UCU members have ACCEPTED the latest offer from Universities UK

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

From email sent to all members by branch president Vicky Blake at 3.14pm on Friday 13 April 2018

The result of the UCU members’ ballot over whether to accept the latest UUK proposal closed at 2pm. We have just heard the result from HQ: Accept

This means that our industrial action will be called off.  So no strike on Monday.

This was not the result that the branch EGM agreed to support, however we know that everyone gave the issue considerable thought before voting and we respect each other’s opinions. We need to keep our solidarity strong and carry on working well together. We have uploaded a Dinosaur of Solidarity image created by our very own Honorary Secretary Jonathan Saha for everyone to use on social media [here] – solidarity shared is strength and support increased!

We also need to watch UUK/USS very carefully so we can hold them to account.  There’s an interesting @USSbriefs just out on how to constitute a Joint Expert Panel.  We can discuss next steps at the General Meeting on Monday.

Remember: everyone is invited to come to the Library Pub from 5pm this evening!

Remember the General Meeting on Monday at 1pm, Quaker House

This is a really important meeting! Please do make every effort to attend. The updated agenda was sent out by email on 11/4/18 (23:05), and is also available online [here].

In Solidarity!

Vicky and Committee

PS

The results were as follows:

Yes to accept the UUK offer 21,683 (64%)
No to reject the UUK offer 12,230 (36%)

Total balloted: 53,415
Total votes cast: 33,973
Total number valid votes: 33,913
Turnout: 63.5%

Guidance for members on work visas next strike

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

(Text reproduced from email sent to all members by Gabriella Alberti, Equality Officer, 12/4/18)

As we have already pointed out in a previous email, the latest USS strike has brought to the fore what the union understands as differential treatment for University staff members on working visas in terms of their participation in industrial action. We believe the experience of unfair treatment by our colleagues on working visas is far from marginal to this important dispute, and that it rather points out to the many contradictions that inhabit our campuses and the HE sector in the UK, where the effects of the Point based system and monitoring of international students and staff have been contested and challenged by our unionsince their introduction.

The latest events have shown even more that immigration controls directly hinder our fundamental collective rights.

UCU national HQ has released today a message regarding members on working visas’ participation in the strike action, following the lack of response (as of today) by the Home office to Sally Hunt’s letter on this matter on the 15th of March 2018.

 Matt Waddup, UCU national head of policy and campaigns writes:

“Our parliamentary team have been strongly pressing the minister for a response but despite assurances none has yet been forthcoming.
Once we have that response we will be able to consider whether a legal challenge to this would be effective.
In order to protect members in the meantime we are asking branches to adopt the following position until further notice in any further strike action:
The support for strike action from staff on visas has been substantial despite the threatening and intimidating atmosphere created by the government’s immigration and visa policy. We recognise that further strike action beyond the first fourteen days of action may heighten the risk of staff being reported for periods of unauthorised absence. Staff in this position should therefore be granted a local exemption to future USS strike action and – where it attracts a punitive penalty – the action short of a strike (ASOS). Our expectation is that staff exempted in this way will make an appropriate donation to the strike fund in lieu of any future action. We welcome national UCU’s campaign to exempt the taking of industrial action from the definition of unauthorised absences in order to protect the fundamental right to withdraw one’s labour.’
Please note that our understanding is that there is currently a statutory obligation on employers to report strike action as an unauthorised absence. Our advice is that employers – even those who are sympathetic on the issue – have little room for manoeuvre, hence the importance of the political campaign. If reassurances are received from the home office we will amend our advice accordingly”

There is still ambiguity in this matter and the Home Office is delaying its response.  We are aware that, as of now, no union member on visa has been impacted by this regulation and that the guidance for staff on Tier 2,4,5 visas on the UCU national website still applies.

Our priority, as the local branch, is to give reassurance that, as to now, none has been impacted by participation in the strike (as you read in the official guidance “UCU is not aware of any individual case where participating in lawful industrial action has had an impact upon a member’s visa status”).  The law states that the employer has to report “unauthorised absence” (and unfortunately strike action appears to count as unauthorised although it is legal industrial action) after 10 consecutive days. VCs such as Cambridge and UCL have helpfully provided reassurance to their staff that strike absences will not be reported (because this seems to be something at their discretion) before the 10 consecutive days but this does not solve the issue of the 4 weeks of unpaid leave in one calendar year (that could be summed up to other unpaid leave days by staff on working visas).  In our understanding, Leeds HR has agreed with the UCU to keep staff up to date about any risk of getting close to the threshold of four weeks, and we are aware that some have already been receiving communications about this from HR. We would like to mention that with regard to the question of earnings threshold (which has been raised by international members) it is unlikely that members of staff will jeopardise their visa status (you will have to strike for longer period to hit that limit). However, we also realise that these fears contribute to our members feeling anxious.

Because we are aware of the complex needs of international staff to take unpaid leave for family reasons beyond the strike (e.g. caring for relatives who are abroad), and while we cannot provide any legal advice on immigration ourselves, as we get close to the potential new period of strike (16-th 20th of April) our local branch would like to reiterate the message above and express support for those members on visa who decide not to participate in the next 5 days of industrial action (if they go ahead, in the instance of a NO vote) if members believe that this puts them and their family members in a position of vulnerability or risk.  Your choice does not influence of course your free vote on the ballot, please remember to vote if you have not done so by Friday the 13th 2pm, and do it according to whether you believe the offer is acceptable or not, rather than on your personal ability to take part in the next strike action.

We are therefore committed to seriously pursue changes at the national level to reform what appears to be a clear breach of equality principles in the field of collective rights, and intend to submit a late motion to the UCU congress and by lobbying political parties (to be discussed at our next GM).  If these issues will not be solved at the national level the branch should consider lobbying the union leadership to pursue legal battle at EU level (e.g. brining the case to the European Court of Justice appealing to the article 28th of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which legally protects the right to strike).

 

Indeed none should fear reprisal for engaging in lawful industrial action.

If you chose not to take industrial action, here are some alternative ways to participate in the next round without striking:

1)     Talk to students and colleagues about why the strike is continuing. You might wish to share theUSS briefs with them via email, twitter or print some copies to pass around.

2)     Wear a pin or sticker provided by the UCU to visually demonstrate your support for the strike while working.

3)     Write to the Vice Chancellor and the local MP to continue to pressure UUK. Encourage your students and non-striking colleagues to do the same.

4)     Do not tweet or promote work related material via email or social media during the five days of strike.

5)     Help in the logistics of organising the next wave of strikes by contributing with new placards, leaflets, as well as bringing home baking, coffee and tea to the picket line.

6)     Join the picket line just to show support for a little while.

7)     Get involved in our local branch as a representative or support other campaigns such as the anti-casualization campaign. 

 

Finally, a reminder that, if you wish to register on the new mailing list for international staff if you are one and have not done sohttps://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSewCbIZh9xBsQAgPnNnou84aSrmPe37h24nPg5SaCRrgusM8w/viewform?usp=sf_link

 

Agenda for General Meeting 16 April 2018

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

See PDF version in case of formatting problems with nested lists.

General Meeting

Monday 16 April, 1pm – 2pm

Venue: Quaker Meeting House

 

Agenda

 

  1. Apologies and Chair’s business

Please note that Committee recommend that the meeting agree to postpone the formal approval of previous meeting minutes until the AGM in May, owing to the volume of business to progress in this General Meeting

  1. UCU Congress 2018
    1. Late motions for Congress received (see appendix 1)
      1.  Unfair treatment of international staff
        Leeds UCU Committee
        Please note: This motion is currently too long for Congress. Therefore, Committee ask that the meeting consider and agree the following procedure:

        1. Vote on the motion as a whole. If passed, it will inform local policy, AND
        2. Meeting agrees to endorse Committee in making a 150-word version in time for the Congress deadline, which is in keeping with the spirit and aims of the motion + what will fit with the late motion criteria at Congress
      2. UCU structures and decision-making: democracy, transparency, and ‘plain English’
        Leeds UCU Committee
    2. Amendments received for Congress motions
      1. SFC 13 A.1: Add at end: Congress resolves to organise a Day of Action and Solidarity in all colleges and universities in support of international staff and students (22 words)
        Leeds UCU Committee
    3. Congress Delegates
  2. Local Motions received (see appendix 2)
    1. Another University Is Possible
      Barry Ewart
    2. Solidarity with Open University
      Leeds UCU Committee
    3. Solidarity with Liverpool University
      Leeds UCU Committee
    4. International UCU Members on working visas
      Laura Loyola Hernandez and Maki Fukuoka
      Please note: Leeds UCU Committee endorses this motion as the basis for agenda item 5
    5. Metro Annual Travel Card (staff benefits)
      Leeds UCU Committee
    6. International Postgraduates
      Dima Chami, Kelli Zezulka, and Vicky Blake
      Please note: Leeds UCU Committee endorses this motion and recommends it be taken under agenda item 4
  3. Anti-casualisation Claim + Postgraduate Solidarity
    1. Feedback from recent Postgraduate Mega Meeting (including Anticas Roadshow plans)
    2. Local Motion 6: International Postgraduates
  4. International Staff in UCU
    1. Local motion 4: International UCU Members on working visas
  5. USS Dispute
    1. Strikes
    2. What next?
  1. AOB

 

 

 

Appendix 1: motions for UCU Congress 2018

Congress Late Motion 1

Unfair treatment of International staff

Congress notes:

  1. The recent strike has brought to the fore the differential treatment for University staff members on visas concerning their participation in industrial action.
  2. That the right to strike is protected under art. 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
  3. That reporting unauthorised absence before they reach 10 consecutive days is at the discretion of VCs.

Congress believes:

  1. That none should fear reprisal for engaging in lawful industrial action.
  2. That our Union has a duty to protect the right to strike for all members independently of their immigration status.
  3. That staff from EU countries may be impacted by the same provisions under Brexit.

Congress resolves:

1) To establish a new position for a UCU International staff representative

2) To demand that our universities commit to protect international staff from any implications arising from participation in strike action.

3) To lobby political parties for changes in the current Home office regulations and demand the recognition of an ‘equal right to strike’ for any worker on visa.

4) That the emerged issues are brought to the European Court of Justice if no reassurance or change are achieved at the national level.

5) To campaign for the elimination of the NHS surcharge which impact on our international staff.

6) To achieve clarity for research leave so it does not count towards the 180 days International staff can leave the country.

Proposed by Leeds UCU Committee

Guidance note:
If passed by the meeting, the meeting will be asked to agree that Committee be permitted to draft a 150-word version of this motion (maintaining its spirit and overall aims) in order to meet both:
1) Congress motion word limit
2) Congress late motion criteria

Congress Late Motion 2

UCU structures +decision-making: democracy, transparency, and ‘plain English’

Congress notes:

  1. Membership and engagement in UCU increased during recent industrial action in both sectors.
  2. UCU’s strength lies in functioning as a participatory, lay member-led union
  3. Recent disputes highlight:
    1. Current union processes make it difficult for members to engage with decision-making when the state of information available changes quickly
    2. A need for clarity and transparency where union structures must produce decisions in complex disputes (particularly where external parties may affect dispute outcomes or increase uncertainty)

Congress resolves to:

  1. Publicise plain English explanations of UCU’s decision-making structures including special FE and HE conferences
  2. Formalise mechanisms to achieve maximal participatory democratic input from members in circumstances where a special Conference is required but 30 days’ notice is impossible, e.g. Branch Delegates Meetings where:
    1. Branches receive clear guidance on matters for consultation
    2. Delegates vote on key issues or outputs, including when meetings are ‘indicative’ in rule

Proposed by UCU Committee

 

 

Appendix 2: local motions

 

Local Motion 1

Another University is possible
Leeds University UCU branch calls upon the UCU NEC to appoint a lead person to carry out a ‘university ethos, governance, and democracy review’ amongst its membership.”

Such a review we believe should seek the views of grassroots UCU members at each university in the UK on ‘reclaiming the university.’

We would then ask the NEC to compile a report from the submissions received that should also include a concrete set of proposals to make up a manifesto for ‘another university is possible.’

We finally believe that after circulating the report to branches that each proposal from the report should then be voted upon at UCU annual conference.

Proposed by Barry Ewart

Local Motion 2

Solidarity with Open University

This branch notes the recent expressions of no confidence in their Vice Chancellor by teaching and non-teaching staff at all levels and specialisms at the Open University. The Open University is a unique asset which delivers high-quality degree education as a civil right, not a commodity to be delivered by neoliberal means. We support the OU branch of the UCU in their opposition to:

  1. Substandard management
  2. Attempts to erode the OU’s academic governance structures and academic freedom
  3. Proposed massive job cuts.


This branch resolves to make a donation of £200 to the Open University branch of UCU in the event that they take industrial action.

Proposed by Leeds UCU Committee

Local Motion 3

Solidarity with Liverpool University

 This branch notes with concern that the University of Liverpool has announced it intends to axe over 200 staff, purportedly to improve the student experience.

We believe that getting rid of over 200 valuable and experienced teaching and research staff is not the best approach to improving the student experience. Investment in staff would be a better way.

We support Liverpool UCU in their fight against these job cuts.

This branch resolves to make a donation of £200 to the University of Liverpool branch of UCU in the event that they take industrial action.

Proposed by Leeds UCU Committee

Local Motion 4

International UCU members on working visas

This branch notes:

  1. That the recent industrial dispute over changes to the USS pension scheme, involving 14 non-consecutive days of strike action, has brought to light a very concerning matter regarding the right to strike of international staff on working visa.
  2. The high concern that the current Home Office regulations, by requiring the employers to report the number of unauthorised absences and unpaid leave of their international employees, and by allowing only a maximum of the latter for this particular group of workers, hinder substantially the right to strike of international staff, whose residence in the UK (and that of their family members) depends on their visa’s sponsorship.

In order to address these issues in the immediate and longer term, this branch resolves:

  1. To establish a new position for an International staff representative in the UCU Leeds branch Committee- this formal position should start no later than August 2018.
  2. To fund and organise a legal information session about how the recent strikes effect your Tier 2, Tier 4 and Tier 5 visas and to request that HR arranges new targeted sessions in the future given the Home office constant changes in laws and regulations. The current fee requested by the legal expert is £400 and this General Meeting approves this expenditure.
  3. To demand that our local HR commits to the protection of our international staff from any implications arising from their participation in past and future strike action, and that staff is kept up to date of any changes in Home Office regulations. Future legal briefings should be funded by our University on equal terms with other groups of migrant staff.
  4. To campaign nationally for the elimination of the NHS surcharge which impact also on our international staff.
  5. To campaign for more clarity for research leave so it does not count towards the 180 days we can leave the country. Particularly for those whose aim is to apply for leave to remain.

Proposed by Laura Loyola Hernandez and Maki Fukuoka
Seconded by Gabriella Alberti
Endorsed by Leeds UCU Committee

Local Motion 5

Metro Annual Travel Card (staff benefits)

Leeds University UCU Branch notes that the WY Metro Annual Travel card staff discount has been reduced from 15% to 12% this year.  The branch agrees to request that Leeds University management makes up the shortfall to match the 15% discount (currently 3%) from May 2018.  This branch believes such a move aligns with the University of Leeds Sustainability, Green Impact, Travel Plan and Staff Benefits agendas.

Proposed by Leeds UCU Committee

Local Motion 6

International Postgraduates

This branch notes:

  1. International postgraduates are often subject to discrimination in the course of their studies and employment, including (but not limited to:
    1. Administrative discrimination, which may include the use of racist or condescending language encoded on university forms or in staff-student interactions. For example:
  1. English language exams despite holding degrees from UK universities
  2. Universities’ procedures for facilitating (or impeding) UKBA / police control, for example specifically having to register change of addresses etc.)
  • Requiring international students to describe themselves as ‘Other’ on forms
  1. Apparent default assumptions that international postgraduates are incapable of understanding English
  2. Indignity when being referred to English language resources at PhD level whereas UK/EU students will be afforded the privilege of talking about ‘writing styles’ etc.
  1. International postgraduates are subject to harassment by virtue of the monitoring attendance demanded by the UK government, but this is worsened by local University practice, where there is a disparity between the practices applied when dealing with international postgraduates and home/EU postgraduates.
  2. Many staff are also deeply unhappy about the treatment of international students by the UK government, and about how their policies are translated into University procedures

This branch further notes, in relation to industrial action:

  1. International postgraduates did not receive specific communications from their academic departments recognising their right to strike, or any guidance regarding restrictions in relation to Tier 2, 4, or 5 visas.
  2. International postgraduates in different departments have reported experiencing harassment to record meetings with their academic supervisors during the strike period, completely contravening the respect for international students to be allowed to observe strike action.
  3.  Many international postgraduates have been left feeling that the University of Leeds is more invested in protecting the University’s image than students’ wellbeing

This branch calls on Leeds UCU:

  1. To work with Leeds University Union to call on the University of Leeds senior management to commit to, and implement respectful, non-discriminatory administrative processes at all levels, for all staff and students, whether they are classed as international or home/EU, regardless of visa status.
  2. To call on University of Leeds senior management to take seriously the experiences and complaints of international postgraduates, who make up a significant percentage of the university’s postgraduate student and worker communities.
  3. To campaign locally, and within national UCU, for recognition of international students’ experiences, including the emotional, psychological and above all intellectual well-being of students.
  4. To work with national UCU to recognise:
    1. that postgraduates are often both staff and student
    2. UCU has the potential to change the narrative around international postgraduates and staff
    3. UCU must actively present itself as a union for all academics, emphasising that it is not only for UK/EU academics in recruitment and campaigning materials, and guidance for branches
    4. Taking such proactive steps will enable UCU to grow radically both in number and understanding of the workers it exists to represent

Proposed by Dima Chami, Kelli Zezulka, and Vicky Blake
Endorsed by Leeds UCU Committee

 

 

An important note from Committee (reproduced from email 6/4/18)

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

An important note from Committee

(Text reproduced from email 6/4/18)

At yesterday’s EGM, a number of members raised concerns about the email from UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt (sent on Wednesday 4 April) that accompanies the link to the ballot (text is [here]), because it contains a significant conflation between the “revise and resubmit” position (which is about process) and the “no detriment” position (which is about the possible content of revisions). The two are not synonymous, and many branches who preferred the “revise and re-submit” approach (as ours did) had varying positions on whether they also preferred the “no detriment” position, preferred “no pre-conditions”, or somewhere in between. There were also questions at yesterday’s meeting about why a recommendation has been issued from the General Secretary in the absence of any vote by the Higher Education Committee to include a recommendation (the latter is usual practice). The recommendation in the ballot email has been sent by the General Secretary as an individual.

On receipt of today’s latest email from the General Secretary we (committee) agreed to write to everyone again. As we noted at yesterday’s EGM, our committee is a signatory to a joint letter from UCU branches, which raises concerns and questions over the balloting process. I have pasted the text below this email and you can read it online [here] – please note that more branches continue to sign this letter, as the questions contained therein are crucial. It asks for corrections to be sent out to all members who are being balloted, and for reassurances and clarification regarding oversight of the ballot – for example, we currently do not know if there is independent third party oversight of it. When we receive a response to this letter, we will share it with you as soon as possible.

Once again, we’d really like to stress how incredibly proud we are to be part of Leeds UCU and that our branch prioritises open, cordial, and constructive discussion. We urge everyone to remember that this is a great source of strength and that we continue to build our branch on the principles of democracy, honesty, and facilitating participation as much as possible. Yesterday’s EGM was a brilliant example of this, and we have received quite a few tweets and emails from members expressing joy that we have together demonstrated that it needn’t feel difficult to have a collegial and detailed, reasoned debate. If you couldn’t make the EGM, do make sure you’ve caught up with Alaric’s update sent yesterday afternoon (sent at 17.25) and the website post with the motions that passed [here]. Please note that the EGM confirmed that this branch recommends rejection of the current UUK proposal, albeit with a heavy heart and regret that the “revise and resubmit” option was closed off at the 28 March HEC.

#USSvote Survey
Please share your opinions on the #USSvote in this survey, put together by independent members of UCU. It asks: Which issues matter to you? How have the different sides performed? Who do you trust? The survey has been edited to include space for qualitative comments – you can click the link and choose ‘edit’ if you’ve already responded, but it won’t let you ‘enter’ the survey more than once. (Please note this is not the ballot itself, but instead a useful tool to gauge nuances in opinion).

 

USS Briefs

If you haven’t already delved into the excellent USS Briefs, which are a product of the hard work of several UCU members, please do dig in. They are an excellent resource. There are articles written from perspectives favouring reject and accept, and articles which really get to grips with the issues at stake in this whole dispute. New articles are still forthcoming, but here is a list so far:

******>>>>GREAT + PROPERLY RESEARCHED ARTICLES! <<<<******

#USSbriefs1
The Drive to Convert to DC: A Short History
Felicity Callard, Birkbeck, University of London

#USSbriefs2
The USS Dispute and the Dynamics of Industrial Action
Jo Grady, University of Sheffield

#USSbriefs3
The Pensions Dispute and the Marketisation of Higher Education
John Holmwood, University of Nottingham
Gurminder K Bhambra, University of Sussex

#USSbriefs4
Why USS Pension Cuts Will Not Be Spread Equally
Claire Marris, City, University of London

#USSbriefs5
The Role of Consultancies in the USS Dispute
Gail Davies, University of Exeter

#USSbriefs6
Why Which Way to Vote on the Latest UUK Proposal Should be an Easy Decision
Sam Marsh, University of Sheffield

#USSbriefs7
Is There Really a USS Deficit?
Dennis Leech, University of Warwick

#USSbriefs8
Misleading Communication: Case Studies from Universities UK and the Employers Pension Forum
Felicity Callard, Birkbeck, University of London

#USSbriefs9
Academic Collective Action and the Future of Our Movement
Andy Balmer, University of Manchester

#USSbriefs10
Why I Have Voted Yes to Accept UUK Proposal
Amanda Williams, University of East Anglia

#USSbriefs11
Debunking Sally Hunt’s Email
Jo Grady, University of Sheffield
Claire Marris, City, University of London
Jess Meacham, University of Sheffield

#USSbriefs12
Employers vs. UUK? Evolving Positions in the USS Pensions Dispute
Susanne Hakenbeck, University of Cambridge

#USSbriefs13
Cambridge and Oxford in the USS Pensions Dispute
Sam Dolan, University of Sheffield

******>>>>More great articles on USS appearing at USSBriefs.com<<<<******

Anti-casualisation update

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

PGR open meeting

Monday 9 April, 9–11am, 28 University Rd, LT G.23

This meeting is for all postgraduates (members and non-members) and is an important step in building the campaign for fair pay, terms and conditions for all postgraduates who teach or who work in paid research and related roles at the university. It will cover three main areas:
  • Focus on postgrad elements of the Uni of Leeds UCU branch anticasualisation claim: what do postgrads want and need?
  • Building on the energy of the recent strikes (and what the strikes tell us about casualisation!)
  • Recruitment and the free postgrad membership (reminder: www.ucu.org.uk/free)

There will be vegan cake too! Members are asked to let all postgrads know about this meeting and the free postgraduate membership offer. Please email with suggestions for agenda items/questions about the meeting (k.l.zezulka@leeds.ac.uk) and please share with PGRs in your school.

Anticasualisation campaign and roadshow planning

As part of the open meeting on 9 April, we will be discussing organising a UCU anticasualisation roadshow. We will be organising a local event to discuss, debate and explore issues related to casualisation and precarity in HE and FE. There is lots of information on the UCU Stamp Out webpages here. If you are interested in helping to organise this event or in running a workshop or giving a seminar, please let us know.

Being a PGR/anticas rep

You can be part of a network of UCU reps across the university to help us supercharge our campaigns for secure jobs, for lower workloads, and for equality.

In addition to department reps, we’d like to have an anticasualisation rep (a member not on a permanent contract) and a postgraduate rep in each school/area across the university. To join our new massive network of reps, ask two colleagues in your workplace (UCU members) to email ucu@leeds.ac.uk by 10 April to nominate you for one of these roles.

See the current list of reps. If you are interested in either role, feel free to email k.l.zezulka@leeds.ac.uk or speak to Kelli at the open meeting on 9 April.

Vote ‘No’ – this branch recommends members vote to reject the offer

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

In a well attended emergency general meeting, members of UCU University of Leeds branch voted today to recommend that members vote ‘no’ in the new UCU ballot on the latest offer from Universities UK in the persions dispute.

The branch also noted the valuable new USS Briefs, short articles by a range of academics on different aspects of the strike, and that an independent group of UCU members has devised a survey of members’ voting preferences, motivations, and other views surrounding the ballot. The branch resolved to encourage all USS members to complete the survey.

After a thorough and collegial debate, considering a range of perspectives on the ballot and recognising the branch’s enthusiasm for a decisive conclusion to the current industrial action, members voted for the following motion:

Leeds University UCU branch notes:

  1. the support and energy of our members during the course of the fourteen days of strike action in defence of our pensions.
  2. the branch delegates meeting (held on the 28th March at UCU HQ, London) on the USS dispute where last-minute evidence was tabled, on which delegates had no opportunity to consult their members.
  3. that, at the conclusion of the branch delegates meeting, no vote was taken on what was clearly the crucial issue the Higher Education Committee (HEC) were going to decide on afterwards – whether to send the UUK offer as it stands to a ballot or not (Leeds had passed the following motions on this: https://www.leedsucu.org.uk/university-of-leeds-ucu-egm-minutes-27-march-2018/)
  4. the HEC meeting decided by a narrow majority of 10-8 to ballot members on a proposal from UUK whose wording was not the outcome of a formal negotiating process between the properly constituted UCU negotiating group on USS and UUK.

 

This UCU branch believes that:

UCU negotiators should return to UUK and seek improvements to the 23 March proposal taking into account the many concerns that branches have raised about its implementation and contents.

This UCU branch resolves to:

  1. recommend to members to vote against the UUK proposal in the consultation.
  2. circulate this petition to members along with other materials urging a vote against the UUK proposal: https://goo.gl/forms/jpuLLPtkgLOigF2O2.
  3. to call for a Special Meeting of UCU Higher Education Sector Conference to discuss the USS dispute under Rule 16.11.* If possible this Special Meeting would be held immediately prior to or following Congress.

2 Reports from HEC + Branch Delegates Meeting 28 March 2018 (Vicky + Lesley)

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Report from Vicky Blake:

Adapted (to make it readable as prose) from a Twitter-thread – please note that original thread is subject to further updates and that Vicky is responding to questions sent in response to it, which you can follow [here]. You can also follow the thread on [Thread Reader]: Thread by @zenscara #ReviseandResubmit #ASOSforUSS #unityisstrength #USSstrike

The official update from on the HEC decision to take the UUK proposal on to a ballot is [here] and I’ve been threading my take on today as an HEC member [here]: I’m still tweeting on this thread + began before the official UCU post came out. 

HEC: 10 mins to read paper containing recommendations given to us after Branch Delegates Meeting + 1 hour discussion. 6 Motions submitted by members of HEC, including mine on #ReviseandResubmit. Paper passed + Chair judged 5 motions to fall+1 (setting valuation end date) remitted. I do not think the paper that was put forward (which recommended a consultation with members) needed to be incompatible with all 5 motions that fell, especially the one I argued for on #ReviseandResubmit because I believe there was time to include Revise + Resubmit in the process. The Chair disagreed.

Here’s the #ReviseandResubmit motion I proposed to HEC. I moved it arguing it seemed clear from observing the Branch Delegates Meeting, that a *huge* number of members were asking for some form of Revise + Resubmit, and that not to discuss it would have been a dereliction of our duty to represent members.

In HEC we were given recap of extra info that had been presented to the Branch Delegates Meeting (which was about 3.5 hrs long I think, as it extended slightly) this morning, including a letter from UUK’s Alistair Jarvis received by the union this morning

View image on Twitter

Text: ‘Dear Sally, I understand that you have received questions from your members about the employer’s positions on future benefits reforms that may be necessary to complete this valuation following the report of the proposed joint expert panel. I can confirm that Universities UK does not intend to return to the January joint negotiating committee (JNC) proposal to consult on moving to a defined contributions (DC) scheme. Instead we are committed to maintaining a meaningful defined benefit pension offer at this valuation. Longer term we would like to work jointly with UCU to consider other risk sharing alternatives. We believe that working together to establish a joint expert panel on the valuation provides an opportunity to move forward from this difficult dispute. Universities UK and employers believe that the sector needs to be given time to pause, to reflect and to rebuild the trust that has been damaged over the past few months and to rebuild relationships with your members and those students who have supported industrial action. All the best, Alistair Alistair Jarvis Chief Executive Universities UK

There was also an update on *indications* from the pensions regulator seeing an “opportunity to bring all stakeholders together to avoid recurring disagreements” – the letter was confidential + not in the General Secretary’s “gift” to share but it was referred to as broadly supportive. The Branch Delegates Meeting was also told (via Jarvis’ letter) that we should consider the idea of UUK bringing the 23 Jan JNC decision back (ie to introduce fully DC scheme) “dead” – this was considered a major concession from employers. There were LOTS of questions from branch delegates about how far UUK et al could be trusted + discussion of how “vigilance” & momentum could be ensured. Lots of praise for members’ strike + ASOS action + how far it has brought us. Branch delegates had a lot of questions, especially on process.
(I have been SO uplifted & heartened by the member-led, grassroots democracy at work in growing & mobilising our union throughout this dispute + have become increasingly concerned that we have struggled to make usual processes clear + therefore harder to explain “unusual” ones!)
It’s very significant that the industrial action remains ON during the balloting process on the proposal. So don’t stop your #ASOSforUSS + note strike dates. Many feared action might be suspended during ballot – I’m glad that we’re keeping up pressure on employers during ballot.
Things I don’t know:
*Wording of ballot question
*Whether there will be recommendation on how to vote inserted (HEC did not discuss or vote on this) *How differently (or not) any members might’ve voted at @leedsucu EGM / fed back by email had they had today’s info (or more time)
*Whether I should’ve voted differently today (abstained but felt utterly hideous, under pressure+note it wouldn’t have swayed vote-will explain in another tweet shortly)
*If I’ll ever get out of UCU HQ (am still tweeting b/c can’t face doing on train)
Things I do know:
*This, and the previous Branch Delegate Meeting and HEC Combo (13 March) tell us members *need* more information on processes in plain English so everyone can understand (& can orientate understanding when the union is responding to weird situations) See also [this earlier thread] which explains what happened on 13 March.
 *We need to keep doing amazing branch democracy + supporting all members to engage + be heard + ask question  and then some. Everyone will have even more questions about the proposal + context + (what happened) today.
*We need to focus on ways to build consensus alongside space for collegial debate
“How will I vote in the ballot consultation?”
Currently, don’t know. I want to scrutinise every scrap of information (noting the General Secretary has promised more after Easter) + urgently organise meeting for all @leedsucu members to discuss *in depth*. (Mis)Trust in UUK et al is a *huge issue*. That we’ll (probably) be asked a variant of a Yes/No question, where many branches saw not 2 but 3 possible broad routes worries me, and is why I proposed a #ReviseandResubmit (with timely timescale) motion to HEC. I sought to avoid division and to build consensus where possible as #unityisstrength
This is also why I found voting so difficult. I could *not* vote for the 1st paper with recommendations as framed at HEC because it had been judged that it would cause all motions to fall (including #ReviseandResubmit also specific amendment ideas, motions on process, timing + transparency)
My personal perspective: We ended up at vote in a rush, because time was *so* tight. We started late and ironically HEC time was squeezed because we needed more room for debate at the Branch Delegate Meeting, which was fair, but we lost time for HEC to debate/discuss as thoroughly as I think we should’ve.
But I also felt enormously conflicted about voting *against* the paper because it summarised a great deal of progress in this dispute that – above all else, we must not forget to *celebrate* because our incredible #USSstrike + #ASOSforUSS has moved the allegedly immovable a LOT,  and I knew among #ReviseandResubmit folks we have a spectrum of what people would find acceptable and how they’d like it framed.
As several Branch Delegates pointed out earlier, we didn’t know what members thought about new info that came today ( and they didn’t know when voting in EGMs/polls). I absolutely *hate* abstaining; I’m not 100% sure it was the right decision, but didn’t feel I could objectively justify voting for/against paper *as presented* in any good conscience in moment (which came upon us *very* fast). The paper was not a simple Yes/No. I will find out if we can share it because I think it will help members to understand this timeline + today’s outcomes better if we can. And I think that’s really important.

[Added 29 March:]
After sleep + some discussion with @leedsucu committee we decided the absence of the word “confidential” + fact no one said it was confidential means the paper we (HEC) were asked to vote on 1st + motions that it was decided fell as result would be useful to share with members who want to see framing. (So if I get in trouble for this please be aware I gave it thought + consulted amazing @leedsucu committee who agree this is a useful thing to see) – several pages (excuse my awful handwritten scribbles + sorry some are sideways):
[Link to tweet with images]
6 Motions also tabled at HEC – all ‘fell’ except 5 (remitted). Genuinely do not understand why was felt that all these motions necessarily fell as a result of voting on paper moved first. I believed there was room for #ReviseandResubmit if done swiftly+organised way.
Report from Lesley McGorrigan (originally sent to UCU Action Group)

Here’s my rough and ready report after attending today’s UCU delegate meeting (as observer) and Higher Education Committee (HEC) meeting in London. The day was extremely frustrating, to say the very least,  given the context of such an important issue, the historically successful strike action, engagement and growth of our union.

Sally Hunt presented the letter from Alistair Jarvis, Chief Exec of UUK and she spoke of the confidential letter she had seen from the pension regulator to David Eastwood, Chair of the USS Board (which she has subsequently emailed you about).  After these updates from Sally,  many delegates said the consultation they had undertaken in their branches may have been different if it had taken place today. Voting cards had been prepared and issued to the delegates but no vote was taken. There is now some contesting of the official report of the delegates/branches’ collective views.  I can confirm that delegates reports were often  muddled and sometimes contradictory due to their methods of consultation – many had conducted email polls (with no debate) offering a binary choice resulting in members voting one way but qualifying their vote with written comments which made their vote ambiguous.  Many branches had not conducted the democratic type of discussion-fuelled voting that we had yesterday at our EGM.  It was very difficult to detect how each branch in the room would have voted had they been asked to.

At the HEC meeting following the delegate meeting, one of the paid union officials presented a paper containing a recommendation that HEC votes to put the UUK proposal (with some clarifications) to a member vote.  The chair of HEC, Douglas Chalmers, ruled that five of the six motions submitted by HEC members would fall if the paper from the paid official was adopted and that his paper would be voted on first.  The paper was passed by 10 votes to 8. I, along with all UCU Left supporters, voted against the paper as we had heard many views from members calling for UCU to revise and resubmit the proposal, accounting for members’ concerns over some of the detail.

Our fantastic members’ action achieved  the latest proposal from UUK, and consigned the 100 percent Defined Contribution scheme to the bin. This is a substantial climbdown from the employers but many members quite rightly don’t trust the USS Board/ UUK to act honourably, without some essential details written into a proposal.

I think we should vote to reject the UUK proposal in its current form and that UCU can then continue its good work and secure the assurances members have asked for.

UCU members are powerful – we have demonstrated this so well.

A UCU Left report that I contributed to is here: http://uculeft.org/2018/03/now-vote-no-and-continue-the-fight/

Brief Delegate’s Report: Branch Delegates Meeting (USS pension dispute)

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Short report on pensions briefing meeting 11:00-14:00 extended to 14:20 on the 28/3/18 at UCU HQ Carlton Street.

The meeting started with Sally Hunt (General Secretary) presenting new information in the for of a letter from UUK and a quote from a confidential letter sent from the Pensions Regulator (tPR).  She set out what she thought this new information did to the ‘place’ we now found ourselves.  Paul Bridge (UCU Head of Higher Education; negotiator) then spoke further to this. He also talked about how the ‘valuation panel’ might work.

Floor opened to a lively questions session including:

Q Why was this new information only put to us now.
A this UUK letter only arrived this morning (28/3/18) and tPR and USS letter was confidential (note latter information has been now been circulated to all by Sally, and we had no indication as to when Sally first became aware of the information).

Q how can we represent our members now that this new information is available?
A taken as rhetorical

After this Matt Waddop reported on the further action.  There were letters announcing the next round of strike action going out to employers during the day.  Action was to proceed.

Delegates were then allowed to report back…  during this it became apparent that a lot was to be said and delicates time was gradually curtailed and the meeting lengthened.

My take on UCU branch activity was that feedback had been sort in very widely varying ways and a widely differing points in time.  There was also a trend that polling via electronic means produced one results where as meetings with debate produced a differing result.  It was evident that there was much uncertainty.  Not all delegates spoke.

There was no vote despite voting cards having been issued.

Whilst I did not tally responses it was my understanding that opinions ‘go to ballot’ and ‘revise and resubmit’ were close, however it is my opinion (and I’m not alone) that revise and resubmit option had the majority.

Dr Nigel Bubb

University of Leeds UCU EGM Minutes 27 March 2018

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Download the Word file here: 2018.03.27 EGM minutes Leeds UCU

University of Leeds Local Association

Emergency General Meeting

Tuesday 27 March, 1pm – 2pm (but may overrun)

Venue: Roger Stevens lecture theatre 21

Minutes

 

Motion 1

This branch welcomes the climbdown by UUK in removing its previous, unacceptable offer and instructs negotiators to seek more assurances from UUK before the new offer is put to all members.

This branch notes that:

  • the terms proposed by UUK for the formation of a Joint Expert Panel on the valuation of USS represents a welcome concession which is a tribute to the effectiveness of our strike action
  • our negotiators must return to UUK to resolve the dispute on terms acceptable to our members.

Leeds UCU calls on UCU negotiators to submit a counter-proposal to the UUK proposal of 23rd March. This would accept the proposal in principle but with the following amendments:

  1. that UUK, on behalf of the employers that they represent, agree that the status quo shall be extended beyond April 2019, should this prove necessary in order to complete the independent valuation, to complete any subsequent negotiations between the parties, and to conduct full consultations with all parties.
  2. that future valuations are carried out on a transparent basis in relation both to data and decision-making. All data used for the valuation to be made easily available for public scrutiny.
  3. that a pension ‘comparable to current provision’ equates to one that is not inferior to our existing provision
  4. a timetable for agreeing a new valuation such that it allows UCU to engage in effective industrial action, if this is necessary
  5. a clear and transparent methodology for consulting employers and members over the emerging findings and recommendations from the Joint Expert Panel, with consultation points for both parties to be built in at key points during the Joint Expert Panel process
  6. that if in the light of a new, independent valuation, contributions or benefits need to be adjusted in either direction, it will be recognised that employers’ contributions were substantially reduced between 1997 and 2009 while employees’ contributions remained unchanged, any therefore that any increase in contributions that may be required for the 2019-2022 cycle should come from employers.
  7. that members will not be required to reschedule classes lost as a result of industrial action
  8. that no deductions for current strike action take place, due to lack of due diligence from employers in relation to the existing valuations
  9. that no balloting of members take place until any agreement between UCU and UUK is confirmed by the USS Joint Negotiating Committee, the USS Trustees and the Pension Regulator, recognising their statutory responsibilities. This will need to include acceptance by the pensions regulator of an extension of the deadline for completing the 2017 valuation, and from the USS trustees that the conclusions resulting from the panel’s work will be allowed to replace the November 2017 valuation as the basis for any reform of the current scheme. Both UCU and UUK will make the necessary approaches to seek this support.
  10. If these assurances cannot be given by 16 April, then the current programme of industrial action should continue.

Moved by Kate Hardy

Third bullet point in “amendments” section to be amended from “comparable with” to “comparable to.” (“I can compare my salary with the vice chancellors but it is not comparable to it.”) The motion was carried, except for the penultimate bullet point (no deductions for strike action) on which the branch wishes to report to the UCU Higher Education Committee that opinion was split 50-50.

Motion 2: No Detriment counterproposal

Leeds University UCU branch notes that members voted for strike action to preserve their existing USS benefit structure or compel the employers to pay the difference.

Leeds University UCU branch therefore mandates negotiators to submit a revised proposal to UUK which:

  1. Replaces ‘a guaranteed pension broadly comparable to current arrangements’ by ‘a Defined Benefit CARE pension with no reductions in benefits or increases in contributions for scheme members’.
  2. Thereby extends maintenance of the current benefits structure to the next valuation round.

Leeds University UCU branch resolves that, until such a position is agreed, HEC should vote for the dispute, and action, to remain on.

Moved by Lesley McGorrigan

Amended from “comparable with” to “comparable to”. The motion was carried

Motion 3: Additional improvements to a UCU counterproposal

Leeds University UCU branch mandates the negotiators to add the following additional conditions to a revised proposal to UUK and to seek agreement on these:

  1. Replace ‘within the current regulatory framework’ by ‘identifies any changes to the regulatory framework required to take account of the special circumstances of the scheme and the sector’.
  2. Add to ‘measures aimed at stabilising the fund’, ‘including governmental guarantees to either allow “partial” funding, as has happened in the past, or make up any short-fall’.
  3. Add ‘including to make up for the loss in pension resulting from previous valuation scheme changes’ after ‘alternative scheme design options’.

Leeds University UCU branch further resolves that negotiators should seek agreement that UUK agrees that there will be no pay deductions at least for staff on casualised contracts and preferably for all staff.

Moved by Lesley McGorrigan

The motion was carried

Motion 4: No suspension or e-ballot without confirmation of regulatory acceptance

Leeds University UCU branch notes that the USS Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) makes decisions on benefits and contributions, the Trustee Board makes decisions on the valuation framework and the Pension Regulator needs to approve the whole package.

Leeds University UCU branch recognises that proposals on benefits and contributions agreed by the JNC will need to be presented in an appropriate way to the Board and Regulator to ensure that they do not prevent them being implemented.

Leeds University UCU branch resolves to request that HEC makes no decision on suspending the action and balloting members until any proposal agreed by UCU and UUK is confirmed by the USS Joint Negotiating Committee, the USS Trustees and the Pension Regulator.

Moved by Lesley McGorrigan

The motion was carried.

Motion 5

The University of Leeds Local Association of the UCU believes that the most recent UUK proposal should be put to a full membership ballot.

Proposed by Jonathan Saha

The motion fell because motion 1 was carried. The meeting agreed to hold an indicative vote on the motion anyway. The indicative vote was clearly against the motion.

 

Letter to VC from UAFs

UCU University of Leeds Branch Posted on by

Fifty-three of University of Leeds’ university academic fellows (UAFs) – the university’s “future academic leaders” – have written to vice chancellor Alan Langlands calling on him to “take immediate and comprehensive action to improve relations between staff and management” following the university’s poor handling of the pension dispute.

They have made a copy of the letter available online.