Notice of trade dispute over USS pensions

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

A letter establishing a trade dispute over USS pensions has been sent today (7 June 2019) to every institution the scheme covers, including University of Leeds, as called for by UCU branches at the UCU Higher Education Sector Conference on Sunday 26 May (motion L5 (amended)).

The letter gives universities until 19 June to inform UCU that they will not be imposing any pension benefit cuts or increasing our pension contributions. The UCU’s position of ‘no detriment’ is based on there being no genuine need for any detriment, as the joint expert panel set up by the employers and the union confirmed.

We’d recommend all members read the full text of the letter below. (For more details about the dispute see our pensions page.)

Dear Vice Chancellor

You will be aware that early last year UCU members took part in 14 days of industrial action, which resulted in UUK withdrawing proposals to change USS from a hybrid defined benefit pension scheme into a defined contribution pension scheme.

UCU members later voted to suspend the action and set up the Joint Expert Panel (JEP) in response to an offer from UUK. 

The JEP reported in September 2018 and made a number of recommendations for the conclusion of the 2017 valuation. If implemented, these recommendations would also replace the Rule 76 contribution increases relating to the 2017 valuation which were triggered by USS while the JEP was still producing its report. The Rule 76 increases are being implemented in three instalments, from April 2019 until April 2020, when combined contributions would rise to 35.6%. The Rule 76 changes are based on the retention of the current levels of pension benefits, minus the 1% match, which has already been removed.

Both UCU and UUK welcomed the JEP report as the basis for negotiations. Initially, if applied to the 2017 valuation, the JEP’s proposals would have entailed a combined contribution level of 29.2% with no changes to pension benefits. However subsequent modelling by USS, based on changed market circumstances, showed that implementing the JEP in full would actually result in combined contributions no higher than 26%, or 8% for members.

However USS has not accepted some of the key recommendations in the JEP report. Instead, it has proposed replacing the 2017 Rule 76 increases with a new 2018 valuation that still involves contribution rates far above 26%. 

USS’s insistence on higher contributions is partly based on external pressure from The Pensions Regulator (TPR). TPR has expressed views on the levels of risk and the strength of the employers’ covenant, and USS has accepted these views rather than seeking to challenge them. This is despite the fact that both UCU and UUK’s professional actuarial advisers consider a valuation based on the JEP to be compliant with regulations, and despite the fact that the JEP has heavily criticised TPR’s role in the valuation process. However, USS has not worked to put the case for the JEP to TPR.

Instead, after months of drawn-out negotiations and unexplained delays, USS has given employers three options for finalising the 2018 valuation. The three options do not involve changes to pension benefits. However, all involve higher rates than would be the case if USS adopted the JEP’s recommendations.

The three options are now subject to a further UUK consultation and I consider each in turn:

Option 1: contributions of 33.7% (23% for employers and 10.7% for employees), to apply from April 2020;

Option 2: contributions of 29.7% – but with a mechanism for contingent contributions of three 2% increases (an additional 6%), split 65:35 between employers and members, to be added to starting contributions of 20.4% and 9.3% respectively; and

Option 3: contributions of 30.7%(21.1% for employers and 9.6% for employees) to apply from October 2019, with another valuation in 2020. Should no agreement on the contribution rate from the 2020 valuation be implemented before October 2021, the contribution rate would rise to 34.7% in October 2021.

UCU has a clear policy position of ‘No Detriment’ established by the union’s conferences. This policy means no increases in contributions and no cuts to pension benefits. Unlike a 2018 valuation informed by the JEP’s recommendations, all three of USS’s proposed options fail the test of ‘No Detriment’.

Members waited for the JEP report to be issued and implemented, while USS went ahead and scheduled massive contribution increases based on its controversial 2017 valuation. The JEP report called that valuation’s integrity into question. Other developments have made USS’s position even more questionable. These include Sam Marsh and First Actuarial’ s demonstrations that USS has not properly justified its ‘de-risking’ strategy; USS’s misrepresentation of the Regulator’s methods for evaluating risk; and the extraordinary recent accusation by statistician and USS Trustee board member, Professor Jane Hutton, that she has been denied access to important information and that the deficit may have been ‘substantially over-estimated’.

Members have trusted employers to work to replace the 2017 increases with a fair outcome, but it has become clear that they will not do so. Employers have a lot of influence over the valuation process, but they have allowed USS to dismiss the JEP’s most important recommendations, they have not pressed USS to engage properly with the Regulator, and, when other developments have called USS’s position into question, they have taken USS’s side.

UCU is running out of patience. At the UCU HE Sector Conference on 26 May 2019, delegates voted overwhelmingly to commence a dispute with USS employers and to move to a statutory ballot for industrial action in September.

I am now writing to seek your confirmation on behalf of your Institution that you will not impose any benefit cuts and/or contribution increases, including contingent contributions and default contribution rates for future valuations, on members from October 2019 onwards. This includes any and all increases over the rate of 26% (8% for members) which was established prior to the 2017 valuation. You must instruct your representatives on the Employers’ Pension Forum (EPF) and the UUK nominees on the JNC not to introduce, comply with, or vote for any proposals that would involve such cuts and/or increases for members; and, failing that, you must cover any scheduled increases in full until USS’s governance and valuation methods and assumptions have been overhauled.

If I do not have your affirmative response by 19 June 2019, UCU will consider a trade dispute to exist between your Institution and your employees/our members regarding this matter.

It is possible to avoid a damaging dispute and strike action in the autumn of 2019, and potentially thereafter in 2020. All you need to do is commit to uphold the level of contributions no higher than 26% (8% for members). You also agree to instruct your representatives on the Employers’ Pension Forum (EPF) and the UUK nominees on the JNC not to introduce, comply with, or vote for any proposals that would involve such cuts and/or increases for members; and, failing that, you must cover any increases in full that are needed to maintain current benefits until USS’s governance and valuation methods and assumptions have been overhauled.

I look forward to hearing from you no later than 19 June 2019 with your affirmative response as set out above.

Yours sincerely

Paul Bridge
UCU Head of Higher Education

Discussion boards for in-module feedback

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

You may have seen on Campusweb the announcement of the introduction, in 2019/20, of discussion boards within modules in Minerva to provide in-course feedback – you can find the announcement here: https://www.leeds.ac.uk/forstaff/news/article/6714/student_voice_enhancing_learning_and_teaching

It’s particularly important to emphasise that this initiative is about the provision of feedback as to the running of the course and the student experience, not for questions about module content (which I know many of us already use Minerva discussion boards for, sometimes making good use of anonymity). 

UCU was not consulted on this. We have a number of concerns which we have raised with University management.

 1. Understanding how a module is going from a student point of view is crucial. There are many ways of doing this, and colleagues around the university will have their own methods, from mid-module feedback forms, to focus groups, to in-class methods, to discussion boards (anonymous and otherwise). The appropriate mechanism will vary from discipline to discipline and according to class size and learning approach, and is a core issue of pedagogy, not an administrative add-on. We understand that this discussion board method has been piloted but we have not been told anything about how and where that pilot was carried out, and what the outcome was. We are extremely disappointed that more consultation has not been carried out amongst tea​ching staff to identify the good practice which we know is already in existence around the university. We are professionals, with much expertise and experience in these matters, and deserve better than having our pedagogies dictated to us.

2. The vast majority of our students, we know, would engage with this process, if they did so at all, in a constructive and respectful way. However, we all have experience of that very small minority of responses to anonymous feedback exercises which are non-constructive, hostile and abusive, ranging from critical comments about someone’s accent, dress sense or behaviour through to comments which are clearly sexist, racist and homophobic. These comments are often about staff, but can also be about students.  We also have experience of comments that are simply criticisms of the module content, particularly when we teach through perspectives such as feminist, race, queer or social justice. We believe that requiring staff, particularly staff with protected characteristics and those who are casualised and thus more vulnerable, to read such comments and engage with them (even when engagement is limited to removing the comments and reporting them for further investigation) creates a hostile or humiliating  work environment which our employer, the University, has a legal obligation to prevent. We note in particular that, unlike anonymous module evaluation forms, these comments would be visible to all students and staff on the module, until they could be removed. We also worry about the impact that such comments might have on junior and casualised staff, both in terms of their mental health and in terms of their future employment prospects, and about the impact of comments aimed at particular groups of students on those students and others. 

3. Dealing with this discussion board, and responding within 5 working days (and it is not clear whether this includes university vacation time, staff leave, or time when staff are away on research or University business) creates workload, particularly given the importance of identifying and removing inappropriate or abusive comments. The faculty taught student education committee paper tells us this should be an additional method of feedback and thus additional workload. We would like to know how this is justified and, in particular, what we should stop doing in order to make time for this.

4. In particular, the faculty taught student education committee paper states that students should be told that “the discussion board should only be used when other mechanisms to provide feedback on the student experience have been impossible.” We would like to understand more clearly what sorts of circumstances this envisages- when is it considered that other mechanisms would become impossible? We would also like to understand what the role of management would be in responding to these comments, and would particularly need a clear reassurance that they could under no circumstances be used as a foundation for disciplinary action.

We understand that this is to be discussed in faculty taught student education committees next week and are asking all members who are members of faculty taught student education committees to raise these concerns. We will continue, with your support, to lobby the University to drop this damaging idea. Your feedback and comments would be really helpful in supporting us to demonstrate the huge problems with this approach, and the harm that we think it could cause to staff, students and staff-student relations.

Casework drop-in session

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Our casework drop-ins are the first Wednesday of each month.

This Wednesday, 5 June, the casework drop-in session is 12.30pm – 2.30pm, in 7.52 EC Stoner Building.

For serious matters where you will definitely need your own caseworker, don’t wait for a casework drop-in session, email ucu@leeds.ac.uk.

UCU caseworkers can only support UCU members. Please don’t wait till a problem arises before joining the union – we can usually only give full casework support to a member who joined well before a problem arose.

Report on UCU Congress 2019

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

UCU’s annual congress is its supreme policy making body and it met this year over the May Bank Holiday in Harrogate. This report is an attempt to summarise three very full days of intense and important debates on the various areas with which UCU is concerned. Motion numbers are included in brackets for reference: a full account of all motions with decisions can be found here: www.ucu.org.uk/Congress2019

Congress business is ordered according to the business of various committees: equality; education; recruitment, organising and campaigning (ROC) and strategy and finance. There was a further section on democracy and rule changes. On the second day of congress, delegates divide into a Higher Education Sector Conference and a Further Education Sector Conference. The agenda was very busy indeed. As a result, some motions could not be debated. Those relating to rule changes will be sent to the special Democracy Conference to be held in November; the rest are remitted to the National Executive Committee (NEC) for decision.

Delegates from LeedsLeeds University UCU sent five branch delegates to Congress: Arunima Bhattacharya; Dima Chami, Laura Loyola, Megan Povey and Chloe Wallace. In addition, Lesley McGorrigan attended as delegate from the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Committee, and Vicky Blake attended as a member of NEC (and Vice-President elect!). The branch did not formally mandate delegates to vote in any particular way on any motions.  The vast majority of motions that were voted on passed unanimously or overwhelmingly. On those which were tighter, branch delegates tried to vote in line with existing branch policy and, mostly, voted together; this report states how we voted in such cases.

The report that follows is a detailed account of what was decided, in order to give members a clear sense of the range and depth of issues discussed. Highlights for us included:

  • Inclusion for the first time of migration status as a protected characteristic under UCU structures, with the creation of a Migrant Member Standing Group, and two migrant members places on NEC, and a commitment from UCU to actively campaign on behalf of migrant members;
  • A range of motions making it clear that UCU is placing itself squarely at the forefront of the fight against harassment and hate speech and forces hostile to the diversity which is our strength;
  • Emphasis throughout on working with students and other education unions to fight the growing threat that is the climate emergency;
  • The extent to which the anti-casualisation campaigns are now front and centre of all of our work on issues such as pay, workload, mental health;
  • The reinvigoration of the Academic-Related and Professional Services Services Staff committee, ensuring the position of those staff are fully included within campaign and negotiation
  • Agreement to ballot in the autumn on the issues of precarious employment, pay inequality, workload and salary erosion;
  • Agreement to ballot in the autumn if employers refuse to pay all the additional pension contributions demanded by USS, as this would contravene our no detriment position, combined with a fighting attitude against the behaviour of the USS Trustees, including supporting Professor Jane Hutton, who has recused herself from the trustee board after criticising the valuation methodology.

Detailed report on sections of Congress

Equality

Congress passed a range of important motions on fighting harassment in learning spaces (1); fighting for better mental health support, particularly for reps (2) and LGBT+ staff and students (3); opposing hate speech on our campuses and the rise of the far-right (4, 5, 6, L1); and supporting citizenship rights and opposing deportations (7, 8).

Motion 9 was Leeds UCU’s first motion, joined with a motion from the University of Manchester, calling UCU to recognise migrant status as a protected characteristic under UCU equality structures, make necessary rule changes to achieve this and to ensure that protection of migrant members is a priority for UCU. Proposed eloquently by Dima Chami, it was carried unanimously (with a friendly amendment), as was Motion 10, from the University of Cambridge, which requires UCU to negotiate nationally for universities to provide financial and HR support for migrant workers.

After lunch, Congress went on to pass motions demanding accessibility for disabled people, both within the union and outside of it (13) and to push employers to provide better data about LGBT+ employees in the sector (14). We also passed motions in support of the Stansted 15 (11) against the deportation of Bamidele Chika Agbakuribe, a blind Nigerian student at the University of Dundee (12), and in support of Feysi Ismail who has been employed on fixed term contracts at SOAS since 2011 and is being refused a permanent contract (L2), and we sent solidarity to the National Union of Journalists on the death of Lyra McKee, as well as approving a donation to her legacy fund.  Motion 17 on sexual harassment in the union caused some debate and two points were removed from the motion and remitted. Point a, which would require UCU to expel from membership members found guilty of sexual harassment, needed, it was thought, further thinking, given the way disciplinary procedures can be used against our members (see motion HE29). Point c, requiring us to campaign for employers to refer sexual harassment cases to the police, needs rewording to clarify the need for survivors’ consent in this.

The rest of the motions were timed out, including motions 20 and 21, on gender identity after the Gender Recognition Act, and on dialogue on gender identity and diversity to which Leeds UCU has proposed amendments.

Education

Congress called on UCU to focus on challenging managerialism in our schools and colleges (24), to support the development of National Education Service which promotes open and critical thinking (25), to sign the FSFE Public Money Public Code declaration on open software in education (26); and for UCU to continue to develop negotiating guidance on lecture capture (27). We also want to support school strikes and student organising around climate change, and call on our institutions to take measures to move us towards carbon neutrality in 2020, including divestment and reductions and offsets in travel (28). 

The remaining motions were remitted to NEC.

Recruitment, organising and campaigning

Here we discussed many of the practical issues in organising a growing membership who want to campaign on equality, workload, but also on pay. We called on NEC to prioritise support for branches to recruit, organise and campaign, in dispute and out of it (32). We heard from and about those victimised by managements trying to stop us from organising, recruiting and communicating with our members: Tony Brown at UCL (33) and Lee Humber at Ruskin College, Oxford (B18)

We continue to oppose Prevent and the impact that it has on staff and students (34 and 35). There followed strong motions on anti-casualisation – not only challenging and opposing on an individual level (36) but also collective action backed up by industrial action to make the strongest possible case (37, 38), the building of national networks and awareness raising, particularly of the intersectional aspects of casualisation, including equal pay (39, 41) and the naming and shaming of companies profiting from casualisation in education (40). We heard about the issues faced by workers at private pathway providers such as Study Group, and passed unanimously a motion calling for organising amongst those workers (B6)

We called for a campaign against anti-Trade Union laws which make it harder for us to back up our positions with strong strike action (42, 43) and for improved organising training accessible to all members, funding for hubs to support smaller branches in particular (45) and a reps network to support reps who can feel isolated dealing with highly stressful confidential situations as part of their voluntary union activism (49). We called for environmental organising around the climate emergency; carbon neutrality, food waste and just transition (46, 47, 48), and for campaigning in defence of the welfare state (50) and to adequately fund social care (52).

We instructed UCU to commission critical accounting reviews and challenge in particular breaches of agreements driven by financialised motivations, drawing particular attention to the situation of Academic Related and Professional Services staff (ARPS), whose national agreement has never been implemented by HEIs (51). We supported the trade union Call It Out Campaign against bigotry, sectarianism and anti-Irish racism (L3) and the campaign to Save Stourbridge College (L7).

Higher Education Sector Conference

 This part of Congress includes delegates from Higher Education only (there is a parallel Further Education Conference): we discussed the pay claim, pensions disputes and a range of other issues that affect our sector.

Pay

The first motion, HE1, asked us to approve the recommendations of the national negotiators on pay. Somewhat unusually, this was lost. The reason for this centred around the recommendation for a consultative e-ballot on the employers’ offer, followed, if members reject the offer that way, by a statutory postal ballot. It was argued that over-balloting is a problem in getting the vote out for statutory ballots, both because of the confusion it causes for members and the extra work it creates for officers in branches – it would be better to move immediately to a statutory ballot. Leeds University UCU delegates, noting that our branch had sent an amendment to a motion to the November 2018 HESC on pay calling for HEC to investigate these kinds of risks of consultative ballots, voted against the report.

A motion concerning multi-year pay negotiations and settlements was remitted to HEC (HE2) and another more complex one fell (HE3). The amendments to HE3 were voted in parts: Leeds University delegates voted in different ways on (i) of HE3A1, on going back to disaggregated ballots, as there is no clear branch view. They voted in favour of (ii) and (iii) of the same amendment. All parts of this amendment passed, meaning that the motion became one that required a return to disaggregated ballots. They also voted in favour of amendment HE3A.2 to remove the mandate for a multi-year claim, believing in particular that multi-year claims do not always work effectively for casualised staff. Even as amended, however, Leeds University delegates voted against HE3, on the basis that, on the issues of aggregated/disaggregated ballots and multi-year claims, it is important not to tie the hands of negotiators or HEC.

HE4, which was carried, called for campaigning to start now for a pay ballot in the autumn. In all of the debates on pay, the centrality of equality and anti-casualisation elements was made clear.

USS pensions

HE5 asked us to approve the recommendations of the Superannuation Working Group. The key question was whether the report was strong enough and whether we should be taking action now. Conference voted to reject recommendations 3, 4 and 5, on the grounds that they did not take a strong enough position in support of No Detriment (which is existing policy). Leeds University delegates voted to reject these recommendations. Once they were excluded, the report was carried.

Further, Conference called on employers to pick up any additional contributions, including contingent contributions and resolved to enter into dispute immediately if they do not do so, with Lesley McGorrigan making a particularly powerful contribution to the debate (HE6). We called for the resignation of Bill Galvin and resolved to mount a confident political campaign in defence of USS and against our employers using increased pension contributions to damage research projects. (HE7) We resolved not to accept any increase in member contributions, because there is no deficit (HE8).

HE9, calling for UCU to remain open to making a legal challenge against USS, was passed unanimously with a friendly amendment, adding more concrete instructions, from Leeds University UCU, moved by Chloe Wallace. L5 resolved that we have no confidence in the board of trustees and resolved, by an amendment, to instruct HEC to ballot for strike action in September if UUK refused to confirm by 1st June that they will not impose contribution increases. This was carried overwhelmingly. In a similar vein, HE10 called on UUK to join us in resisting contribution increases and further detriment. L6 offered strong support to Jane Hutton, the USS Trustee who has whistleblown with regard to the 2017 USS valuation, and seek advice on whether UCU trustees can remove themselves from the Trustee board until her concerns are addressed. L8 addressed Trinity College Cambridge’s decision to withdraw from USS and calls on staff to refuse to accept engagements and voluntary or discretionary roles at Trinity until they reverse their decision.

HE11 and HE12 concerned the Teachers Pension Scheme, on which Leeds delegates did not vote as we are not members of that scheme. These important motions called for campaigning against increased charges in this scheme, which is used in the Post ’92 sector and in FE.

Anti-casualisation, equality and workload

We then moved on to consider work on anti-casualisation, calling on UCU to explore the use of collective agreements to tackle casualization (HE13) and campaigning against short term contracts (HE14) and a national agreement against contracts shorter than 12 months (HE15). Vicky Blake moved a supportive amendment to include ARPS staff in HE 14 and Dima Chami spoke to highlight the particularly detrimental impact of short term contracts on migrant staff. HE15 called for post-contract support for precariously employed academics and for a boycott of Senate House to support of outsourced cleaning, catering and security staff.

A number of motions on equality issues followed, on addressing the gender pay gap (HE17), the race pay gap (HE18), highlighting and campaigning against workplace racism (HE19); the risk of restructures to LGBT+ studies and staff (HE20); challenging far right activity on campus (HE21); surveying LGBT+ colleagues’ confidence in universities when challenging hate speech; and developing a plan to support staff and students involved in cases of sexual harassment.

We moved on to workload, emphasising in particular the fact that workload is a health and safety issue (HE24). We resolved to work for the adoption of reasonable workload models (HE25) and to research workload planning more generally (HE26), acknowledging in debate that workload models are not the whole answer to the problem of workload. We recognise that workload stress is often a result of cuts and redundancies (HE27) and that it is a particular issue for disabled members and those with caring responsibilities (HE28).

HE29 drew our attention to the disproportionate overuse of disciplinary procedures against minority and protected groups, and we resolved to keep data and challenge this practice where it arises. We discussed our increasing concern about the use of lecture capture for disciplinary purposes in particular (HE30) and resolved to explore a national campaign to take back control of module questionnaires so that they are not used in inappropriate ways (HE31).

HE32, on academic freedom to discuss sex and gender, was a difficult debate. Leeds University delegates note that the wording of the motion repeats existing policy, but believe that the motion was brought in order to conflate the robust challenge of views on sex and gender identity with abuse of those holding certain views, and to suggest that the former, as well as the latter, constitutes a restriction on academic freedom. We believe that academic freedom does not extend to the right to denying the right to identity of our trans comrades and colleagues. The motion was amended by the LGBT+ committee to moderate it and Megan Povey moved the amendments. Leeds delegates voted in favour of both amendments but then voted against the amended motion, on the grounds that amendments did not make it clear that a space where transphobic views are permitted is not, by definition, a ‘safe space’. The motion fell.

Conference went on to instruct HEC to campaign for better- resourced student counselling services (HE33) and to launch a #loveourARPS campaign to ensure that academic-related and professional services staff are included in UCU campaigning, including specific campaigns on role profiles and CPD.

Finally, we discussed REF, resolving to campaign against the use of REF criteria for performance management, to demand that outputs from staff made redundant be ineligible and ultimately for the abolition of the REF (HE35 and 37) and to produce materials supporting the negotiation of REF codes of practice.

The remainder of the motions were remitted to HEC.

Strategy and Finance

After the appointment of auditors and the formal receipt of financial statements, Congress was asked to consider the proposed budget for 2019-20 and subscription rates. The debate here focused on the gradual move towards more proportionate subscription levels, increasing rates for members on higher incomes and decreasing them for members on lower incomes. Vicky Blake argued strongly against the proposed rates, on the basis that we need to move more quickly towards proportionate subs to make it easier for low paid casualised staff to join the union and be supported, in accordance with existing policy. Leeds University delegates voted against the proposed subs rates on this basis. The motions were carried and proposed subscription rates approved. We resolved to ensure that expenses are paid out promptly and that travel and accommodation should be booked by UCU for delegates directly where possible, using ways that preserve the dignity of low-paid members (57). We called for more efficient membership data management to facilitate our GTVO efforts for future ballots (58).

There followed a range of solidarity motions relating to UCU’s international work, highlighting in particular our solidarity with education unions in Brazil (61) and our support for trade unions involved in protests in Sudan (62). A motion on Venezuela proved more controversial: after a tight vote, on which Leeds University delegates took different positions, paragraph d was excluded on the basis of concerns about the legitimacy and behaviour of the current government of Venezuela. Once this was done, the rest of the motion, deploring US interventionism and economic warfare in Venezuela, was carried, with Leeds University delegates voting in favour. 

An important motion on legal advice, grounded on a sense that the legal services provided through UCU are insufficiently accessible, particularly to casualised staff, was remitted for further consideration as to detail (66). Congress further resolved to challenge the increasingly common employers’ practice of monitoring electronic communications (68), to put in FoI requests to monitor the use of Non-Disclosure agreements (69) and to pay particular attention to their use in race discrimination cases (70).

The remaining motions were remitted to NEC.

Democracy commission and rule changes

This final session began with a report by the Democracy Commission, set up after Congress last year, to look at aspects of UCU’s operation, including recall of the General Secretary and the way in which disputes are organised. This work is ongoing, and whilst some motions came forward here, a Democracy Special Congress will be held in November. The provisional report was adopted by Congress (76)

The first rule change involved a removal of the cap of Congress delegate numbers per branch, to ensure that large or merged branches are sufficiently represented (77). This was uncontroversial. Motion 78, however, was anything but: this motion had the effect of substantially reducing the number of FE Congress delegates. After a protest, where large numbers of delegates from both FE and HE queued to be able to speak against the motion, it was overwhelmingly voted down. Leeds University delegates were proud to support the protest and our comrades in FE.

Congress then voted to reorder the agenda to allow for motions 83-85 to be debated first.

These motions followed from motion 9 and proposed rule changes to reflect in UCU structures the decision to recognise migration status as a protected characteristic. Motion 83 from UEA UCU was moved powerfully by Michael Kyriacou (UEA) and seconded by Dima Chami: it formally adds migration status to the list of characteristics against which UCU will actively oppose harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination. Motions 84 and 85, from Leeds University UCU, were moved by Laura Loyola and seconded by Dave Muritu of the Black Members Standing Committee. They proposed the creation of a Migrant Members Standing Committee and the inclusion of migrant members representatives on NEC. They were carried overwhelmingly; the moving and emotional-charged speeches received the acclaim of Congress and brought much of the hall, not least the Leeds University delegation, to tears.

The final motion debated was 82, a rule change to create a disputes committee for managing disputes, comprised of branch representatives, rather than leaving decision making to NEC.  Branch delegates voted in favour of this, but it narrowly missed the 2/3 majority required for a rule change, amidst concerns that it might be too large to function properly.

All other rule change motions were remitted to the November Democracy Congress, including Leeds University UCU’s motion to fix the problems of quoracy for special conferences.

Why UCU needs a migrant members equality strand

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

UCU University of Leeds UCU is one of several branches with motions calling for a migrant members equality strand in UCU. We urge branches and delegates to UCU Congress to support our motions.

Why is it so important?

Three in every ten staff in UK universities aren’t British (29 per cent). Half of research-only staff (mostly postdocs) are from overseas (47 per cent).

Migrants constitute a large demography within British academia (both in FE and HE) – and even while we make up a considerable proportion of UCU’s membership, our voice is not always heard. During the strikes, we were on the front lines with our colleagues, but our solidarity came at a price: migrant staff who took ‘unlawful’ absence from work for more than 10 days were eligible for having their contracts ended – in other words, if migrants took strike action for more than 10 days, they were at risk of deportation. It took considerable pressure, and very loudly voiced anxieties, from University of Leeds branch and others to bring this to the attention of UCU national officers who thankfully took this matter seriously. The right to strike is a human right, but the Home Office – until they were challenged by UCU, didn’t agree. Today, this law has been repealed and migrants can take strike action in the UK. This is why we need UCU’s structures to represent us. With migrant status recognised under UCU’s equality strand, we will have a committee which can organise and mobilise for migrants rights as human rights. We will have the ability to keep up with the ever changing rules and regulations of the home office, we will have clout with which to challenge and resist the Hostile Environment on our campuses and in our social lives.

What are the issues facing migrant members?

Migrant members face lawful discrimination – yes, LAWFUL discrimination – at work and in our everyday lives. From inhuman visa costs and NHS surcharges, to Home Office scrutiny, surveillance and frequent restrictions on travel.

“I am not allowed to change address without reporting this to the police. Because I am a migrant, I have to physically present myself before the police to report this change of address, or to renew my passport or renew my visa.”

Just as migrants are surveilled on campus – as evidenced by the strike action debacle—they are surveilled outside of campus too. If a migrant has any change in circumstance, they must travel to a police station (often out of town) and report this.

Crucially, visa restrictions limit the careers of migrant members. In one instance, we’re not allowed to take on contracts of less than 12 months – we’re looking at you, universities who advertise 9-month contracts. On the other, we can rarely apply for contracts which are 12 months, as this takes on beyond the limit of our post-PhD visas.

“I am not allowed to apply to any DTP grants or work for more than 20 hrs a week but am expected to survive in this country and produce brilliant research, attend conferences on my own money + visa fee and produce a competitive CV!”

If you’re coming to the UK from outside the EU to start a three-year job at a UK university you’ll need to pay £610 for a visa, £1200 NHS surcharge (on top of National Insurance contributions and tax you’ll pay towards the cost of the NHS anyway), and, depending on your country of qualification and origin, £150-200 for English language tests, £150 for tuberculosis screening. If you have a partner and two children, you’re looking at least £7240, or about 30 per cent of your first year’s typical take-home salary. Most universities don’t reimburse the costs of those visas, some offer taxable-loans, but these are accessible only after arriving in the UK. This means that a migrant moving to the UK for a job is already thousands of pounds out of pocket. And of course, like everyone else you’ll also incur the charges of moving: flights, hotels, transportation, rental deposits, bills, and so on. Whilst thinking about those costs, bear in mind that we do not get paid a salary in our first month of starting a job.

With considerable and consistent pressure from migrant activists in UCU, some universities are starting to reimburse some fees or offer loans. It should not fall on individuals to have to constantly fight for recognition or their rights: a national, unified and strong UCU will be able to organise and negotiate for those rights.

“It’s emotionally draining having to continuously explain (& relive) our experience as migrants under Hostile Environment to people. You don’t know how humiliating, embarrassing, isolating & dehumanising it is. Stop gaslighting us, listen & learn!”

It is not possible to condense into a blog post all the ways in which migrants are discriminated against, and all the ways in which migrants are prevented from attaining and accessing full, equal professional and social lives. But you can find out more about the issues facing migrant members in this article from International and Broke: “The Hostile Environment in British Universities” (2018) (Figures in this post are from that article; if you spot any that need updating, let us know.)

Why do we need new structures in UCU to do this?

We think migrant members – and there are a lot of us – need space within UCU to talk about the issues affecting us. This doesn’t simply mean a migrant members equality conference and a migrant members standing committee, but also, crucially, seats for migrant members on the NEC. Not only will these changes enable UCU to represent its migrant members more effectively, but they will also make a political statement: amidst the stigma attached to immigrants in our current climate, UCU will be clearly and openly stating that it recognises its migrant members, it recognises the stigma, discrimination and isolation they face, and that UCU is a union for all its members, regardless of their passport.

Many have asked us ‘why migrant status?” when race and nationality are already characteristics covered under Equality structures. The answer is simple: while race and nationality are undoubtedly and intricately linked with migration, they are not exclusive of one another, but rather intersectional. Not all nationalities are currently subject to Hostile Environment policies, and not all who are subject to Hostile Environment are racialised. Racial discrimination underpins most forms of discrimination, but racial discrimination is Illegal, whereas discrimination on the basis of your migrant status is legal – and in fact, ordained by the law. The Black Members’ Standing Committee have organised on behalf of Black and BME members within UCU and have also been attuned to the structural discriminations faced by migrant workers. However, the ever evolving rules and regulations of the Hostile Environment means that we need a committee comprised of people who do not hold a British passport, who are on the sharp end of the ever-evolving ways in which these regulations are enforced and mapped onto our daily lives as migrant workers. The violence of the Hostile Environment is at once both conspicuous, and subtle. It is above all insidious. While many in UCU have expressed solidarity, there have been gaps in our union’s understanding regarding the depth of this problem and its experiential effects.

During the USS strikes, everyone, including UCU, were in the dark with regards to the 10-days rule surrounding the ‘unauthorised absences’ of migrants from the workplace. If migrant workers had already been adequately represented in UCU structures, our union would have been better placed to anticipate problems with the potential for deportation of migrant members during the USS strikes. Branch activists worked hard during the dispute to raise this, but without the help of activists, organisations and MPs UCU would not have been in a position to (belatedly) gain the clarity needed over how strike action would be recorded.

We need migrant members to be represented from the grassroots up within UCU, with dedicated representation and structures. Including migrant workers within UCU equality structures will strengthen our power and potential to challenge discrimination and champion true, intersectional equality.

Migrant members need our own equality structures within UCU to make sure UCU represents us as well as it can.

EU or non-EU?

These motions aren’t about Brexit. Of non-British workers, around six in ten are from EU countries and four in ten are from non-EU counties. The Hostile Environment, long predating Brexit, is a deeply violent, racist and imperial policy which has been designed specifically to control and suppress migrants predominantly from the Global South. With Brexit however, it is feared that some of those horrible policies we are subject to will also be rolled out against our EU colleagues. Not in the same way, but in the same vein. For that reason we’re proposing that at least one of the two NEC seats reserved for migrant members will be for someone from a non-EU country.

Please support our motions to support migrant members

“I am not allowed to just be. Because I am a migrant, hostile environment dictates my life, my career and my freedoms – intellectual or social. Hostile environment is violent, and until it is scrapped, we need to be protected from its effects as much as we can.”

Motion 9 Composite: Representation of migrants in UCU structures (University of Leeds, The University of Manchester)

This is the motion which sets out the reasoning and principles and asks UCU to agree to create a migrant members equality strand. This is then supported by two rules changes which create a migrant members standing committee and equality conference and two NEC places for migrant members.

Motion 84: Rule change: Inclusion of migrant representatives in the equality structures

Motion 85: Rule change: Inclusion of migrant representatives in NEC

(Click on the links for the full motion texts)

We realise this is a big change to UCU’s equality structures, but we believe that change it necessary. As a union we need the structures in place to help us challenge the lawful discrimination faced by migrant members every day.

Please support these motions.

Jo McNeill, candidate in the general secretary election: “I absolutely support all of our migrant workers and will be voting for the Leeds motion at Congress and advising others to do the same.”

Jo Grady, candidate in the general secretary election: “100% and will be voting with the motion.”

UCU Congress 2019

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

UCU Congress 2019 is this weekend, Saturday 25 – Monday 27 May.

UCU Congress is a key part in the process of trade union democracy, by which all members are involved in the decision making of the union so our decisions are collective. If any member wants the union to say or do something they can propose it as a motion to the other members in their branch (in University of Leeds branch we usually have at least five general meetings a year). If members in the branch agree (simple majority vote at the general meeting) the motion is submitted to UCU Congress, or to the UCU Higher Education Congress if it’s specifically about higher education (HE Congress in on the Sunday). Once all the motions from all the branches are collated they’re sent round to all members to consider. Branches then have a general meeting before Congress so that members can vote on the branch’s attitude to motions submitted by other branches. Representatives from each branch then go to the Congress and vote on behalf of members of their branch.

The delegates members elected to represent us at this year’s Congress are Arunima Bhattacharya, Chloe Wallace, Dima Chami, Laura Loyola Hernandez and Megan Povey.

As a branch we have submitted 6 motions to the Congress. We’ll post an update after Congress about whether they were passed, and you’ll be able to follow the action in more-or-less real time on Twitter by following @leedsucu.

The full Congress as agenda as it currently stands (Thursday 23 May) is published as the ‘second report of the Congress business committee‘.

Our motions to UCU Congress 2019

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

These are the motions proposed by members of UCU University of Leeds branch and agreed by all members at our general meetings which are on the agenda to be debated by all branches at UCU Congress 2019. Composite motions are composited by the congress business committee from two or more similar motions proposed by different branch, so these may not reflect the exact wording agreed by members of this branch but ought to reflect the intent.

Motion 9 – Composite: Representation of migrants in UCU structures (University of Leeds, The University of Manchester)

Congress notes:

1.     migrants, defined as non-U.K citizens, constitute a large demography within UCU’s membership

2.     UCU’s structures currently do not represent migrants, thereby leaving them vulnerable to discrimination, harassment, surveillance and other forms of oppression

Congress believes:

a.     all workers should be treated equally independent of immigration status

b.   racist and anti-migrant sentiments are fuelled by policies such as Hostile Environment and discourses surrounding Brexit

c.   there should be no place for targeted racism and legal discrimination within our sector

d.   only direct migrant representation can advance UCU policy and organising strategies on matters specific to migrant members such as mobility rights, visa fees, NHS surcharge, social security.

Congress resolves to:

                   i.       recognise migrant status as a protected characteristic under UCU Equality  structures

                  ii.       implement rule changes necessary to ensure the representational gap is closed

                 iii.       ensure protection of migrant members is a priority for UCU.

Motion 84 – Rule change: Inclusion of migrant representatives in the equality structures (University of Leeds)

Rule 23.1 (equality standing committees), first sentence, delete ‘four’, replace with ‘five’.  After ‘iv. Women Members’ Standing Committee (WMC);’, add new point v. ‘.v. Migrant Members’ Standing Committee (MMC)’.

Rule 23.2 (annual equality conferences), first sentence, delete ‘four’, replace with ‘five’. 

Purpose: To allow the recognition of UCU’s migrant members as an equality group with a standing committee and an annual conference established on the same basis as UCU’s other equality groups.

Motion 85 – Rule change: Inclusion of migrant representatives in NEC (University of Leeds)

Add new rule 18.11.4:

18.11.4 There will be two National Executive Committee seats for representatives of migrant members, at least one of whom shall be a non-EU migrant member. Candidates for election to these seats must state they are a migrant member and can remain on committee for three years after receiving ILR.

Renumber existing rule 18.11.4 and subsequent rules, and any subsequent references to these rules, as necessary.

Rule 19.6 (Scheduling of biennial elections) First sentence, change ’18.11.3’ to ’18.11.4’. After ‘representatives of LGTBQ+ members’, delete ‘and’, replace with comma; after ‘representatives of black members’, add ‘and two representatives of migrant members’.

Rule 19.7, delete ’18.11.3’, replace with ’18.11.4’.

Rule 20.5 (counting order for NEC elections): after “ix. Representatives of black members;” add “x. Representatives of migrant members;” re-number existing points x-xiii as xi-xiv.

Purpose: To allow the recognition of UCU’s migrant members (which will include refugees and asylum seekers) through two NEC seats for migrant members. These will be listed as equality seats, for which all members may vote, scheduled in the same years as elections for equality seats other than women, and placed in the counting order for NEC elections at the end of the equality seats (and before casually employed, land based and prison seats).

Motion 20A.1 – Composite (Women members standing committee, University of Leeds, National Executive Committee)

In the second paragraph, after the first sentence which ends in ‘not a biological one’, remove full stop and add new sentence, ‘and modern evidence indicates that neither are binary’.

After the last sentence in the last paragraph, take out full stop and add, ‘and formal recognition of non-binary status for data gathering purposes and for options for non-binary and no gender indication options on passports and other documents that indicate gender’.

Motion 21A.1 – Composite (University of Leeds, LGBT+ members standing committee)

In Congress notes 1, delete from ‘potentially profound consequences…’ to end of clause. Replace with ‘the potential to significantly improve trans people’s lives’.

In 3. insert ‘trans and other’ between ‘feminist’ and ‘scholars’.

In Congress believes a. add at end after ‘equality’: ‘under the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation, and supports proposed changes to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act that support trans people and their rights.’

In Congress believes c, delete ‘potential conflicts of rights’ insert ‘the rights of oppressed groups’. 

In ‘Congress calls on UCU to ii; add ‘and trans people’ after ‘academics’.

In Congress calls on UCU to ii, at end, delete ‘and gender’ insert ‘gender and gender identity’.

In final sentence (iii), add at end ‘underpinned by solidarity with all oppressed groups and promote unity in action of women and trans people in the face of attacks on either group.’

Motion 93 – Amend Congress standing order 18 (University of Leeds)

Congress standing order 18 (quorum), delete “(subject to rounding up to the nearest whole number)”

Add at end:

‘except where only a subset of the branches in a sector is eligible to vote on the topic under discussion, in which case the quorum shall be a fraction of 150 members proportionate to membership in that subset. Quora shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.’

Purpose: To have a quorum for sector specific conferences on matters relating to a subset of the sector which is line with the membership of that subset.

New UCU committee elected for 2019-2020 academic year

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

At the UCU University of Leeds branch annual general meeting 16 May 2019 members voted to elect the following members for the branch committee for the academic year 2019-2020.

The current committee remains in post until 31 July. The new committee takes over from 1 August.

President: Ben Plumpton

Vice-president: Chloe Wallace

Immediate past president: Vicky Blake

Treasurer: Jonathan Saha

Honorary secretary: Tim Goodall

Membership officer: Alaric Hall

Equality officer: Dima Chami

Campaigns officer: Lesley McGorrigan

Health and safety officer: Neil Maughan

Anti-casualisation officer: Arunima Bhattacharya

Ordinary committee members:

Aisha Walker
Alan Roe
Andi Rylands
Andrew Mallinson
Andy West
Brendon Nicholls
Gabriella Alberti
Hugh Hubbard
Kate Hardy
Lata Narayanaswamy
Laura Loyola Hernandez
Mark Taylor-Batty
Mark Walkley
Megan Povey
Paul Steenson
Rachel Walls
Simon Hewitt

USS pensions – emergency motion passed at AGM

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Members of UCU University of Leeds branch passed the following emergency motion at our AGM on 16 May 2019:

This branch notes that:

  1. The 2018 USS dispute was suspended with an agreement that Defined Benefit pensions should not be scrapped and that a Joint Expert Panel (JEP) should be set up to reconsider the USS valuation.
  2. This Joint Expert Panel reported in September 2018 (see http://www.ussjep.org.uk/report-of-the-joint-expert-panel/) and largely vindicated the UCU position on the USS valuation.
  3. The University of Leeds broadly supported the JEP recommendations, including the levels of contributions proposed. (see https://www.leeds.ac.uk/forstaff/download/downloads/id/1536/uss_leeds_response_to_uuk_consultation_re_jep_october_2018)
  4. To Maintain current benefits, USS have already imposed a default increase in our contributions from 8% of salary to 8.8% in April 2019, with a further increase coming in October if an agreement on valuations cannot be reached.
  5. If the JEP recommendations were implemented in full, there would be no need for further contribution increases or benefit reductions.
  6. The position of UCU nationally is ‘No Detriment’ i.e. that there should be no further increases to our pension contributions and no reductions to our pension benefits.
  7. The USS board issued a statement on 9th May (see https://www.uss.co.uk/how-uss-is-run/2018-valuation/2018-valuation-updates/9-may-2019) saying they are now consulting with university employers about three new options that they have identified, all of which would mean increases in pension contributions, and none of which follow JEP recommendations.

This branch believes:

  1. That USS, by ignoring the JEP recommendations, is being disrespectful of university staff and students and the sacrifices and disruption they endured in the fight to save our pensions, and of the JEP.
  2. That the University of Leeds should support its staff and avoid unnecessary expense by unambiguously reiterating its support for the JEP recommendations rather than accepting any of the options that USS are currently consulting on.
  3. That UCU should continue to uphold its policy of ‘No Detriment’.
  4. Given the current trajectory toward detriment with any of USS’s three options, UCU should ballot for further strike action.

This branch resolves:

To write to the Vice-Chancellor urging him to respond to the USS employer consultation to say that Leeds does not support any of the three new options suggested by USS, and that the full Joint Expert Panel recommendations should be implemented instead, and that USS Board should consequently suspend their additional planned contributions increases in October 2019.

To send this motion, demonstrating the views of the Leeds UCU branch, to the UCU National Disputes Committee (NDC), to the UCU Superannuation Working Group (SWG), and to the elected UCU pensions negotiators on the Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC).

Minutes of general meeting 2 May 2019

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Thursday 2 May 2019, 1pm – 2pm
Roger Stevens lecture theatre 4 (8.04)

Minutes

Agreed

Amendments to motions on the UCU congress agenda

Amendment to EQ17 Gender Identity after the 2018 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) consultation

Line 3: At the end of the first sentence add ‘and modern evidence indicates that neither are binary’.

At the end of the last sentence add ‘and formal recognition of non-binary status for data gathering purposes.’

Motion carried.

Amendment to EQ 18 Respectful dialogue on gender/gender diversity

  1. in Congress notes 1, delete from ‘potentially … practices’, add after ‘have’; ‘the potential to significantly improve trans people’s lives’.
  2. in 3. insert ‘trans and other’ between ‘feminist’ and ‘scholars’.
  3. In Congress believes a. add after ‘equality’: ‘under the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation, and supports proposed changes to the 2004 GRA.’
  4. in Congress believes c. delete ‘potential conflicts of’, insert ‘the’ before ‘rights’, and insert ‘of oppressed groups’ after ‘rights’.
  5. In ‘Congress calls on UCU to ii; add ‘and trans people’ after ‘academics’.
  6. In final sentence, add ‘underpinned by solidarity with all oppressed groups and promote unity in action of women and trans people in the face of attacks on either group.’

Motion carried.

Amendment to HE7 UCU must remain open to a legal challenge against USS

Add at end:

Conference agrees:

  1. UCU must do work with aligned groups in pursuit of defending our pensions wherever possible
  2. To draw up a full report on legal options open to UCU, via meaningful consultation with Academics for Pension Justice (and associated legal advisors), NDC and SWG.
  3. 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.

Motion carried unanimously.

Emergency motions to UCU Congress (none received)

UCU Congress business

No further items raised.

Non-Congress business

Motion: Climate emergency

This branch notes:

  1. That the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming shows that in order to avoid catastrophic climate change we must drastically reduce carbon emissions by 2030.
  2. That there is a growing international movement of youth strikes demanding urgent action on climate change.
  3. That Leeds City Council, along with many other local authorities, has declared a Climate Emergency and has committed to make Leeds carbon neutral by 2030.
  4. That a petition has been submitted to the Vice Chancellor by students and staff calling on the University to declare a ‘Climate Emergency’ and take urgent action to help avert climate breakdown.

This branch welcomes:

  1. The participation of our students in the youth climate strikes at Leeds.
  2. The actions of climate scientists from the Priestley Centre in running ‘Ask A Climate Scientist’ stalls at the youth climate strikes in Leeds and online.
  3. The work of researchers at this University making a substantial contribution to sustainability, renewable energy development, and ensuring a just transition to a more sustainable future.
  4. The University’s pledge to become single-use plastic-free by 2023.

This branch resolves:

  1. To write to the Vice Chancellor supporting the petition from staff and students to declare a Climate Emergency at the University of Leeds (signed by 1000 people), and in particular the call to work with staff and students to develop a Climate Emergency Plan to reduce the University’s carbon emissions and environmental footprint in line with a 1.5°C target.
  2. To publicise the youth climate strikes to members and urge them to support these in any way they can.
  3. To make a donation of £100 to the Extinction Rebellion Leeds, to assist student participation in these events.

Motion carried unanimously.

Motion: Fossil Fuel Divestment

This branch notes:

  1. The IPCC report (October 2018) on anthropogenic global climate change outlines the significantly intensified harm likely to result from a 2°C vs 1.5°C rise above mid-19th century levels, and that global CO2 emissions need to fall by 45% by 2030 in order to stay within 1.5 degrees. See https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
  2. That student/staff campaigns have helped push over 70 UK universities to pledge to divest from fossil fuels.
  3. That in response to a student campaign in 2015/16, the Council of the University of Leeds rejected a proposal that the University divest itself of direct share-holdings in fossil fuel companies (see https://www.leeds.ac.uk/forstaff/news/article/5170/council_statement_decision_on_fossil_fuel_divestment)

This branch believes:

  1. That it is imperative that further fossil fuels reserves stay in the ground.
  2. That investing in fossil fuel exploration and exploitation is unethical and incompatible with the University’s commitment to socially responsible investment (https://www.leeds.ac.uk/secretariat/documents/socially_responsible_investment.pdf)
  3. That the University should instead invest in renewable energy and other initiatives and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the use of fossil fuels.

This branch resolves:

  1. To write to the University Council proposing the University should now commit to fossil fuel divestment.
  2. To campaign jointly with student groups on this issue.

Proposed by Ben Plumpton, Gabriella Alberti, Andrea Rylands, Nigel Bubb, Joel Millward-Hopkins

Motion carried unanimously

Motion: Endorsing Jo McNeill and Jo Grady as UCU general secretary candidate

Leeds UCU Branch endorses both Jo McNeill and Jo Grady in the 2019 UCU General Secretary election.

Motion as amended above carried.

Motion: Ariel university

Leeds UCU notes that Israeli settlements in occupied territory constitute a breach of international law, as is affirmed by (among many others) the British Government, the United Nations (Security Council and General Assembly), the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention.

Leeds UCU notes therefore that, because Ariel University is built in a settlement, for the University of Leeds to recognise degrees from Ariel University, or to collaborate with Ariel University in any way, would be complicit in the breaking of international law.

Proposed and moved by James Dickins, seconded by Lesley McGorrigan. Carried.

Emergency motion: new process for appointing Heads of School

This meeting notes the introduction of a new institution-wide process for appointing Heads of School and that this process

  1. was introduced at short notice and without appropriate consultation across the institution as a whole
  2. requires the post to be externally advertised, even when the School has internal candidates willing to take up the role and who have been approved by their colleagues;
  3. undermines collegiality and democracy within a School
  4. may over-ride School constitutions that require such appointments to be made in consultation with members of the School
  5. may have significant budgetary implications 

This meeting resolves to ask University management to

  1. withdraw the current imposed and unnecessary process
  2. initiate discussions with UCU and other interested parties with a view to agreeing an appointment process that is fair, transparent and equality tested, that allows for internal appointments to proceed where agreed by members of the School concerned and that respects the collegial and democratic environments of individual Schools across the institution.

Motion carried unanimously.