51福利

Link to homepage

51福利BAN/HE81听听 2 June 2022

University and College Union
Higher Education
Branch Action Note

To听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听听 HE Branch and local association secretaries, branch chairs and presidents.

Topic听听听听听听听听听听听听听听 National Negotiators鈥 Report to the Higher Education Sector Conference, 2 June 2022.

Action听听听听听听听听听听听听听 To consider the national negotiators report and recommendations and circulate to members.

Summary 听听听听听听听 This Branch Action Note provides the negotiators report on the actions in the Four Fights dispute over the 2021/22 dispute, the joint union claim for 2022/23, the UCEA final offer, the position of the other HE unions, the national negotiators commentary and concludes with a number of recommendations. 听听听听听听

Contact听听听听听听听听听听听 Paul Bridge, Head of Higher Education

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Please find attached the HE National Negotiators鈥 Report to the Higher Education Sector Conference 2 June 2022, which appears as motion HE4 on the Conference Agenda.

 

Paul Bridge, 51福利 Head of Higher Education

 

 


National Negotiators鈥 Report to the Higher Education Sector Conference, 2 June 2022

1.    Introduction

2.    Action on Four Fights

3.    Joint Trade Union Claim 2022/23 and final offer

4.    Position of the other Unions

5.    National Negotiators Commentary

6.    Recommendations

 

1. Introduction

1.1听听听听听 The UCEA final offer last year of 1.5% on pay and limited remit working groups on the three other elements of the four fights campaign, provided the backdrop to yet another frustrating negotiating round. UCEA refused to move during dispute talks last summer and 51福利 moved to set up disputes and then ballot members alongside those in the USS dispute following the decisions made at a Special HE sector conference in September 2021. Members and branches were regularly updated with developments:

/he2021

The national negotiators report to sector conference in May 2021 can be found here:

/media/11531/51福利BANHE76/pdf/51福利BANHE76_-_May2021_002_1.pdf

 

2. Action on Four Fights

2.1 The HE sector conference in June 2021 resolved to reject the UCEA final offer and move to ballot members over the 2021/22 claim, with a focus on the Four Fights demands. A Special HESC was held in September and resolved a number of steps with regards to the campaign and ballot.

 

Following the failure of UCEA to improve their final offer during dispute talks, 51福利 set up trade disputes and then launched a disaggregated statutory ballot of members in 146 institutions in October. Members in USS were also balloted at the same time.

The union achieved an impressive set of results; in Four Fights 58 of 146 branches achieved or bettered the 50% ballot threshold. 70% of members voted for strike action and 85% for ASOS. 39 branches achieved at least 40% or greater turnout. The aggregate turnout was 51%. The results showed an improving trend in the number of Post-92 branches securing a ballot mandate.

However, a majority of branches were unable to secure a mandate for action on Four Fights.

2.2 HEC met in November and called three days of strike action in both disputes before Christmas. The national negotiators wrote to UCEA at this time calling for dispute talks. HEC approved the automatic re-ballot in both disputes where the ballot turnout was above 40%. The ballot opened in December and closed mid-January. 12 branches secured a mandate, of which 9 joined the Four Fights dispute. HEC agreed to elect an ASOS subcommittee which was tasked with developing an effective ASOS action plan. Branch Delegate Meetings also took place.

 

2.3 In January 2022, HEC agreed to escalate ASOS to include all the sanctions bar a marking and assessment boycott. HEC also called for further strike action with the precise dates delegated to the HE officers to agree. 10 days of strike action took place during February and March.

2.4 In April, the results of the re-ballots were announced. The four fights ballot results now mean that 36 branches achieved a 50% plus turnout and a yes vote for action. Unfortunately, fewer members voted in these ballots and the aggregate turnout was less than 50%. When Queens Belfast and Ulster and Queen Mary London are added, 39 branches are in a position to take further action.

2.5 The results are mixed but show that members remain determined. The results also show that the four core demands in the campaign are as important to members as they have always been.

2.6 In line with the decisions made at the two Special HE sector conferences in April, 51福利 served notice of a continuous marking and assessment boycott on employers where there is a mandate for action.The marking and assessment boycott comes into effect on 23 May.

2.7 The HE officers agreed new arrangements for the Fighting Fund to support the action and 51福利 has encouraged a range of fund-raising activities within and outside of the union.Throughout the period of action, UCEA have refused to meet with 51福利 to resolve the dispute.

/fightingfund

 

3. Higher Education Joint Trade Union Claim 2022/23

3.1 This negotiating round took place against a cost-of-living crisis and increasing fuel bills. The ongoing and predicted rise in inflation will bring into sharp focus the continued decline on the wages of HE staff. In addition, staff will face a rise in National Insurance contributions from April 2022 of 1.25% meaning a cut in take-home pay will already have been implemented before the next pay rise is due to be implemented in August.

3.2 The Joint HE trade union claim was submitted to UCEA on 23 March 2022.

1.    A pay uplift that is, at least, inflation (RPI) plus 2%, on all pay points, to keep up with the cost of living and to catch up with pay lost over previous years;

2.    A minimum wage of 拢12 per hour for all;

3.    An increase in all pay-related allowances including London weighting;

4.    For all universities to become Living Wage Foundation accredited employers ensuring that outsourced workers receive, at least, the relevant Living Wage Foundation rate of pay;

5.    An agreement to jointly undertake a fundamental review of the New JNCHES HE pay spine to be concluded by 2024. The remit to include: the number of pay points; addressing low pay and the ways in which grades at lower levels have been impacted in recent years; additional head room at the top of the scale, ensuring fair and equitable differentials between pay points; ensuring incremental grades at all levels; addressing the grade structure across the pay spine. This review should follow the principles set out in the National Framework Agreement.

6.    For the standard weekly full-time contract of employment to be 35 hours per week at all higher education institutions with no loss of pay;

7.    New JNCHES to establish working group/s to look at career development, progression issues and training opportunities in higher education for staff in all grades;

8.    Ending pay injustice 鈥 meaningful, agreed action to tackle the ethnic, gender and disability pay gap; additionally, to take an intersectional approach to the ways in which intersectionality and protected characteristics impact on pay equality;

9.    Agreeing a framework to eliminate precarious employment practises and casualised contracts, including zero hours contracts, from higher education; converting hourly paid staff onto fractional contracts; agreeing national guidance to end the outsourcing of support services in higher education and to bring staff into in-house employment;

10. Meaningful, agreed action to address excessive workloads and unpaid work; action to address the impact that excessive workloads are having on workforce stress and mental ill-health; that workload models and planning take into account COVID pandemic related changes in working practices;

11. To establish the Scottish sub-committee of New JNCHES as set out under the New JNCHES agreement;

12. A UK level higher education redeployment facility for those whose jobs are at risk of redundancy.

 

3.3 The three negotiating meetings took place on Wednesday 30 March, Monday 25 April and Thursday 5 May.

3.4 Branches were regularly updated with developments throughout the negotiations, which can be found here;

/he2022

3.5 Following the first meeting on 30 March, where UCEA made no offer at all, the joint unions agreed and issued a statement criticising the employers for not taking the negotiations seriously; /media/12551/JNCHES-negotiations-2022-23-joint-union-statement-4-April-2022/pdf/TUJointStatement-JNCHES_4Apr22.pdf

3.6 Prior to the second meeting, UCEA made an opening offer in writing;

/media/12808/JNCHES-negotiations-2022-23-UCEA-opening-offer/pdf/UCEA_Offer_letter_-_21_April_2022.pdf

3.7 At the second meeting, the employers increased their opening pay offer by another 0.15%. No meaningful progress was made on the pay related and equality demands. The joint unions responded by issuing a statement which said 'in the context of the real suffering we know our members are currently experiencing, we found this to be a woefully inadequate response.'

3.8 The joint statement can be found here;

/media/12802/JNCHES-negotiations-2022-23-joint-union-statement-26-April-2022/pdf/TU_joint_statement_after_second_meeting_250422.pdf

3.9 In advance of the final meeting on 5 May, the joint trade unions wrote to Vice Chancellors and Principals asking them to contact UCEA and ensure that a 'serious offer' which addresses the trade unions' claim must now be made.

/media/12809/JNCHES-negotiations-2022-23-joint-union-letter-29-April-2022/pdf/Joint_TUs_letter_to_VCs_and_Principals_2904221.pdf

3.10 At the final meeting, UCEA again marginally improved the headline pay offer to 3% with a bottom loading that provides for a similar increase for the lowest paid when the legal uplifts relating to the national minimum wage are deducted.

/media/12821/UCEA-final-pay-offer-2022-23-May-22/pdf/UCEA_final_offer_letter_-_9_May_2022.pdf

3.11 The employers have gone a bit further in the language and intent behind the intersectional pay working group offer and the same with wellbeing and mental health, where recommendations and best practice examples are to be a highlighted feature of the task and finish groups. On contract insecurity the focus is again recommendations and expectations and the suggestion of joint work on data on GTAs. No specific offer to do the same with PGRs, and nothing meaningful on zero hours.

3.12 The career development work is restated from the opening offer. The pay spine joint work is different in that UCEA are clearly signalling if a union or unions accept or notes this offer (e.g. takes no action) then they would be prepared to start work with that union. There is an urgency to start this work without applying preconditions.

3.13 Overall the final offer falls well short on pay and is some way off JNCHES establishing joint frameworks and minimum standards for the sector.

 

4. The position of the other unions

Unison

 

Unison balloted branches on an opt in disaggregate basis in regards to a dispute on pay relating to the joint union claim for 2021/22 and USS, where the employers has Unison members in the pension scheme. 10 branches achieved a mandate for action and Unison members have taking coordinated action in both disputes with their local 51福利 branch.

In regards to the 2022/23 final offer, Unison are currently consulting members.

 

Unite

Unite conducted a branch by branch consultative ballot on the 2021/22 claim. Around 10 branches are now involved in a statutory disaggregated ballot, at the time of writing this report no action has been called.

In regards to the 2022/23 final offer, Unite are consulting branches on next steps.

 

GMB

A consultative member ballot in regards to the 2021/22 claim took place in March. No decision on next steps has been made at the time of writing this report.

EIS

An aggregate ballot of members regarding the 2021/22 claim closed in December 2021. The ballot fell short of the 50% threshold.

In regards to the final offer for 2022/23, the ULA executive will meet to decide next steps.

 

5. National Negotiators鈥 commentary

5.1 The 2022-23 negotiating round directly follows one of the hardest periods in the history of Higher Education in the UK, made so not only by external circumstances, but more damagingly, by the lack of response of our employers, individually and collectively, to our pay and equalities claim. Our joint unions (EIS, GMB, 51福利, UNISON and UNITE) claim is for a pay adjustment of, at least, inflation (RPI) plus 2%. 

5.2 Since 2009, the employers have consistently imposed below inflation 鈥榠ncreases鈥 to our pay. Using 51福利鈥檚 preferred measure of inflation (RPI), pay has decreased by 19.7% since 2009. Even using the employers鈥 preferred measure of inflation (CPI), they acknowledge that pay has declined by more than nearly 10% in the last 13 years. For many staff across the sector, this is the equivalent of demotion by a whole pay grade. Notably, between June and October 2020, the employer imposed an unprecedented 0% on the entire sector, while individual HEIs subjected staff to threats of 鈥榝ire and rehire鈥; ended fixed-term contracts in staggering numbers, and pushed remaining staff to work longer hours, in harder conditions, with less support. Recent research by 51福利 indicates that two thirds of university staff are considering leaving the sector because of worsening pay and conditions alongside attacks on pensions.  

5.3 Employers have previously cited uncertainty over Brexit; costs associated with the pandemic, and home and international student numbers to justify these decisions. When it became clear that, far from falling by 2%, student enrolment numbers increased across the sector by 9% (the largest increase in a single year since 2010), the lifting of the government cap on recruitment led a subset of institutions to substantially over-recruit, harming staff at both their own institutions and other institutions in the process.  The concomitant increase  in workloads has led to some of the worst working conditions ever in HE, with over half of respondents to a 51福利 survey showing probable signs of depression, and 8 in 10 describing the need to work intensively. 

5.4 Since 2020, we have seen a wave of restructures and threatened redundancies across the sector. These have often targeted staff in specific disciplines or research areas and been rationalised with reference to highly questionable 鈥渂usiness cases鈥. In some HEIs subsidiary companies have been used as a mechanism to introduce less favourable conditions for new employees.

5.5 Against this backdrop, UCEA鈥檚 failure to bring an offer to the first meeting in the 2022/23 pay round is shameful, demonstrating a contempt for workers whose efforts have kept our sector going throughout the pandemic. This 鈥榥on鈥 offer must be seen in the context of rising fuel and living costs, an increase in national insurance contributions and the highest inflation rate for thirty years. Many workers in our sector are facing significant hardship. UCEA Chief Executive Raj Jethwa has questioned whether there is any future for collective pay bargaining in HE, and this attitude is clearly reflected in UCEA鈥檚 recent attitude towards negotiations.

5.6 Employers routinely claim that financial uncertainty means that they cannot offer adequate pay rises. However, examination of university accounts shows that, for many years, institutions have had sufficient resources to respond constructively to our pay and equalities claim; they have instead chosen to invest this money in capital projects and other areas, some of which have been mismanaged at an eye watering cost.

5.7 The failure of UCEA to engage seriously with the campus trade unions in national JNCHES is also indicative of their (lack of) financial commitment to addressing the pay-related elements of the claim. Taking workload as an example, we have robust evidence that workload-related stress is a critical issue with common causes and consequences across the sector. Addressing workload requires streamlining processes and increased staffing, and, therefore, a greater call on the pay bill. Employers have shown themselves to be resistant to this, preferring student: staff ratios to increase. The joint trade unions have consistently made it clear that any real commitment to staff 鈥榳ellbeing鈥 must include a commitment to healthier workload standards, which must be comparable between institutions. We repeatedly indicated a direct willingness to engage with UCEA on this issue, not only providing them with concrete proposals for what such a sector-wide framework might consist of, but repeatedly asking what they could offer beyond working groups, which have previously been shown to be ineffectual.

5.8 UCEA鈥檚 rhetoric of 鈥榙ifferent institutions needing individual approaches to workload and job security鈥 is a janus-faced strategy of obfuscation, under which they avoid any commitment to improvement of staff working conditions at a sector-wide level, whilst moving to actively worsen conditions in strikingly similar ways at institutions across the sector. We cannot accept this logic because it represents a race to the bottom: individual branches are able to make gains in one pay-related area, but other branches are left behind and their example is then used to limit gains in the more successful branches. As we have seen, employers often behave identically when they attack our pay, conditions, and jobs at local level, but retreat behind claims of "institutional autonomy" whenever we ask for coordinated action across the sector on non-pay issues. If UCEA is not to indulge some HEIs in a race to the bottom, it can mandate proper standards for its members.

5.9 It remains our belief that the creation of a sector-wide framework of expectations of employers鈥 behaviours with respect to staff workload, contract security, and pay equality would engender the most substantial and concrete improvement of staff working conditions in this sector in recent history. As with any significant gain, however, it would require commitment including campaigning and organising at a collective UK level, coordinated work with the other campus trade unions, and coordinated individual campaigns across branches.

 

6. Recommendations 

 

The National Negotiators recommend that 51福利:

 

1.    Put the UCEA's final offer for 2022/23 negotiating round to members in a consultative e-ballot. The e-ballot will include not only the option to accept or reject the employers鈥 final offer, but also to 鈥榥ote鈥 it (neither accept nor reject). 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.    Organise a series of regional and devolved nation branch briefings to support the consultation.

 

3.    The e-ballot to take place as soon as possible following this HE sector conference.

 

 

4.    Call a special meeting of the HEC to consider the consultative ballot result and next steps.   

 

5.    Continue to support branches lodging and negotiating local claims on gender pay, precarious contracts and workload.

 

 

Paul Bridge
Head of Higher Education

 

ACTION REQUIRED: branches are asked to consider the report and recommendations and circulate to members.