Sector conference noted the report and the recommendations of the national negotiators contained in 51¸£ÀûBANHE/56 which subsequently fell:

 

1.   In line with the policy established by conference, the UCEA final offer is put to members in a consultative ballot with a recommendation to reject. The ballot will include not only the option to accept or reject the employers’ final offer, but also in the event members reject, whether they are prepared to take sustained industrial action in the form of strikes and action short of a strike.

 

2.   The consultative ballot will open on Monday 3 June and close on Monday 24 June and the result will be considered by HEC on 28 June.

 

3.   At least 50% of members should participate in the consultation.

 

4.   Should members accept the final offer 51¸£Àû will at some point write to UCEA and confirm an agreement has been reached in respect of the 2019/20 New JNCHES negotiating round.

 

5.   Should members reject the final offer 51¸£Àû will register a ‘failure to agree’ and invoke the New JNCHES dispute resolution procedure.

 

6.   51¸£Àû should coordinate the dispute resolution talks with other HE trade unions who are also in dispute.

 

7.   If a majority of members indicate they reject the final offer and are willing to take sustained industrial action then 51¸£Àû will make preparations for a statutory ballot to take place, develop a Get The Vote Out Campaign, a ballot period, the type of action, its duration, and the timing of action to coincide with the start of teaching in the autumn. The plan will be reported to the HEC in June for further development and endorsement.

 

8.   A series of four regional and devolved nation branch briefings will take place in September and October.

 

9.   51¸£Àû should continue to provide support to branches lodging and negotiating local claims on gender pay, precarious contracts and workload.

 

10.        Ìý51¸£Àû should consider means of constructing our own union’s draft position at an

Ìýearlier stage in the annual process, in order to be pro-active rather than reactive to Ìýthe formulated position of sister unions around the single table.

 

HE2, Multi-year pay settlement, Lancaster University was moved by Sunil Banga (Lancaster University) and formally seconded. Douglas Chalmers resumed seat as Chair. James Brackley (University of Birmingham) spoke to amendment HE2A.1 which was carried:

HE2A.1 University of Birmingham

Add new sentence at the end of paragraph beginning ‘Conference believes that members…’:

Branches would also benefit from disaggregated ballot result data pertaining to their institution. Therefore all ballot result data in the future should allow for local branches to examine the local turnout and outcome from any overall data.

A call was made by the mover to remit the motion and HE2 as amended by HE2A.1 was remitted:

Conference notes that

1.ÌýÌý the recent industrial action ballot on pay and equality did not reach the 50% required threshold

2.ÌýÌý the iniquitous trade union laws are stacked against industrial action

3.ÌýÌý the annual cycle of pay negotiations is ineffective, as annual bargaining and any arising dispute and ballot for industrial action are a drain on the union’s resources

4.ÌýÌý even if we win a decent settlement one year, employers will try to claw this back in the following years.

Conference believes that members would be more engaged with industrial action if the negotiations were on a multi-year basis rather than the prospect of annual strikes.

Branches would also benefit from disaggregated ballot result data pertaining to their institution. Therefore all ballot result data in the future should allow for local branches to examine the local turnout and outcome from any overall data.

Conference therefore calls upon HEC to seek to move to multi-year settlements with UCEA to address the problem, with a suggested timeframe of a 2-3 years negotiation cycle.

HE3, Future pay claims, University of Manchester was moved by Gregory Lane-Serff (University of Manchester). Philippa Browning (University of Manchester) seconded this motion. Following a proposal which was agreed, amendments HE3A.1 and HE3A.2 were taken in parts. A convoluted debate followed. Speakers in the debate were Jo McNeill (University of Liverpool; HEC), Megan Povey (University of Leeds), Nikolay Ogryzko (University of Edinburgh), Robyn Orfitelli (University of Sheffield), Christina Paine (London Metropolitan University; HEC).

Following a vote, HE3A.1 moved by James Brackley (University of Birmingham) was carried (91f/7a/10abs):

HE3A.1, University of Birmingham

To add after point d:

Furthermore, HESC resolves that 51¸£Àû should:

                     i.        ensure that any such ballots on future pay settlements conducted in 2019/20 are conducted on a disaggregated basis

                    ii.        ensure that any such ballots include specific national demands on pay-related issues of equality, casualisation, and workload

                  iii.        give full guidance on how to bring a local claim within the context of a disaggregated ballot, including legal advice on including pay-related issues within the nationally agreed framework.

HE3A.2 moved by Sean Wallis (University College London; HEC) was also carried:

HE3A.2 Higher education committee

‘HESC notes’, point 2, delete ‘in one-year pay claims’. Point 3, delete all.

Add new point 2:Ìý

2. the equality gains of the 2004 Pay Framework have been eroded by grade drift

Add new point 4

4. the current risk to the sector from contraction and cuts

Add at end of point currently numbered 4, add, ‘but the final uplift was accidental’.

Add new point 6:

6ÌýÌýÌý however, the failure to take industrial action in the years following 2008 wiped out these gains.’

‘HESC therefore resolves…’, start of point a, add ‘regaining’.

Point b, delete ‘the details of a multi-year pay’; replace with ‘a’.

Point c, delete all.

Add new points c and d:

‘c. the trade-off between aggregated and disaggregated ballots’ and

‘d. the type of strategy and action required to address falling salaries, and’.

End of existing point d, add ‘strategy and’ before ‘claim’.

Renumber points as necessary.

HE3, as amended by HE3A.1 and HE3A.2 subsequently lost after the vote

HESC notes:

1.     that fair and equitable pay levels are essential for the healthy future of higher education

2.     the difficulty in getting successful ballots in one-year pay claims under current anti-trade union legislation

3.     the difficulties in timing ballots and actions under the current New JNCHES bargaining arrangements

4.     that the most significant improvement in our pay in recent years came from a multi-year pay deal.

HESC therefore resolves that 51¸£Àû should engage with its members in HE to consult over:

a.     fair and equitable pay structures and levels

b.     the details of a multi-year pay claim that would deliver this outcome

c.      include consideration of the bargaining arrangements in this consultation, and

d.     use the results of the consultation in formulating the next pay claim.

HE4, HE pay and equality campaign 2019-20, University of Brighton, Grand Parade was moved by Mark Abel (University of Brighton; HEC) and seconded formally. Pat Hornby-Atkinson took the Chair. Speakers in the debate were Jo McNeill (University of Liverpool; HEC), Sunil Banga (University of Lancaster), Jessica Jacobs (Queen Mary University of London), Christina Paine (London Metropolitan University; HEC) and Roger Clarke (Bath Spa University). The motion was carried:

Conference notes:

1.ÌýÌý the HE employers' 'final' pay offer for 2019-20 of 1.8% which does not meet current inflation let alone provide a catch-up element

2.ÌýÌý the employers' refusal to engage meaningfully to reduce the gender pay gap and levels of casualisation.

Conference believes that:

a.ÌýÌý this offer falls far short of the joint union claim and the 51¸£Àû's goals

b.ÌýÌý that members have shown a strong willingness to fight over pay and equality even where ballots have failed to reach the 50% threshold

c.ÌýÌý that a persistent failure to defend levels of HE pay undermines the viability of the 51¸£Àû.

Conference resolves to initiate a concerted campaign to win industrial action ballots for a fight over pay to commence in the autumn.

Pensions – USS (paragraphs 3.1 – 3.5)

HE5, USS, Higher education committee was moved by Renee Prendergast, Chair of the SWG (QUB; HEC) along with 51¸£ÀûBANHE57. Conference was asked to note that there was a late motion, L5, No confidence in the USS Board of Trustees, which had been placed on the agenda. Speakers to HE5 to include the recommendations in the SWG report (51¸£ÀûBANHE57) were Deepa Govindarajan Driver (University of Reading), Andrew Chitty (University of Sussex), Marion Hersh (University of Glasgow; HEC), Bruce Baker (Newcastle University).

Following the debate, recommendations 3, 4, 5 were lost.

HE sector conference noted the report and approved these recommendations as amended, of the Superannuation Working Group (SWG):

SWG Recommendations

1.    The SWG to re-affirm the union’s position of ‘No Detriment’ in all meetings with UUK and USS.

2. SWG to continue to challenge the flawed and discredited valuation methodology used by USS that produces unacceptable deficits and scheme instability.ÌýÌý

 

3.    51¸£Àû to reaffirm support for Share Action.

 

4.    51¸£Àû to continue to lobby USS and campaign to develop an ethical investment policy, including low carbon investments and 'climate solutions', in line with 51¸£Àû policy. 51¸£Àû to campaign for USS to take action in response to the declaration of a UK Climate Emergency.

 

5.    51¸£Àû to lobby USS when there are opportunities to show leadership on responsible investment and to assesses and challenge their response as well as any continuing climate-related activities.

 

6.    51¸£Àû to oppose any proposals to increase the number of non-51¸£Àû directors and campaign at an appropriate time for an additional 51¸£Àû director.

 

2.1.1Ìý Deepa Driver, co-chair of the NDC addressed Conference and provided a report on the work of the NDC. This was received by Conference.

 

HE6, USS employee contributions, Higher education committee was moved by Carlo Morelli (University of Dundee; HEC) and seconded formally. HE6A.1 moved by Sean Wallis (UCL; HEC). Other speakers were John Parrington (University of Oxford) and Lesley McGorrigan (Yorkshire & Humberside regional committee). HE6A.1 was carried:

HE6A.1 University College LondonÌýÌýÌý

Point numbered 1, after ‘additional employee contributions’, add ‘(including contingent contributions)’

Point numbered 2, after ‘prepare for an industrial action ballot’, add ‘in 2019’

HE6 was carried as amended by HE6A.1:

Conference notes USS letters to members in March 2019 notifying them of increases in employee contributions up to 11.4%, with 8.8% from April 1 and a possible 10.4% from October 1.

Conference resolves to:

1.  call on UUK to pick up any additional employee contributions including contingent contributions from 1 October 2019 and not pass them on

2.  enter into dispute and prepare for an industrial action ballot in 2019 if the employers do not agree.

HE7, Composite: USS pensions, Imperial College London, University College London moved by Roddy Slorach (Imperial College London) and seconded formally. Douglas Chalmers resumed his seat as Chair. Sean Wallis (UCL; HEC) moved HE7A.1 and HE7A.2 was moved by Saladine Meckled-Garcia (University College London). Speakers in the debate were Justine Mercer (University of Warwick; HEC), Adam Ozanne (University of Manchester; HEC), Andrew Chitty (University of Sussex), Sam Marsh (University of Sheffield), Joanna de Groot (University of York; HEC), Woon Kong Wong (Cardiff University), Tim Wilson (University of Dundee).

HE7A.1 was taken in parts; point c was carried and point d fell (66f/56a/2abs).

HE7A.1 was carried as amended:

HE7A.1 Compositing amendmentÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý University College London

Conference resolves, end of point a, add ‘and call for the resignation of all independent Trustees’

After point b, add:

c.      to call a higher education sector conference on USS in the autumn term 2019 to review the position and consider all actions available to 51¸£Àû to defend USS

HE7A.2 was carried overwhelmingly:

HE7A.2 University College London

‘Conference notes’, point 3: delete all after ‘contributions’. Replace with "have already led to some research contracts being substantially reduced in length from the time period originally costed, offered, and accepted - from 5 years to 4 in one case - damaging research projects, and passing employer costs onto staff."

‘Conference resolves’, add new point c:

to call on employers to protect research projects and staff by picking up additional pension costs.

HE7 was taken in parts. Point b fell:

to call for the transfer of powers to determine the valuation methodology to be moved to the JNC.

HE7 was carried as amended by HE7A.1 and HE7A.2:

Conference notes:

1.     the transformative impact of the USS strike on 51¸£Àû

2.     the failure of USS to implement the JEP’s first report leading to proposals for increasing contributions and threats of worsening of benefit

3.     additional USS contributions are already leading to some researchers being offered shorter contracts.

Conference believes the refusal to adopt JEP recommendations is underpinned by a governance failure within USS trustee body.

Conference resolves:

a.     to reaffirm 51¸£Àû’s position calling for the resignation of Bill Galvin USS CEO and call for the resignation of all independent Trustees

b.     to call a higher education sector conference on USS in the autumn term 2019 to review the position and consider all actions available to 51¸£Àû to defend USS

c.      to call on employers to protect research projects and staff by picking up additional pension costs.

HE8, Composite: USS disputeÌý University of Reading, University of Edinburgh, Lancaster University was moved by Deepa Govindarajan Driver (University of Reading) and seconded by Sunil Banga (University of Lancaster). Grant Buttars (University of Edinburgh); Marion Hersh (University of Glasgow; HEC) and Adam Ozanne (University of Manchester; HEC) also spoke in the debate. The motion was carried overwhelmingly:

HESC notes that:

1.     USS has calculated that full implementation of the JEP proposals to the 2018 valuation would lead to a £0.6 billion technical provisions surplus and require a contribution rate of only 25.5%. This vindicates the 51¸£Àû position of 'no detriment'

2.     Nevertheless USS are continuing to insist that the JEP proposals be implemented only in part and that contributions be raised to a minimum of 29.7% for the coming valuation period

3.     The USS dispute has not been resolved.

HESC resolves:

a.     to call on USS to implement in full, in the 2018 valuation, the 6 JEP proposals for the 2017 valuation

b.     not to accept any increase in member contributions, including 'trigger contributions', for this valuation and that any threat of these should be countered with a ballot for industrial action in line with existing policy

c.      to call on all employers to publish their response to the USS technical provisions document.

HE9, 51¸£Àû must remain open to a legal challenge against USS, University of Sheffield was moved by Sam Marsh (University of Sheffield) and formally seconded. Chloe Wallace (University of Leeds) and Woon Kong Wong (Cardiff University) spoke in the debate.

HE9A.1 was carried unanimously:

HE9A.1Ìý Ìý University of Leeds

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Add at end: 

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Conference agrees: 

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý 1.ÌýÌýÌý 51¸£Àû must do work with aligned groups in pursuit of defending our pensions wherever possible

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý 2.ÌýÌýÌý to draw up a full report on legal options open to 51¸£Àû, via meaningful consultation with Academics for Pension Justice (and associated legal advisors), NDC and SWG.

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý 3.ÌýÌýÌý this report will make recommendations which will inform HEC’s consideration regarding next steps in pursuit of any possible legal challenges over the actions of USS.

HE9 was carried unanimously as amended by HE9A.1

The handling by USS of their recent actuarial valuations has been subject to intense scrutiny. Concerns over USS's decision-making, governance and associated processes have been raised by many members and branches, and also by 51¸£Àû's actuarial advisers and the Joint Expert Panel.

The Academics for Pensions Justice group, set up in the wake of the USS dispute, crowd-funded over £50,000 from nearly 2,000 individual donations to obtain specialist legal advice about potential mismanagement by the Board of Trustees of USS.

Conference believes that 51¸£Àû must remain open to supporting a legal challenge over the actions of USS, and instructs those with relevant decision-making powers (including but not limited to the superannuation working group, national dispute committee, higher education committee, national executive committee and the general secretary) to give serious consideration to taking further legal steps in defence of members' pensions.

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Conference agrees: 

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý 1.ÌýÌýÌý 51¸£Àû must do work with aligned groups in pursuit of defending our pensions wherever possible

2.1.2Ìý CBC advised Conference to note the consequential between amendment to L5 and the last sentence of motion HE10.

Late motion 5, No confidence in the USS Board of Trustees, University of Exeter, Newcastle University was moved by Bruce Baker (Newcastle University). 51¸£Àû’s Paul Cottrell, National Head of Democratic services provided clarity on the motion. Speakers in the debate were Bruce Baker (Newcastle University), Geoff Abbott (Newcastle University), Sean Wallis (UCL; HEC). Conference voted against extending time for the debate following which amendment L5A.1 was taken and carried overwhelmingly:

Add new paragraph at the end:

If UUK refuse to confirm by 1 June 2019 that they will not impose any contribution increases in October 2019, HESC instructs the HEC to initiate an immediate campaign for industrial action, highlighting USS’s destructive role with a ballot commencing 1^st September 2019 which will give 51¸£Àû negotiators the necessary leverage to save the USS defined benefit pension with no detriment to members.

L5 was taken in parts:

The second bullet point fell: Conference instructs the General Secretary to withdraw the 51¸£Àû nominated trustees.

L5 was carried as amended:

Conference notes that on 7 May 2019, the USS Board of Trustees definitively and unilaterally rejected the report of the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) by offering three contributions options none of which accepted the full set of JEP recommendations.

Conference resolves that it has no confidence in the Corporate Trustee of USS and its board.

Conference invites UUK to also withdraw their nominated trustees.

If UUK refuse to confirm by 1 June 2019 that they will not impose any contribution increases in October 2019, HESC instructs the HEC to initiate an immediate campaign for industrial action, highlighting USS’s destructive role with a ballot commencing 1^st September 2019 which will give 51¸£Àû negotiators the necessary leverage to save the USS defined benefit pension with no detriment to members.

2.1.3Ìý Alan Barker, Chair of CBC moved the fifth report of CBC. One emergency motion had been received and ordered on the agenda after motion HE10. The CBC further advised Conference on how matters to the Chair should be raised and asked Conference to also note SO38 on how to call a count and address the Chair. Conference accepted the fifth report of the CBC.Ìý

HE10, Defending the 'no detriment' position in our USS dispute, University of Liverpool was moved by Jo McNeill (University of Liverpool; HEC) and seconded by Sean Wallis (UCL; HEC). The motion was taken in parts as agreed by Conference and Conference voted overwhelmingly to withdraw the last paragraph

HESC resolves to immediately begin campaigning for an industrial action ballot commencing October 2019, should UUK refuse to confirm by 1 July 2019 that they will not impose contribution increases on members from October.

HE10 was carried overwhelmingly as amended

HESC notes:

1.ÌýÌý The multiple failings of the USS 2017 and 2018 valuation documents

2.ÌýÌý USS has calculated the full implementation of the JEP proposals in the 2018 valuation leads to a £0.6 billion technical provisions surplus, requiring a contribution rate of 25.5% which vindicates ‘no detriment’

3.ÌýÌý USS is imposing large 'cost sharing' increases in contributions, to 8.8% in April 2019, 10.4% in October 2019 and 11.4% in April 2020, whose rationale has been extensively debunkedÌý

HESC believes these increases are unnecessary and violate 51¸£Àû’s position of 'No Detriment'.

HESC calls on UUK to join 51¸£Àû in resisting any contributions increases and to refuse to implement the October 2019 and April 2020 increases.

Late motion 6, 51¸£Àû directors of USS, was moved by Marion Hersh (University of Glasgow; HEC) and seconded by Jo Grady (University of Sheffield). Megan Povey (University of Leeds) spoke in the debate of the motion. Late motion 6 was carried unanimously:

Conference notes:

that 51¸£Àû-appointed director Prof Jane Hutton has recused herself from the Trustee Board after pressure following her whistleblowing with regard to the 2017 valuation

Prof Hutton has been a consistent critic of the valuation methodology and forced USS to adjust their mortality assumptions.

Conference believes:

51¸£Àû Directors should be free to represent members’ interests without interference by the USS executive and offers Prof Hutton our strong support

51¸£Àû has no confidence in the valuation methodology or the USS executive.

Conference resolves:

To seek legal advice on behalf of its three USS directors regarding the implications of their removing themselves from the Trustee Board until Prof Hutton’s concerns are satisfactorily addressed

To re-state our call for the resignation of Bill Galvin CEO of USS and issue a press release stating this

To demand a public enquiry into the undermining of USS DB scheme.

L8, emergency motion – Trinity College exit from USS was moved by Sam James (University of Cambridge) and seconded by Nick Hardy (University of Birmingham). John Parrington (University of Oxford) spoke in the debate. Simon Courtenage (University of Westminster) raised a point of order on TPS rights to vote. L8 was carried:

HESC condemns:

The irresponsible decision by the Council of Trinity College Cambridge on 24 May to initiate withdrawal from USS and instead establish a new section in a private Trinity College Scheme.

HESC believes:

This puts Trinity’s narrow interest in protecting its own assets ahead of the principle of mutuality in USS and the interests of higher education in the UK.

HESC resolves:

To publicise Cambridge 51¸£Àû’s call to not undertake further discretionary work for Trinity such as student supervisions if Trinity leaves USS

To encourage all 51¸£Àû members to refuse to accept speaking engagements and other voluntary roles at our with Trinity College

To call on 51¸£Àû to invoke the national censure and academic boycott procedure unless and until Trinity reverses its decision to leave USS.

Pensions - Teachers’ Pension Scheme (paragraphs 3.6-3.8)

HE11, Teachers Pension Scheme (TPS), University of Westminster (Regent) was moved by Maria Chondrogianni (University of Westminster) and proposed that point b is withdrawn:

to campaign for a phased introduction of increased employer contributions to ease the pressure on finances of public sector organizations, such as universities

This was accepted. The motion was seconded by Gordon McKelvie (University of Winchester). Marian Mayer (Bournemouth University) spoke in the debate. HE11 was carried overwhelmingly as amended (point b fell):

Conference notes that:

1.     under Treasury proposals, employer contributions to public sector pension schemes, including the TPS, are planned to rise substantially in 2019

2.     post-92 universities will receive no additional funding from the UK government to cover the increase in staff costs due to this increase.

Conference believes that any increase in employer pension contributions must not come at the expense of staff jobs, pay awards or benefits. In addition to the effect on staff, such reductions in costs damage the student experience.

Conference resolves:

a.    to work with other trades unions to campaign for a re-evaluation of the increase in public sector employer pension contributions

b.    to work with universities to explore ways in which any such increase in costs can be mitigated without cutting courses, jobs or benefits.

HE12, TPS – employer increased contribution payments – consequential problems West Midlands regional HE committee was moved by Martin Fiddler (West Midlands Regional Committee) and seconded formally. Marian Mayer (Bournemouth University) and Maria Chondrogianni (University of Westminster) spoke in the debate.

HE12 was carried:

HE sector conference notes that employer contributions to the TPS are to increase by 5-7% from September with no transitional relief, requiring universities to pay enormous additional amounts of money into the TPS. 

HE sector conference is deeply concerned that, in response, universities may create Ltd internal companies to TUPE academic staff into, therefore removing the need to pay TPS contributions and forcing members onto new contracts and into inferior defined-contribution schemes.

HE sector conference therefore resolves to instruct the HEC to: 

1.     analyse the data obtained on the intentions of university managements and ascertain if employers are planning to force academic staff onto new contracts of employment and into inferior pension schemes

2.     support such branches with strike action

3.     develop a high-profile national campaign against the increased TPS charges and the lack of transitional relief for universities.

 

Precarious contracts – Stamp Out Casual Contracts (paragraphs 4.1 – 4.4)

HE13, Discussion on developing negotiations to increase job securityÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Anti-casualisation committee was moved by Jessica Jacobs (Queen Mary University of London) and seconded formally. HE13 was carried unanimously:

Conference applauds:

1.     work of 51¸£Àû activists who have campaigned over the years to make anti-casualisation a central aspect of 51¸£Àû’s work and recognise the progress achieved in our understanding of this issue, as a concern for all members

2.     casualised members who supported the USS strike

3.     negotiating gains, which have transferred casualised staff to more secure contracts.Ìý

Such agreements can be used to establish the norm for employment as full-time or fractional permanent contracts and restrict the creation of casualised employment.

Employers may, despite anti-casualisation agreements, seek to create new forms of precarious work or new layers of casualised staff.

Conference asks:

a.     HEC to discuss and explore the feasibility and usefulness of collective agreements which determine the staffing structure of universities and exacerbate workload pressures arising from under-staffing

b.     hold a special HEC meeting and a national meeting for reps on all contract types, to promote action on this issue.

HE14, Actions against short contracts, Anti-casualisation committee was moved by Rhian Keyse (Anti-casualisation committee) and seconded formally. Speakers in the debate were Vicky Blake (University of Leeds; HEC), Sarah Elton (Durham University), Nik Ogryzko (University of Edinburgh).

HE14A.1 was carried:

HE14A.1 (EP) Academic related, professional staff committee

Add new point 5 in ‘Conference notes’ - '5. the benefits to the employer of retaining institutional knowledge and skills, and to the individual of providing career development opportunities, through continuity of employment.'

Add at the end of ‘Conference demands’ point b - 'and provide career progression opportunities to academic related professional staff.'

HE14 was carried as amended:

Conference notes:

1.     short contracts spread casualisation, undermine the union, and increase precarity in longer-term contracts

2.     pension implications of short-term contracts are under-recognised, leading to significant financial loss by casualised workers

3.     if employment, otherwise qualifying for a Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) or Teacher’s Pension Scheme (TPS) pension, lasts for less than two years of unbroken work, the employee must leave the scheme and the scheme retains the employer’s contribution

4.     senior staff have a duty of care and solidarity to inform casualised staff and to resist creating casualised contracts.

5.     the benefits to the employer of retaining institutional knowledge and skills, and to the individual of providing career development opportunities, through continuity of employment

Conference demands:

a.     51¸£Àû produce campaigning materials for branches, 51¸£Àû-delivered training and digital communications

b.     these materials state practical actions that senior staff can take to resist creating short contracts and provide career progression opportunities to academic related professional staff

c.      use national bargaining machinery to demand a minimum contract length of 24 months for all staff

d.     51¸£Àû progress talks with funders to support a 24-month minimum contract.

HE15, Minimum contract lengths for teaching and research, University of Birmingham was moved by Nick Hardy (University of Birmingham) and seconded formally. Dima Chami (University of Leeds) and Gordon McKelvie (University of Winchester) spoke in the debate. HE15 was carried overwhelmingly:

HESC notes:

1.     contracts of less than 12 months for both teaching and research staff are routinely used by HE employers, with mixed success combating this locally

2.     such contracts aid the spread of precarity across the HE sector, undermining union organising

3.     contracts of this type are normalised across the HE sector to an extent that demands a national response.

HESC resolves:

a.     that the union demand an end to contracts of less than 12 months for all teaching and research staff, to be replaced by a basic minimum contract length of 12 months, with this outcome pursued via national bargaining machinery

b.     that the union concurrently enter in talks with UKRI/other research funders (e.g. Leverhulme Trust and Wellcome Trust), to compel those bodies to support 12 month minimum contracts for research staff.

HE16, Post-contract support for academics on precarious contracts , Senate House University of London was moved by Tim Hall (UoL Senate House) and seconded formally. Speakers in the debate were Marina Lambrakis (University of Oxford), Laura Loyola-Hernandez (University of Leeds), Malcolm Ralph (University of Liverpool). Christina Paine (London Metropolitan; HEC) moved HE16A.1 and proposed a redrafting of the motion however the Chair clarified this was not possible at this stage. HE16A.1 was subsequently moved and carried overwhelmingly:

HE16A.1 Anti-casualisation committee

In ‘Congress notes’, insert a new number 3 and renumber accordingly:

3. Ìý the predominantly BAME and female precarious outsourced, non-academic workers’ call for a boycott of the University of London, to pressure it to end its discriminatory practice of outsourcing

Insert a new paragraph before ‘Congress resolves’:

Congress believes the fight for casualised staff in HE is directly connected to – and empowered by – the struggle of female outsourced workers for equality and justice at our universities.

Add an extra point (e) at the very end:

e.ÌýÌý to call a boycott of events at the University of London’s central administration until workers are brought in-house.

HE16 was carried as amended by HE16A.1:-

Congress notes:

1.     51¸£Àû reported that 54% of UK academic staff are on insecure contracts, which is ‘the early careers norm’. A structural issue in HE is affecting the lives and careers of thousands of researchers and academics.

2.     research shows that precarity damages careers and mental health. Periods without employment, an institutional affiliation or a research home can lead to academics being ‘pushed out of, or deterred from, an academic career’.

3.     the predominantly BAME and female precarious outsourced, non-academic workers’ call for a boycott of the University of London, to pressure it to end its discriminatory practice of outsourcing

4.     academics in precarity need immediate support.

Congress believes the fight for casualised staff in HE is directly connected to – and empowered by – the struggle of female outsourced workers for equality and justice at our universities

Congress resolves to negotiate with universities to provide a standardised, low-resource, mutually-beneficial, post-contract support package for academics on precarious contracts and graduating PhD students, including a minimum of one year of:

a.     a non-stipendiary research affiliation

b.     an institutional email address

c.      permission to deposit outputs in the institutional repository

d.     access to online resources, CPD opportunities, shared workspaces, and support for developing funding bids on the same terms as currently employed academics.

e.    to call a boycott of events at the University of London’s central administration until workers are brought in-house.

Gender pay and other equality issues (paragraphs 5.1-5.3, re-titled)

HE17, Addressing the gender pay gap, Women members standing committee was moved by Sue Abbott (Newcastle University) and seconded formally. John Parrington (University of Oxford) spoke in the debate. HE17 was carried unanimously:

HE conference notes that equal pay and closing the gender pay gap remain outstanding matters for our members. Conference also has concerns about the race pay gap and disability pay gap.

Expediency is needed to urgently address this matter and in furtherance of this fundamental aim we agree that:

1.     regional officers provide support to branches and negotiate and agree facility time for national and branch activists to allow this to be taken forward nationally and locally

2.     International women’s day in universities from 2020 be designated #GenderPayEqualityNowDay.

HE18, Action on the race pay gap in universities, West Midlands regional HE committee was moved by Justin Mercer (University of Warwick; HEC) and seconded by Marion Hersh (University of Glasgow; HEC). Jessica Jacobs (Queen Mary UoL) spoke in the debate. HE18 was carried unanimously:

HE sector conference notes:

1.     figures from the BBC showing a 26% race pay gap at Russell group institutions

2.     51¸£Àû research showing that 90% of Black staff in colleges and universities face barriers to promotion; 72% experience bullying and harassment, and 78% feel excluded from decision-making

3.     the under-representation of Black staff within the professoriate and other senior roles, which is even worse for Black women

4.     the success of 51¸£Àû campaigns on the gender pay gap. 

HE sector conference believes the race pay gap in universities is completely unacceptable and must be tackled with the same commitment and resources as the gender pay gap. 

HE sector conference resolves: 

a.     to incorporate action on the race pay gap into future national HE pay claims

b.     to demand employers immediately publish data on their race pay gaps

c.      to develop campaign resources to support local collective bargaining by branches to tackle the race pay gap.

HE19, Eradicating workplace racism, Black members standing committee was moved by Victoria Showunmi (University College London; HEC) and seconded formally. HE19 was carried overwhelmingly:

A recent Centre for Social Investigation report suggests that racial discrimination in the labour market remains at levels similar to the 1960s.

The scandal of racism in universities has returned to public attention, with increasing public awareness of ethnic attainment gaps for students, under-representation of black staff, ethnic pay gaps and harassment on campuses.

Universities must serve the community to institute transparency and fairness in institutional practices.

Conference reiterates the urgent need to:

1.     work with NUS to address the attainment gap for minority ethnic students

2.     achieve equal pay for all, including eradicating the ethnic pay gap

3.     removing barriers to training, progression and promotion for black staff

4.     challenge the disproportionate use of precarious contracts when employing black staff.

Conference agrees to:

a.     publish a report highlighting the attainment gap, pay disparities, barriers to training and progression, discrimination through precarity and harassment

b.     campaign against the ethnic pay gap, including through national pay campaigns.

HE20, Not disposable: Standing up for LGBT+ staff and studies, LGBT+ members standing committee was moved by Ryan Prout (Cardiff University; HEC) and seconded formally. HE20 was carried unanimously:-

In a neo-liberal marketplace bolstered by a doctrine of austerity, there is a risk that the interests of marginal LGBT+ communities can be regarded as expendable. Doctrines of prioritisation threaten already marginalised research and teachers, and have implications for LGBT+ HE workers and for LGBT+ studies.

The TUC found in 2017 that 39 per cent of LGBT+ workers have been harassed or discriminated against by a colleague. Restructuring often has a negative impact on the well-being of employees. In the workplace, bullying often increases in the face of reorganisation and redundancies, disproportionately affecting LGBT+ people.

Conference calls on 51¸£Àû and branches to:

1.     closely monitor the effects of HE restructuring on LGBT+ workers and on LGBT+ studies

2.     insist on management producing meaningful evidence about the equality impact of restructures, including on LGBT+ people, in all restructures.

 

HE21, Racist activity on campus and free speech, Black members standing committee was moved by Steve Lui (University of Huddersfield; HEC) and seconded formally. HE21 was carried unanimously:

Conference has observed the alarming increase of far-right, racist activity on campus including incidents at Exeter, Nottingham and Lancaster. It is also noteworthy that university management has been slow to act in challenging such behaviours. This equivocation normalises the paradigmatic shift being pursued by the Alt-Right characterised by anti-migrant sentiment and pro-free-market ideals.

Conference notes the deliberate conflation of hate-speech and free-speech which has serious implications for the wellbeing of black students and staff who feel trapped by the rhetoric surrounding the ‘hostile environment’ policy and the ‘prevent’ initiative leaving many workers fearful of speaking out.

Conference resolves to:

1.     work with local activists to challenge the growth of far-right activity on campus

2.     establish clear guidelines for members on free speech on campus

3.     compile a list of far-right groups and activities to arm members/branches in their campaigning work.

HE22, LGBT+ confidence in higher education, LGBT+ members standing committee was moved by Steve Desmond (Southern Regional Committee) and seconded formally. HE22 was carried unanimously:

Conference notes reports that LGBT+ people often fail to report hate crimes. LGBT Youth Scotland (2017) found that reporting from LGB and Trans students in HE decreased from about 70% in 2012 to about 40%. Across the UK approximately 80% of LGBT+ people who experienced hate crime left it unreported (YouGov 2017).

Conference recognises that discrimination often leads LGBT+ people to suffer in silence. Conference believes this is unacceptable.

HEIs should enable LGBT+ voices to be heard rather than tolerate silence. Conference believes that for sexual orientation and gender identity policies to be effective there must be commitment to implementation.

Conference disputes equality index ranking as reliable indication of real action. Conference calls on 51¸£Àû to work with branch officers to effectively challenge management around LGBT+ equality by:

1.     undertaking a survey of LGBT+ members including questions measuring confidence

2.     organising and facilitating LGBT+ awareness raising actions within HE institutions.

HE23, Sexual harassment, University of Brighton Falmer was moved by Khizer Saeed (University of Brighton) and seconded by Ann Swinney (University of Dundee). HE23 was carried overwhelmingly:

Conference notes that

1.     the Equality Act 2010 defines sexual harassment as ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature which has the purpose or effect of violating someone’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them’

2.     the 2017 NEC commitment to prioritize branch implementation of 51¸£Àû’s Sexual Harassment model policy; encourage reps to attend sexual harassment training; work with NUS, 1752 and UUK to agree procedures for students and staff involved in sexual harassment cases

3.     the lack of publicity given to 51¸£Àû’s work on sexual harassment

Conference requests that

a.     Congress mandate the NEC to audit progress on their 2017 statement

b.     circulate a detailed report on that progress to all branches

c.      consult on a strategic plan to involve every HEI in England and the devolved regions in the creation of a support system for staff and students involved in cases of sexual harassment.

Workload, Academic freedom, and safe sustainable workplaces for 51¸£Àû members (paragraphs 6.1-6.3, re-titled)

HE24, (EP) Challenging workloads: a national health and safety issueÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý Bournemouth University was moved by Marian Mayer (Bournemouth University) and seconded by Jo McNeill (University of Liverpool). HE24 was carried:

Conference notes ever increasing, unmanageable workloads impacting on members’ health and safety. It calls on the HEC to evaluate the 51¸£Àû health and safety workload campaign and update members on the progress of that campaign.

Conference notes that the deaths of Dr Malcolm Anderson (Cardiff University) and Professor Stefan Grimm (Imperial College) have been disregarded in the context of increasing workloads caused by redundancies, financial mismanagement and governance irregularities.

Conference resolves that 51¸£Àû:

1.     identify the most egregious and exploitative employers

2.     seek legal opinion on the risk to university staff  health, safety, and lifework balance with a view to taking collective action against particularly egregious employers

3.     continues to work to ensure balanced workloads.

HE25, Workload models, London Metropolitan University was moved by Christina Paine (London Metropolitan; HEC) and seconded by James Brackley (University of Birmingham). Marian Carty (Goldsmiths UoL) and Pura Ariza (Manchester Metropolitan University) spoke in the debate. The motion was taken in parts and was carried:

Conference notes the post-92 sector of higher education needs transparent, consistent and equitable academic workload models taking proper account of administrative, research and other non FST duties. Examples of best and worst practice vary widely between institutions, with some (such as London Metropolitan) using only non-consultative teaching minimums as a model without carrying out due diligence in ensuring balanced workloads that goes against staff contracts. Without knowledge of a recognised agreed workload conversation across the sector individual disputes on workload will lack due process, and union negotiations.ÌýÌýÌý

Conference resolves to:ÌýÌýÌýÌý

1.     conduct a sector-wide survey of workload models, identifying which institutions use them and which do not, identifying examples of best practice for purposes of comparison, and in order to exert pressure on management to follow best practice.ÌýÌýÌýÌý

2.     provide guidance to branches on how to pressure the employer to adopt a reasonable workload allocation model.

HE26, Workloads, East Midlands regional HE committee was moved by Emi Mise (University of Leicester), first time speaker at Conference. The motion was formally seconded. Jess Meecham (ARPS committee) spoke to HE26A.1 which was carried unanimously:

HE26A.1 Academic related, professional staff committee

Add to the end of the motion - 'covering both academic and academic related professional staff.'

HE26 was carried unanimously as amended;

HE sector conference calls upon the HEC to conduct research into, and prepare a report on, workload planning and its operation/implementation in the HE sector 'covering both academic and academic related professional staff.'

HE27, (EP) Job losses/workload/work-related stressÌý 51¸£Àû Scotland was moved by Eurig Scandrett (51¸£Àû Scotland Executive) and seconded formally. Jessica Jacobs (Queen Mary UoL0 moved HE27A.1 which was carried:

HE27A.1, Anti-casualisation committeeÌý

Insert after second sentence, before ‘Increasing workload’:

Conference also recognises that as a result of cuts and redundancy programmes in HE, work that is left behind often strategically becomes more casualised. This is detrimental to the sector.Ìý Both the casualised and the permanent staff work significant unpaid hours resulting in damage to health.Ìý The campaign recognises that both staff groups are put at risk and seeks to campaign for secure jobs and a fair allocation of work for everyone.

HE27A was carried overwhelmingly as amended by HE27A.1:

Conference notes the cuts in higher education institutions. As well as supporting branches opposing job losses, conference recognises that when employers announce cuts and jobs are lost the workload does not diminish for the remaining staff who are simply required to do more.

Conference also recognises that as a result of cuts and redundancy programmes in HE, work that is left behind often strategically becomes more casualised. This is detrimental to the sector. Both the casualised and the permanent staff work significant unpaid hours resulting in damage to health.Ìý The campaign recognises that both staff groups are put at risk and seeks to campaign for secure jobs and a fair allocation of work for everyone. Increasing workload from job losses, combined with rising student expectation driven by the commodification of HE, and a 24-hour work culture driven by technology, mean that incidences of work-related stress and an accompanying impact on mental health are all too common for university staff.Ìý

Conference notes the findings of 51¸£Àû’s most recent survey of members showing that that members work the equivalent of two days for free each week.Ìý Conference recognises the unacceptability of this situation and calls on 51¸£Àû to lobby for Government action to direct higher education institutions to address the issue of workload and work related stress.

HE28, Workload campaign: disabled workers and carers—step up the action ÌýÌýÌý Disabled members standing committee was moved by Keith Simpson (City University). Speakers in the debate were Marian Mayer (Bournemouth University), Lucy Burke (Manchester Metropolitan University), Marion Hersh (Glasgow University; HEC). HE28 was carried unanimously:-

Conference notes:

1.ÌýÌý excessive workload of an additional two days a week

2.ÌýÌý the refusal or long delays in implementing, reasonable adjustments including timetabling issues for disabled workers

3.ÌýÌý carers in higher education cut hours or leave their job due to the stress of juggling work and care commitments

4.ÌýÌý the success of the first day of action on disabled members in higher education.

Conference believes the workload campaign must recognise these extra pressures and develop suitable actions and resources to support disabled workers. This is not only a matter of the stress and pressure of extra work, but also of remaining in work and preventing poverty.

Conference resolves to:

a.     develop resources and activities of the workload campaign to address the specific needs of disabled workers/carers

b.     support the DMSC to organise an annual day of action in higher education

c.      continue the reasonable adjustments campaign.

HE29, Disproportionate representation in disciplinary and other actions University of Northampton was moved by Nick Cartwright (University of Northampton) and seconded formally. Philippa Browning (University of Manchester), Jessica Jacobs (Queen Mary UoL) and Sean Wallis (UCL; HEC) spoke in the debate. HE29 was carried unanimously:

HESC notes that:

1.     some HEIs use disciplinary action and extensions or failure of probation where the alleged poor performance is about tone, attitude or approach rather than misconduct 

2.     there is often a disproportionate over-representation in the same where the respondent has a protected characteristic

3.     the use of discretion and the drawing of inferences can lead to discrimination.

HESC believes that:

a.     the use of disciplinary and similar procedures to manage performance where misconduct is not an issue is inappropriate

a.     the inappropriate use of disciplinary and similar procedures has the effect that employees with protected characteristics may be discriminated against.

HESC resolves:

                    i.   to challenge HEIs where there are patterns in the data that demonstrate inequalities of outcome

                  ii.   to challenge the use of performance management where the outcome is discriminatory

                 iii.   to actively support branches, including through funding legal action, where there is evidence of inequality of outcomes as against the protected characteristics.

HE30, Lecture capture (LC), University of Liverpool was moved by Karen Evans (University of Liverpool) and seconded by Owen Lyne (University of Kent). Sam Marsh (University of Sheffield), Julie Wilkinson (Manchester Metropolitan University), Deepa Govindarajan Driver (University of Reading) spoke in the debate. HE30 was carried unanimously:

Conference notes:

1.     51¸£Àû’s position that the recording of lectures should be covered by a negotiated agreement between 51¸£Àû and the employer and that participation in filmed or recorded lectures/teaching should always be voluntary

2.     LC impacts on academic staff members’ personal privacy, academic freedom, performance rights and health and differentially impacts protected categories.Ìý

There is evidence that universities:

a.    insist on LC as mandatory

b.    used LC material in disciplinary and performance review meetings.

Conference demands that:

                i.       staff choosing not to use LC should not be required to engage in a formal opt out process

               ii.       LC never be used in performance management, disciplinary action or to replace teaching during industrial action

              iii.       LC not be used where teaching takes place in countries where freedom of speech is not guaranteed

              iv.       51¸£Àû immediately seeks legal advice on the points in this motion.

HE31, Questionnaires to elicit student feedback on teaching, University of Lincoln was moved by Carol Rea (University of Lincoln) and seconded by Bruce Baker (Newcastle University). Marina Lambrakis (University of Oxford) spoke in the debate. HE31 was carried overwhelmingly:

HE sector conference notes that universities elicit student feedback on teaching through questionnaires. This is in spite of clear evidence that this feedback is unrelated to teaching quality and that the feedback discriminates against women and minorities. What is worse is that at some institutions the results of these questionnaires are also used by management in decisions affecting staffing and promotions.

Branches and associations are trying to address these issues locally but it might be useful to bring these struggles together in a national campaign.

HE sector conference therefore calls on the HEC

1.     to collate information at a national level about the use of module evaluations, and

2.     to explore how such a campaign might best be constructed based on this evidence, and

3.     to bring proposals for such a campaign to the next meeting of HE sector conference.

HE32, (EP)Ìý Academic freedom to discuss sex and gender, University College London was moved by Holly Smith (University College London) and seconded formally. There was an extensive debate on the motion. Speakers included Dima Chami (University of Leeds), Marion Hersh (University of Glasgow; HEC), Megan Povey (University of Leeds), Robyn Orfitelli (University of Sheffield), Judith Suissa (University College London), John Parrington (University of Oxford), Mark Pendleton (University of Sheffield), Alice Sullivan (University College London), Grant Buttars (University of Edinburgh), Stephen Desmond (Southern Regional Committee), Shereen Benjamin (University of Edinburgh), Josh Robinson (Cardiff University), SaladinÌý Meckled-Garcia (University College London). Douglas Chalmers, Chair, reminded Conference of the ‘Expectation of members’ during the debate and action that can be taken, should these be breached, this was accepted by Conference.

HE32A.1 was carried

HE32A.1 Higher education committee

Add at end:

iii.Ìý reaffirm that the rights of trans people and women are complementary

iv.Ìý reaffirm the right of minority groups to self-identify

v.Ìý recognise the importance of the central involvement of trans, non-binary people and women in sex/gender studies/debates and campaign for the resources for this

vi.Ìý calls for joint Women’s/LGBT+Standing-Committee session at Cradle to Grave conference and guidelines with Women’s/LGBT+ standing committee input on gender self-identification and cis women’s and trans rights enhancing each other.

HE32A.2 was also carried

HE32A.2 LGBT+ members standing committee

Add to resolves to iii and iv:

iii.Ìý condemn any harassment of feminists and/or trans people for expressing views on sex, gender and gender identity;

iv. construct spaces in which gender diversity can be explored through respectful dialogue underpinned by solidarity with all oppressed groups and the promotion of unity in action by women and trans people in the face of attacks on either group.

A call was made for a vote on HE32 as amended. Following the vote, the motion subsequently fell (72f/80a/27abs)

HESC notes:

1.     51¸£Àû's commitment to equality and academic freedom

2.     that 51¸£Àû members have much to contribute to public debate over definitions of 'sex', 'gender' and 'gender identity'

3.     harassment has been directed at academics and activists.

HESC believes:

a.     that 51¸£Àû members hold diverse views

b.     members need not agree with the views of any academic to support their right to express them within the law (note 2)

c.      civil engagement with reasoned argument and empirical evidence is a foundational value of HE, and essential for democracy.

HESC resolves to:

                i.       re-affirm our commitment to academic freedom in research and teaching, and to the right of academics to participate in political debates

               ii.       condemn the blacklisting and abuse of academics for exercising their academic freedom and lawful rights.

              iii.       reaffirm that the rights of trans people and women are complementary; condemn any harassment of feminists and/or trans people for expressing views on sex, gender and gender identity;

              iv.       reaffirm the right of minority groups to self-identify; construct spaces in which gender diversity can be explored through respectful dialogue underpinned by solidarity with all oppressed groups and the promotion of unity in action by women and trans people in the face of attacks on either group.

               v.       Ìýrecognise the importance of the central involvement of trans, non-binary people and women in sex/gender studies/debates and campaign for the resources for this

              vi.       calls for joint Women’s/LGBT+Standing-Committee session at Cradle to Grave conference and guidelines with Women’s/LGBT+ standing committee input on gender self-identification and cis women’s and trans rights enhancing each other.

 

HE33, Mental health service, Academic related, professional staff committee was moved by Jess Meecham (ARPS committee) and seconded by John Parrington (University of Oxford). The motion was carried:

Conference notes:

1.     increasing awareness of student and staff mental health needs

2.     counselling services are vital to support staff and students

3.     some universities are downgrading counsellors while adding workload to their roles

4.     counselling staff are overloaded, demoralised and stressed.

Conference believes:

a.     student and staff mental health needs are best met by professional in-house counsellors rather than online provision

b.     more counsellors are needed to handle increasing demand

c.      counselling is a difficult job which management should respected

d.     counselling staff should not be casualised, downgraded, or have their hours reduced.

Conference instructs HEC to:

                i.       publicise the important and effective work done by student counsellors

               ii.       campaign for better resourced counselling services, with better pay and conditions.ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý

ÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌýÌý

Academic related, professional staff (ARPS) (paragraphs 7.1-7.3)

HE34, Love Our ARPS, Academic related, professional staff committee was moved by Vicky Blake (University of Leeds, HEC) and formally seconded. The motion was carried unanimously:

Conference notes:

1.     the many and varied roles of academic related and professional staff, recognising the vital role ARPS play in our institutions and our union

2.     a significant percentage of the HE workforce occupy ARPS roles but this is not reflected in our membership figures.

Conference instructs HEC to launch a #LoveOurARPS campaign which:

a.     refreshes the ARPS manifesto for relaunch

b.     produces recruitment and campaign materials which reflect the diversity of ARPS roles and emphasise ARPS are an integral part of the academic team

c.      investigates institutional spending on ARPS CPD and establishes a model claim

d.     develops and deploys a regular survey expanding our understanding of ARPS issues

e.     facilitates greater inter-branch communication

f.      investigates ARPS casualisation through FOI and other means

g.     tables the ARPS role profiles as part of the UK HE claim and encourages branches to submit claims pursuing these

h.     links to the workload campaign.

After paragraph 8.3, insert new heading: Research Excellence Framework (REF)

HE35, REF,Ìý Higher education committee, University of Liverpool was moved by Jo McNeill (University of Liverpool; HEC) and seconded formally. HE35 was carried:

HESC notes

1.     the publication of the REF guidance, in particular the eligibility of outputs from previously employed staff

2.     the requirement to include all category A staff, once they have one eligible output

3.     previously REF portability encouraged a transfer league of staff which exacerbated pay inequalities.

HESC believes

a.     the new guidance on portability puts staff at risk of redundancy once outputs are published

b.     the lower threshold for inclusion increases the risk of

·           REF criteria being used for performance management purposes; and

·           the movement of staff from T&R to T&S contracts, undermining scholarship in universities.

HESC resolves

                    i.   to demand that the outputs from staff made redundant by an institution are made ineligible

                  ii.   to campaign against the use of REF criteria for performance management

                 iii.   to campaign for T&S to have equal status with T&R

                 iv.   to campaign for the abolition of REF.

HE36, REF codes of practice, Yorkshire and Humberside regional HE committee was moved by Steve Lui (University of Huddersfield; HEC) and seconded formally. HE36A.1 was moved by Marion Hersh (University of Glasgow; HEC). Speakers in the debate included Catherine Pope (University of Southampton) and Andrew Chitty (University of Sussex).

HE36A.1 was carried unanimously:

HE36A.1 Higher education committee

Second paragraph, first sentence, after ‘consult with members to produce’, delete 'minimum standards'; replace with 'essential and desirable standards'.

End of point numbered 1, add 'and the negative impacts on individuals, departments and research'.

Add at end:

5.Ìý appropriate measures for including staff carrying out interdisciplinary research and creating an environment conducive to interdisciplinary research.

HE36, was carried as amended by HE36A.1:

Conference notes that REF2021 is having a major impact on university staff and that universities are consulting staff on codes of practice for research assessment.  Staff need to question the selection process, equality impacts and real time allocated for research and scholarly activities. 

Conference resolves that HEC will consult with members to produce essential and desirable standards for local 51¸£Àû branches to use in negotiating codes of practice and other REF issues with their management.  These should address:

1.     no detriment to the employment status and terms and conditions of staff not returned in the REF and the negative impacts on individuals, departments and research

2.     equality impact assessment on how members in the various equality strands will be affected by institutional plans

3.     stress risk assessment, with particular reference to workload intensity, due to the pressures of the REF

4.     the removal of publications from REF submissions for staff who have been made redundant by their university.

5.     appropriate measures for including staff carrying out interdisciplinary research and creating an environment conducive to interdisciplinary research. 

HE37, No REF submissions for redundant staff, University of Glasgow was moved by Marion Hersh (University of Glasgow; HEC) and carried unanimously:

Conference is concerned that the ability to include staff who have been made redundant in submissions to the REF increases vulnerability of staff and the risk of casualisation. Some universities have agreed polices to protect staff.

Conference instructs HEC to campaign for

1. Ìý employing institutions, possibly through UCEA, to agree not to return submissions of compulsorily redundant staff.

2. Ìý call on 51¸£Àû to name and shame institutions abusing the REF process and to highlight good practice.

HE38, REF2021 and redundancy, Open University was moved by Lesley Kane (Open University; HEC) and seconded formally. Paul Ayres (University of Bristol), first time speaker at Conference spoke to the motion. HE38 was carried:

Conference notes that the UK HE funding bodies have bowed to pressure to allow universities to submit the work of former staff who have been made redundant in the REF2021.

If this decision is not reversed conference asks the HEC to use Freedom of Information requests or other suitable means to find out which institutions do so, and to name and shame offending institutions.

2.1.4Ìý Due to lack of time, the Chair proposed that motions not taken on the agenda be remitted to the Higher Education Committee (HEC). Andrew Chitty raised a point of order that the outcome of motions remitted should be published and this was noted by Conference.

2.1.5Ìý Conference voted in favour to remit motions HE39 to HE48:

HE39, Composite: REF 2021 codes of practice, Women members standing committee, University of Westminster (Regent)

Notwithstanding 51¸£Àû policy opposing REF and the fact that REF is unfit for purpose, conference notes that REF2021 submissions and codes of practice must ensure specific considerations relating to equality and diversity. Institutions are required to demonstrate their selection processes are compatible with equality legislation and have been subject to an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA). Codes of practice must also include a statement on how the institution supports its fixed-term and part-time staff in relation to equality and diversity.

This conference resolves to ensure that institutional REF2021 equality statements are not mere lip-service to the REF2021 guidance but are clearly demonstrated in the selection processes and support provided to women employed with the sector.

HEC will:

1.       collect data on imminent REF2021 codes of practice and equality statements

2.       provide policy and guidance to branches for monitoring REF codes of practice and required EIA in their organisations.

HE40, REF and performance management, The University of Manchester

Conference notes:

1.     universities’ internal REF planning aims to prepare for REF 2021, a goal which is distinct from fostering high-quality research

2.     as part of this planning, universities are unilaterally introducing new measures of performance management and contract changes, which are notÌý agreed processes

3.     relevant issues were the subject of a conference on 7/12/2018.

Conference believes such practices violate existing agreements and, when this results in reduction or removal of research roles, constitute a threat to the UK’s research capacity and weakens research-led teaching.

Conference resolves to:

a.     circulate outcomes of the conference to branches for use in local actions

b.     improve support for members at risk from formal and informal REF-related performance management, and enforced contract changes

c.      gather evidence and assess the need for a campaign of industrial action.

Industrial action (paragraph 9.1)

HE41, (EP) Empowering branches to pursue UK priorities through local collective agreements, Higher education committee

Conference notes the limited progress in delivering meaningful action through the national bargaining machinery on national priority issues like casualisation, the gender pay gap and workloads.

Conference also notes that 51¸£Àû’s strategy of continuing to push these issues nationally while coordinating and supporting work to drive improvements at local level has produced a series of successful local agreements on all these issues that deliver real improvements for our members.

Conference reiterates national priority status of these issues and calls on HEC to:

1.     accelerate work to support and empower our branches to pursue local claims in relation to casualisation, the gender pay gap and workloads

2.     ensure that bargaining guidance and campaign packs are worked into appropriate training resources

3.     ensure the delivery of branch briefings and training events tailored to these priority issues

4.     ensure that agreements and success stories are shared and publicised the union.

Local disputes (paragraph 10.1)

HE42, International branch campuses in the Middle East, University of Birmingham

HESC notes that:

1.     UK universities continue to open international branch campuses overseas despite violations of human rights and restrictions to academic freedom.

2.     the detention and murder of students studying at UK universities, as illustrated by the cases of Matthew Hedges (UAE) and Giulio Regeni (Egypt), and other students and academics in the region

3.     the University of Birmingham has failed to negotiate with 51¸£Àû on the opening of their Dubai campus. This included implementation of new staff policies and the effective de-recognition of the union on the new campus.

HESC resolves to:

a.     advise all members to ‘Boycott’ the University of Birmingham Dubai campus. This is not industrial action, but an exercise of our academic freedom.

b.     instruct the HEC to work with MENA Solidarity, human rights organisations, and other trade unions to campaign for LGBTQ+ rights, workers’ rights, and academic freedom on any new international branch campuses in the Middle East.

HE42A.1, University of Liverpool

Add the following two points.

c. Ìý 51¸£Àû to send resource and support to branches dealing with international branch issues.

d. Ìý 51¸£Àû to develop a toolkit in collaboration with MENA where possible to support branches dealing with the development of international branches and with members based in international campuses.

HE42A.2, LGBT+ Members’ Standing Committee

Add to HESC notes that:

4. LGBT+ staff experience discrimination. Repression is everyday reality for many LGBT+ people globally
5. university practices that compromise LGBT+ rights undermine people's work and lives.

Add to HESC resolves to:

c.    call on Universities to consistently implement LGBT+ equality vigilantly promoting and protecting rights when working with and within other countries no less than in the UK

d.    with LGBT+ MSC produce guidance about working where LGBT+ is illegal and raise awareness of LGBT+ equality and human rights violations internationally.

New paragraph, HE funding, after paragraph 10.1

HE43, Augar review and the future of HE, University of Brighton Grand Parade

Conference notes the widespread belief that the Augar Review will recommend a lower student fee, and denial of funding to students with low Level 3 grade profiles.

Conference believes this:

1.    betrays an ignorance of the disjunction between level 3 and 4 performance, and the nature of higher learning

2.    would set back widening participation, rendering HE a minority privilege

3.    would create funding crises for many HEIs, with job losses and even closure for some

4.    requires public campaigning, joint 51¸£Àû action with SUs and NUS, including 51¸£Àû industrial action, to defend the sector.

Conference instructs the HEC to:

a.    coordinate action by branches fighting job cuts and closures, and seek solidarity action from all branches

b.    position such action as the defence of higher education, and access to it

c.    jointly sponsor a national defence convention with CPU and CDBU and NUS to build support for resistance

d.    organise a national demonstration before any Parliamentary vote.

 

HE44, Halt the changes to DSA, Disabled members standing committee

Disability Student Allowance (DSA) was introduced to provide equality of opportunity for disabled students in higher education. In 2014 the government announced its plans to modernise DSA citing that the current system was outdated.

Since then there have been several controversial changes made to DSA.Ìý These include:ÌýÌý

1.     a compulsory student contribution of £200 DSA equipment a before it will be supplied

2.     retraction of funding for lower classified non-medical support rolesÌýÌý

3.     minimal funding for specialist transcription services

4.     removal of DSA funding for specialist accommodation

5.     reduced computer peripherals and accessories funding.

Conference believes that these cuts have served to be an attack on the most vulnerable of learners as they are unlikely to be able to subsidize the changes.

Conference resolves to:

a.     join with NUS and DPOs to gather evidence of the impact of DSA cuts

b.     step up pressure to end the £200 equipment charge.

 

New paragraph, Governance, after paragraph 10.1

HE45, Improved governance at universities in England and Wales, University of Reading

Conference notes that universities in Scotland are enhancing staff and student representation in their governance following the passing of the recent Act.  No such changes are currently proposed in England and Wales. The decision making bodies at most universities, such as Senate, often pay lip service to accountability by allowing the election of staff members to key committees, but those members are then rendered unaccountable to those who elected them by invoking confidentiality.

Conference resolves:

1.     to instruct the NEC to carry out surveys of all universities in England and Wales to establish which currently elect staff to their key decision-making bodies

2.     to identify which of these permit those staff to be accountable to the wider staff community 

3.     to publish findings on governance in order to support branches who are fighting for better practice.

HE46, Governance crisis in HE, Open University

Conference notes that 2018 and 2019 have seen several Vice-Chancellors and other senior figures in English universities resign under a cloud. 

Conference believes these cases testify to the failure of a model of governance and of HE finance in which universities are run as businesses.

While each case has been different, common features have been a history of bullying and unacceptable pay differentials, and all have caused damage to their institutions and to higher education. Warnings by staff and unions that something was going seriously wrong have been ignored too often.

Conference asks HEC and its appropriate sub-committees to develop proposals for early warning systems as well as pressing for reform of HE governance and finance.

Conference also notes that the law may have been broken in some cases, and that the resignation of one or two senior figures should not prevent prosecution of those responsible.

New paragraph, International staff and students, after paragraph 10.1

HE47, Fight for the rights of international workers and staff,Ìý University of Warwick

HESC notes that:

1.ÌýÌý in light of heightened and rather polarised discussion of policies on immigration in the UK; rising visa fees; increased monitoring by the Home Office, and uncertainty over EU colleagues as Brexit nears, there is widespread concern as to whether universities are supporting international staff and workers

2.ÌýÌý 51¸£Àû activism during the USS strike led to the Home Office adding legal strike action to the list of exceptions to the rule on absences from employment without pay for migrant workers, showing that 51¸£Àû activism can improve the lot of all workers.

HESC resolves to:

a.     issue a public statement on the need to address the issues faced by international staff and workers

b.     encourage all 51¸£Àû branches to create international staff working groups to start addressing issues relating to increased monitoring; rising visa and NHS surcharge costs, and the impact of the EU Referendum.

HE48, Supporting international students threatened with deportation for fee shortfalls, 51¸£Àû Scotland

Conference reaffirms policy on free education and against exorbitant fees to international students.

Conference condemns exclusion from education and deportation of international students unable to pay the full fees.

Conference instructs 51¸£Àû to work with NUS and local student unions to:

1. Ìý obtain data on the numbers of international students excluded and deported/voluntarily repatriated due to fee short falls

2. Ìý draw up an agreement to be negotiated with universities to prevent the exclusion and deportation of international students on grounds of fees.

Conference calls on branches to negotiate the implementation of this policy.

Conference instructs the 51¸£Àû to put pressure on Government to support international students and prevent exclusion and deporting on grounds of fees, including by:

a.     making funding available to cover fee shortfalls.

b.     putting pressure on universities to sign agreements not to exclude students with fee shortfalls.

 

2.2ÌýÌýÌýÌý Conference adopted the report of the Higher Education Committee to Congress (pages 75 – 82) unanimously and the Chair brought Conference to a close at 18:00