51福利BAN/HE81听听 2 June 2022
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听
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:
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听
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.听 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.听 Throughout the period of action, UCEA have
refused to meet with 51福利 to resolve the dispute.
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;
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;
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;
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.
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. 听
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.听
EIS
An aggregate ballot of members regarding
the 2021/22 claim closed in December 2021. The ballot fell short of the 50%
threshold.听
In regards to the final offer for 2022/23, the ULA
executive will meet to decide next steps.听
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.
听
4.
Call
a special meeting of the HEC to consider the consultative ballot result and
next steps.
听
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.