Reading University UCU

This note reports an initiative recently announced by University management without prior consultation. The aim here is to inform members, to explore possible consequences of the initiative, and then to obtain comment from members.

Former Exceptional Circumstances Policy

———————————————————–

The ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ (EC) policy exists to assist students who wish to defer an assessment deadline on the basis that he/she is in “circumstances which are outside the control of the student and negatively affect academic performance.” It involves a formal and quite complex procedure.

At the time of writing this policy could be found here:

https://www.reading.ac.uk/cqsd/-/media/project/functions/cqsd/documents/qap/exceptional-circumstances.pdf

The policy is 32 pages long. Briefly stated, it defines ‘exceptional circumstances’, states what evidence must be submitted when applying (a GP’s letter, proof of bereavement etc.), and describes how the cases are formally assessed and which staff members have this responsibility.

Changes in 2024/5

————————-

A new EC approach was introduced in the previous academic year. It had very different requirements and had considerable consequences for staff.

The Limited ‘Self-EC’ Experiment

In AY 24/5 the University introduced a system of ‘self-ECs’ which ran in parallel with the existing EC policy. With ‘self-ECs’ students can simply self-certify an EC and this was then accepted at face value rather than investigated with a requirement for proof. Students declare a self-EC and this give them an extra week (five working days) beyond the normal module deadline.

At the time of writing these regulations could be found here:

https://www.reading.ac.uk/essentials/The-Important-Stuff/Rules-and-regulations/Self-Certification-for-an-extension-due-to-Exceptional-Circumstances

These are also copied in the appendix at the end of this note.

The requirements for self-ECs are very different from those of existing ECs. They are used when students have no evidence of their circumstances. As the regulations state:

“Self-certification should be used if you have valid ECs that you cannot evidence. If you can provide evidence of your circumstances and their impact on your study, submitting a standard EC form would be the better option for you.”

Despite the delayed submission that results, staff were still required to mark and moderate all submitted work within 15 working days of the standard deadline.

The key point to note about this change was that self-ECs were limited to two modules/instances per year.

Consequences for Staff

With large amounts of marking to do and despite diaries carefully structured to deal with the expected load, the new approach created considerable difficulties in June this year. Going into Blackboard, staff were surprised to find that a significant number of students had invoked the self-EC on their module, so that not all scripts were there to be marked. Obviously it seemed possible to start marking – but marking could not be completed until the late scripts were also uploaded up to a week after the deadline.

The key issue was the proportion of students who would be late. Not all of the expected scripts for any given module were submitted on time. Instead, a certain percentage came late. Colleagues experienced late figures in the range 25 – 40%.

Some staff we have heard from had great difficulties scheduling their time because they had expected to be able to finish marking and move to other important activities. Instead, they had to interrupt marking (having marked all the ‘on times’), start these other activities for a period, then interrupt these to go back to mark the late scripts, only then returning to the other activities. The volume of marking may be the same but the spread was different and unpredictable. Numerous colleagues have spoken about working across multiple weekends, the clashes with other University duties because of diary disruption etc. One related that he eventually spent a single 20 hour period completing his marking. Many finished June utterly exhausted by the efforts.

Changes in 2025/6

————————-

A further initiative has been announced for the upcoming academic year.

The Initiative and its Justification

It was announced in July that the self-EC scheme would be extended into next year – with a key change. It would not be restricted to two modules but would be UNLIMITED in number.

The justification for the change was twofold:

1.With the 24/5 formal ECs, 90% of the reasons were accepted, i.e. the assessed students claims were thought to be justified.

2.The ‘analysis’ indicated that in not investigating all of the formal ECs the University could have saved £ 1.3 million in staff time.

The over-arching point here is that on the basis of this ‘analysis’ it has been decided that a key change would be implemented for 25/26: students will be given not two but an unlimited number of usages of self-EC.

Staff Response and Other Issues

Many staff are uneasy about this idea. At the ‘breakfast meeting’ with University management at which it was announced, many representatives expressed unhappiness. At various local meetings three questions have been asked:

1. Was late work still required to be marked to the same deadline?

2. Had any estimate been made of the cost/value of the disruption and stress and over-time generated for faculty as a result of this year’s change?

3. Was it realised that most staff thought this a very bad idea?

The answers were, respectively:

1. For Semester 1 submissions, late work would now have a marking deadline 15 days after the late submission date. However, this was not possible for Semester 2 if students were to receive their marks in time. Hence all Semester 2 late work would need to be marked (and moderated) within 10 working days in order to hit the unchanged deadline

2. No, no such estimate had been made.

3. Faculty objections had been over-ruled because of the perceived advantages

Two other issues have subsequently come to light.

Some work is being marked twice

Students can submit a self-EC up to two working days AFTER the formal deadline. It is therefore possible for students to submit work to BB within the deadline and then submit a new version some days later. Colleague have reported instances on modules in which work was submitted and marked – and then a new version submitted from the same student. This had to be marked a second time. One colleague who had experienced this raised the matter with the Programme Administration team and also the SDTL. He was told that it was unavoidable – unless it was explicitly forbidden but that that went against university policy.

Clearly this increases the marking load and is a wasteful use of faculty time.

This same idea was tried and rejected at another university

In one meeting when the initiative was announced, a colleague reported that during an external exam board, when it had been mentioned that self-ECs might be unlimited at Reading next year, one of the external examiners shared his experience. He explained that his (Russell Group) university had implemented a similar policy the previous year, found it unmanageable, and then reverted to a limited self-EC allowance.

Key Concerns

——————-

The initiative seems ill-thought out. It ignores significant faculty opposition and entirely predictable damaging consequence for faculty. Specific concerns are:-

a) The justification involves a one-sided calculation of costs saved whilst completely (apparently consciously) failing to ‘value’ the effects on staff of 24/5’s arrangements.

b) Previous sector experience has not been taken into account.

c) In 24/25 the limited self-ECs had bad effects. With unlimited self-ECs we can reasonably expect a significant increase in the late percentages.

d) The double-marking problem will become worse, increasing the load.

e) The only way to avoid double-marking is not even to begin marking until two days after the formal deadline – a loss of those two days, leaving only 13 days to mark.

f) The 15 day marking deadline already means an intense period of work for staff with large modules. With this policy University management has de facto shifted considerably towards imposing a ten day marking window.

g) Vast amounts of over-time will be worked – unremunerated. Yet all of the additional costs to faculty will be hidden; these are treated as mere externalities, not used to assess the effectiveness of the scheme.

h) There will be greater disruption to the work that staff want to do in other areas.

i) How was the supposed saving of £1.3 million calculated and what will it be spent on?

j) The initiative results from a management fiat which takes no account of faculty opinion and no account of the consequences for faculty.

k) The University is signalling ‘we will not pay to check that you are being honest’. If 10% of the claims in the formal EC procedure failed then what percentage of self-ECs might be questionable? ‘More than 10%’ seems a plausible answer. Are we not teaching our students to be deceitful and cynically manipulative?

The key questions:

– Are concerns widely shared amongst staff and, if they are

– What should we do to prevent what looks very much like a train-wreck, now set up to grind inexorably on over the next 9 months before creating an almighty and entirely predictable crunch in June 2026?

We welcome your comments.

2024/5 Regulations for Limited ‘Self-certification’

———————————————————————

We are committed to providing a support package for our students which provides flexibility while also ensuring that assessment is fair, academic attainment is recognised and specific impacts experienced by individuals are mitigated.

With this mind, the Exceptional Circumstances (EC) Policy has been updated to now include the provision of self-certification for an extension due to exceptional circumstances.

Self-certification allows you the opportunity and responsibility to submit a claim for a five working day extension, in appropriate circumstances. This is in recognition that it is not always possible or appropriate for you to seek an appointment, or consult with a GP, for short-term illness nor is it always possible to obtain evidence for other short-term circumstances. Self-certification will be granted only on the basis of allowable exceptional circumstances.

The ability to self-certify for an extension due to exceptional circumstances is only permitted twice in one academic year. Subsequent requests in the same academic year will need to be submitted using the standard, non-self-certification, exceptional circumstances form and will require evidence in the normal way. Self-certification should be used if you have valid ECs that you cannot evidence. If you can provide evidence of your circumstances and their impact on your study, submitting a standard EC form would be the better option for you.

Self-certification is not available for every type of assessment and can only be used for a five working day extension for eligible coursework assignments. On the self-certification request form, assessments will be available to select from two working days prior to the original coursework deadline and until two working days afterwards. For more details and information about how to make a self-certification request, please see the FAQs below.

If you wish to self-certify in order to receive a five working day extension of an eligible piece of coursework, you must complete the self-certification request form on RISIS.

Copied (on 5th September 2025) from:

https://www.reading.ac.uk/essentials/The-Important-Stuff/Rules-and-regulations/Self-Certification-for-an-extension-due-to-Exceptional-Circumstances

This branch notes:

1. The University of Reading’s announcement on 11 June 2025 regarding changes to its campus facilities policies, following the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the interpretation of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

2. That the University has withdrawn its previous policy allowing staff and students to use facilities matching their gender identity, mandating instead that single-sex spaces be used according to “biological sex.”

3. The University’s stated intention to redesignate facilities and update signage without having completed meaningful consultation with the University community, and ahead of final guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

4. That the UCU’s national guidance on the Supreme Court ruling stresses that this ruling does not remove or diminish protections for trans people under the Equality Act 2010, and calls on institutions to avoid rushed or exclusionary policy changes prior to the release of full EHRC guidance.

5. That these changes risk causing distress, exclusion, and harm to intersex, trans and non-binary students and staff, and contravene the University’s responsibilities under the Equality Act, particularly regarding protections against harassment and indirect discrimination related to gender reassignment.

This branch believes:

1. The university has not recognised intersex people in either of their statements, and non-binary people were not mentioned in the initial statement at all.

2. That intersex, trans and non-binary members of the University community deserve dignity, respect, and the freedom to safely access facilities that align with their gender identity.

3. That the University’s premature policy change creates an unsafe and exclusionary environment for trans and non-binary people, undermining the University’s stated commitments to inclusion and belonging.

This branch resolves to:

1. Publicly oppose the University’s exclusionary facilities policy change and issue a public statement affirming support for the rights of trans and non-binary staff and students to access facilities in accordance with their gender identity.

2. Urge the University to ensure that RUCU are consulted on any changes to policy and to the working conditions of staff, so as to preserve the dignity and inclusion of all staff

3. Call on the University to immediately pause implementation of the policy change and make no decision on re-implementation until all of the below has occurred and findings from the consultation with staff are included in any final implementation:

o The final EHRC Code of Practice is published.

o A full, transparent equality impact assessment is carried out.

o Meaningful consultation takes place with trans, non-binary and intersex people, relevant staff and student networks, and recognised campus trade unions.

4. Lobby for the University to reinstate the previous policy allowing trans, non-binary and intersex people to access facilities that align with their gender identity, in line with the University’s equality, diversity and inclusion commitments and UCU’s nationally agreed policies.

5. Work in coalition with the Students’ Union, LGBTQIA+ Staff Network, and other campus groups to advocate for inclusive, non-discriminatory practice in all areas of University policy.

6. Provide support to members affected by this policy change, including through grievance processes, informal advocacy, and signposting to appropriate resources.

7. Report this matter to UCU South Regional Office and UCU’s national Equality Committee for further action and support.

This branch notes with alarm, concerns raised by the branch committee regarding the new lecture capture policy the university senior management is intending to introduce, despite serious concerns raised by the RUCU branch committee and UCU national official in relation to the policy.

These concerns include the proposed use of lecture capture as a strike breaking weapon, the potential use of lecture capture output in staff disciplinary processes and the denial of some of the safeguards expected by UCU to safeguard academic freedom and be in line with GDPR.

This branch asserts the following position:

1. lecture capture should always be voluntary (UCU’s policy position is that all lecture capture is opt-in)
2. staff should retain authorship and performance rights to their lectures
3. staff should have a say in the use of the films and other recordings of their lectures
4. a condition of any policy the university on lecture capture must have a clause to explicitly exclude films and other recordings being used during industrial action
5. academic freedom is not curtailed by filming and other recording
6. students and staff should not be put into ethical, personal safety or other difficulties by filmed or recorded responses in captured lectures
7. lecture capture should never be used for disciplinary uses for staff. The appropriate mutually agreed staff disciplinary processes should apply
8. lecture capture presents particular risks given the potential for clips or edited materials to appear on the internet. These should be given due care by the university and use of the materials should be appropriately time-limited to the relevant cohort as per agreement with RUCU, and with explicit agreement from students that the materials will not be used outside of their intended purpose or platform.
9. lecture capture may present particular concerns for disabled staff or those presenting different protected characteristics. These should be appropriately addressed.

Should senior management proceed to implementation, overriding or ignoring material pedagogical and staff concerns raised by RUCU during consultation, then this branch instructs the branch committee to take appropriate actions to prevent the implementation of the policy.

A “request for assistance” has recently been circulated in one of our Schools. The politely phrased message asks for volunteer teaching staff to assist with some novel clearing-related activities that have been introduced “as this year’s result week will be more competitive than ever [for student recruitment]”. These new activities comprise 1. a call centre type operation to phone all firm offer-holders on Results Day to congratulate them on their offer in the hopes that this makes them more favourable towards Reading and less likely to self-release to “trade up” through clearing. 2. A second clearing-offer-holder’s day on Sat 16th August to be added to the already planned Fri 15th August offer-holder’s day on the grounds that due to the short notice, not all recipients of a clearing offer will be able to travel to Reading for Friday and in the current hyper-competitive environment “we cannot afford” to operate support for clearing solely within the normal working week.

These new activities are justified (according to the message) by the need to “pull out all the stops” to ensure recruitment to target “given the University financial position”.

We are all so on board with the wholesome aims of “meeting targets” and “breaking even” that certain realities are in danger of being lost from sight.

I think it needs to be said that:

-It is not normal that the scope and scale of programmed activities requiring unpaid overtime weekend working are continually increasing.
-You (via JNCHES) have been offered a full and final 1.4% pay award to take effect from 1 August 2025 (against a backdrop of 3.5% year on year inflation), delivering yet another real terms pay cut. Regarding this, a consultative ballot is open until 15th August (search for “UCU higher education pay and working conditions consultative ballot” in case you missed the message!) which I would encourage you to participate in as this will inform the eventual UCU response to this offer.
-The more successful this latest recruitment drive is, the more admin, teaching, marking and tutoring you will have the privilege of carrying into the following 3 years (for less real-terms pay – see point 2), probably exacerbated by the need to cover for workloads of departing or departed colleagues who are not replaced.
-Since the UK undergraduate student pool is what it is, success of one institution in increasing its market share, necessarily hastens the demise of another institution a little closer to the financial precipice. Is this what we came into academia to achieve?

I hasten to say that I do not (nor should I) have an easy solution for the systemic challenges faced by the UK HEI sector, although I think it is fair to say that the funding crisis is in great part the result of political decisions to allow the real-terms value of fee income to decline continuously over more than a decade so the solution must in part involve a revision of this policy and it is at a political level that this crisis will ultimately be resolved.

So, personally, I think it is rational to think carefully beyond simply consulting your diary before responding positively to such a request. And before further compromising your mental health and well-being, your caring responsibilities and your work-life balance, I think it may be justifiable to ask pertinent questions, such as:

-What is the evidence of efficacy for congratulatory phone-calls (are students so easily persuaded?) or weekend clearing-offer-holders days on recruitment (balanced against the costs/harms/inequities incurred in running them) and what measures are in place to monitor the positive and negative impacts of these new measures?
-Which targets or expectations for your role are to be lowered or what existing activities have you been told not to do to make room for this new activity, which like other such innovations, is likely to become a recurring fixture?
-Does the business planning strategy (which might be loosely paraphrased as increase income i.e. student headcount while controlling costs i.e. your salaries) that has spawned this request contain any rewards for such good citizenship and if so, how could those rewards not be discriminatory against those whose family life/caring responsibilities/disabilities do not permit them to play on this particular part of the pitch?

Questions I have asked myself include:
-Is it “letting the side down” to challenge this latest call to arms?
-Should we have to carry a collective or individual sense of failure if arbitrary recruitment targets are missed, with or without our full co-operation along the lines of this latest “request for assistance”?
-Should we feel responsible for any future rounds of cuts and redundancies if we have not “pulled out all the stops” to scrape the bottom of the clearing barrel as invited?

My answers are no, no and no.

Collectively, we are passionate and dedicated academics, researchers, teachers and professional support staff that work hard to advance the Universities mission and our respective disciplines through research, training and educational activities. We can be justifiably proud of the fantastic work we do week after week, semester after semester, year after year – and the world would be a poorer, more brutish and dangerous place if institutions like UoR cannot find their place in it. If society does not attach a value to our role and cannot agree on a suitable mechanism to pay for it, it will not be because we were lazy or greedy or unproductive.

A few disclaimers before finishing: 1. This is a personal perspective and not an official UCU position. 2. I did not write this to antagonize my HoS, nor to jeopardize student recruitment, but simply to offer a critical perspective at an occasion where I think a new rubicon of what can be called dignified work conditions may just have been crossed without much consultation or debate.

My response to this polite request will be an equally polite but firm: “I have planned some much needed annual leave for August 14-16th and will therefore not be in a position to contribute to this activity, but if I were to consider joining in, I think I would like to see a much more thorough justification given.”

By a concerned RUCU activist.

Following the University’s updated policy and guidance on use of facilities on campus in response to the Supreme Court Ruling (For Women Scotland Vs The Scottish Ministers), your committee and branch are concerned about the way these changes have been implemented by the University.

This was discussed at the recent AGM of the branch. Members were clear that Reading UCU remains committed to upholding UCU policy on inclusion and preserving the rights and dignity of all members. At the last JUUC we were made aware that minor policy changes would be introduced and had reminded management of the need to consult with us due to the potential impact on staff.

As a committee, we have made clear that:

· All colleagues should be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace. The provision for gender-neutral facilities should not undermine provision for those with other protected characteristics.

We were therefore surprised by the sudden implementation without consultation.

We now note that :

· the University has acted ahead of the EHRC consultation and even the university’s own space utilisation survey, which we were told would be used to inform changes

· Reading UCU have not been consulted re: these changes to working conditions, despite an assurance at JUUC that this would be the case.

· We would have expected an Equality Impact Assessment to have been carried out for this policy change given the implications for those with various protected characteristics.

-Staff should be allowed to comment and there should be opportunities for meaningful engagement and feedback prior to implementation.

UCU’s National position is very clear and was reaffirmed at Congress on the 26th May 2025 in Congress motions on trans rights. Here also are UCU’s response to the Supreme Court ruling and UCU’s position on Trans Inclusion.

We were also made aware that a group of staff and students were to meet with management on the 18th of June to provide their feedback on the policy change. This meeting was observed by our RUCU Equalities Officer on behalf of Reading UCU.

Your Committee is now working on the following areas:

1) The updated policy statement says that it was reviewed with Reading UCU – this is not the case. We have indicated this error to University senior engagement and they have undertaken to correct it. We are awaiting confirmation that this has been rectified.

2) We expect that all staff will have access to suitable facilities that uphold and maintain their dignity in the workplace. It is not acceptable that any member of staff would in essence be forced to “out themselves” to use facilities. Additionally, we do not consider the use of accessible facilities as a suitable alternative to adequate provision of gender-neutral facilities.
The space utilisation survey will highlight which buildings have issues with providing appropriate facilities.

3) We are actively working to support members who are impacted by this change and who are experiencing discrimination or harassment as a result. As such, we remind all members who need support to contact us.

4) At the next JUUC we will be asking for the findings of the space utilisation survey & confirmation that this policy will only be enforced after consultation with us as it applies to working conditions. Outside of the JUUC, we will continue to liaise with senior management from an equalities standpoint.

5) We have made UCU Regional Office aware of the policy changes and their potential impact on staff and are awaiting further guidance from them.

6) We have received anecdotal evidence from members and will continue to engage with reps and members to formulate next steps .

University senior management remain responsible for their obligations under the Equality Act and for the dignity and wellbeing of all staff. Where changes impact working conditions Reading UCU will continue to remain closely involved as the recognised trade union representing staff. We expect that the University recognises its duties and that normal escalation channels are used in the first instance by managers to raise concerns when staff reporting to them are impacted by significant changes such as this. Where members are facing discrimination or these escalation processes fail, members who are managers are encouraged to make RUCU aware, so we can help raise concerns and ensure they are properly addressed. It is vital that senior management remain accountable for the well-being and dignity of staff and also for policy changes that they unilaterally initiate.

We want to reaffirm that Reading UCU as a branch will always behave consistently with UCU’s national policy and stands in solidarity with our trans, non-binary and gender-nonconforming colleagues and students who may have been adversely affected by the sudden changes to policy. The branch committee discourages the implementation of this policy until meaningful consultation has taken place and suitable facilities are available for all colleagues that maintain privacy and dignity of all staff.

RUCU subs increase motion

Reading UCU notes that
• RUCU local subscriptions income fluctuates with membership fluctuations
• local subscriptions currently bring in roughly £16k per year, which goes towards funding a branch administrator, small local events, subscription fees including publications and online access to information resources, as well as supporting the hardship fund
• local subscription rates have been frozen for the past eight years
• Reading UCU local subscriptions for 2024-25 are currently set at the following rates per month:
– F0 (£60K and above) £3.00
– F1 (£40K-£60K) £2.50
– F2 (£30K-£40K) £1.50
– F3 (£22K-£30K) £1.00
– Below £22K, retired and £0.00
attached members
• RUCU expenses across these categories have naturally risen over a decade and we wish to continue to be a fair employer. We want to ensure that our books remain balanced.
• we remain committed to keeping subs progressive and as low as reasonably possible. Balancing these goals we have done some modelling to justify a small increase to RUCU subs. The RUCU branch committee proposes this increase of between £0.25 to £1.50 for members paying local subs. The zero rate for members earning below £22k, attached members and retired members will continue to be observed
• all members are reminded that union subscriptions, including local subs, are 2/3 tax exempt (see https://my.ucu.org.uk/app/answers/detail/a_id/469/~/tax-relief-on-subscriptions)
Reading UCU resolves
• to increase local subscriptions in line with UCU policy by the following progressive amounts:
– F0 (£60K and above) £1.50
– F1 (£40K-£60K) £1.00
– F2 (£30K-£40K) £0.50
– F3 (£22K-£30K) £.025
– Below £22K, retired and £0.00
attached members
• to remind members to claim tax relief on their subscriptions

Defend our Professional Services Motion

This branch notes that
• Professional services staff are integral to the working of schools and services across the university.
• University senior management need to prioritise these staff, not just in word but in deed. Professional services functions that support the work of the university, students and staff should be adequately staffed and our PS colleagues should have permanent secure contracts.
• Professional Services transformation work continues at the university across the Directorates.
• reductions to Professional Services staffing not just in grades represented by UCU but also in other grades are of grave concern. This comes from the understanding that the loss of these valued, experienced and capable colleagues is in the long term, detrimental to all staff students and at our university.
• we remain vigilant to the threats to our members’ roles and to staff workloads as the senior management strategy is implemented.
• we remain acutely aware of the losses to the university and the long term consequences to all staff and students as a result of the PAS restructure not so long ago.
• that the senior management strategy of redistributing work and not backfilling vacancies has had very negative consequences to students and staff.
• The increased workload, reduced progression and curtailed roles will have a negative impact on equality.

This branch instructs the branch committee to
• Oppose all compulsory redundancies (CR) and to recognise that so called voluntary redundancies (VR) are not always voluntary and that they have a knock on impact on the workload and stress levels of all staff.
• Ensure that suitable and sufficient stress risk assessment is in place for upcoming changes, including in the case of non-replacement of staff who leave their roles.
• Encourage reps in the various functions to help carry out critical evaluation of stress risk assessments and / or to be workload reps in their respective areas so as to take forward this work.
• Reiterate Reading UCU commitment to permanent and secure employment for all staff.

USS Defined Benefit (DB) and Indexation motion

This branch notes that
• In Defined Benefit pension schemes such as USS, it is necessary to protect the value of pension entitlements given that our benefits are based on earnings over a long period and this is our future pay in retirement
• Pension indexation refers to how future increases in pension are calculated. These are needed to provide members with a degree of inflation – or ‘cost of living’ – protection to, and through, their retirement
• USS annual pension increases are currently calculated based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation. The rate is matched up to 5%CPI, then only at 50% for CPI over 5% and with a cap on total increase of 10%.
• UCU are currently exploring use of conditional indexation (CI). This is where the future increases (indexation) applied to benefits built up are conditional on the funding position of the scheme
• This would allow employers to undermine the DB scheme, by trading off conditionality in DB for the potentially unrealised possibility of higher returns or the carrot of lower contributions, and is a dangerous and slippery slope

This branch also notes
• the significant sacrifices made by our members over several years to save our USS DB pension
• the surplus in the Scheme
• how flaws in the valuation methodology have skewed our perception of the health of the Scheme by overemphasising a possible deficit in the past, and the importance of addressing these

This branch asks national negotiators to
• Negotiate for improved benefits without an increase in contributions and to prioritise restoring full CPI inflation protection followed by augmentation (compensation to cover past losses) for all members.
• Oppose the possibility of conditional indexation

Palestine Solidarity Motion

This Annual General Meeting of the Reading UCU branch is
• horrified by the systematic slaughter of civilians, including medical professionals and journalists, particularly over the past year and a half in the Gaza Strip and in the occupied West Bank.
The AGM notes that
• in contradiction with Israel’s obligations of international law – in particular, the obligation to ensure the protection of civilian populations – the people of Gaza are experiencing starvation as a result of the blockade by Israel of food and medicines into the strip.
• Children have been killed by the Israeli military at an unprecedented rate. Nearly 200 journalists and media professionals have perished in the military operations carried out by the Israeli army in Gaza resulting in a media blackout, at a time when a growing number of international NGOs and UN bodies are describing them as acts of genocide.
• Over 95% of schools and universities are damaged or destroyed – forcing children and young adults to miss out on their education for a second year which creates a dangerous legacy.
• Hospitals have been destroyed and medical professionals tortured and brutalised,
Meanwhile in the West,
• repression of Palestinian solidarity and rights activism is intensifying at universities threatening academic freedom.
• Scholars criticising the violence perpetrated by Israel or calling for Palestinian rights are harassed, intimidated and silenced.
• Careers have been destroyed, public statements and job offers withdrawn, and critical debates and events on Palestine cancelled or interrupted by the police.
• Palestinian students and scholars are particularly targeted, as are people of colour and anti-Zionist Jews accused of betraying their heritage.
• Critical theoretical frameworks used to understand Palestinian dispossession – including settler colonialism and Apartheid, even comparisons and contextualisation– are censored
This branch
• expresses solidarity with the Palestinian people and those coming to their aid, notably the aid ship Madleen that was illegally stopped in international waters.
• makes a donation of £500 towards Medical Aid for Palestinians
• continues to oppose the possible genocide in Palestine and the illegal occupation of Palestinian land

We’re writing with an update regarding our previous email about our survey on pay deferral. We had stated that members noted that a closure day was taken away from Easter allowance. We discussed this with the University Secretary during the previous Joint University UCU Committee (JUUC) meeting. We were advised that members were mistaken and the University Secretary subsequently emailed this information:

The six days are spread across the Christmas and Easter periods. In each year they are either split four and two, or five and one. This is often driven by the day of the week that Christmas Day falls.

So in this academic year, five closure days were allocated to the Christmas period (set before the additional two were granted). These covered Monday 23rd, Tuesday 24th, Friday 27th, Monday 30th and Tuesday 31st December. Had we selected only four at Christmas, the University would either have been open Monday 23rd (and it seems unhelpful to be open only on the Monday of Christmas week), or Tuesday 31st, meaning reopening on that day, but immediately followed by statutory closure on Wednesday 1st January.

However, on a now 404 missing page on the university website system we had previously seen the below, indicating that there had been a change in closure days.

The University is also normally closed on 6 Closure Days, which is 4 days around Christmas and 2 days around Easter for 2024/25 and 5 days around Christmas, 1 day before Good Friday for 2025/26.

If members still finding this an issue of concern should let us know, so that we can pass this on to the University Secretary.

This is the formal announcement, required under local rules (Local rules – Reading University UCU), of the meeting which will take place on Tuesday the 17th of June 12:00. An agenda will be circulated for the meeting 14 days beforehand, by the 3rd June, as also required under local rules. We will need to have received any items for the agenda, including motions, by 12:00 on 29th of May.

If you would like to participate more in the Branch’s work, please consider standing for election as an ordinary Committee member or as one of the Branch Officers. If you would like more information, there is a description of the responsibilities of the roles currently in the Local rules of our website at www.reading.web.ucu.org.uk in section 8 (also attached), or have a chat with one of the existing Committee members (names and contact details also on the website).

Our Returning Officer, Moray McAulay (Southern UCU Regional Official), will need to receive all nominations by 12 noon Tuesday 20th May 2025. ​Please send your nominations to Colette Maxfield, the Branch Administrator, who will pass them on to the returning officer. The nomination form is attached and also available on the Branch website at
https://reading.web.ucu.org.uk/files/2025/04/RUCU-Nomination-form-for-Committee-and-Officers-2025-26.docx

Each self-nomination should be supported by two separate members of the Branch. Please include the two members in your email (in cc), so that they can email to confirm support for your nomination. Positions for which there is only one candidate will be elected unopposed, while any elections required will be carried out through an online ballot of members in the weeks between the close of nominations and the AGM.

Please do let us know if you have any questions.

Further to our previous discussions at the quorate branch meeting on 6th February, I am also writing to update you on matters discussed there and since: As you know, the branch has been in intense discussions with senior management since July/August to stave off the threats of redundancy at the University of Reading. We have also contested the non-implementation of the nationally negotiated pay increase (delay of 11 months), engaged in negotiations re: the scale, scope and terms of the “targeted” voluntary redundancy scheme, and had other important discussions around averting the closure of Chemistry. During this time, we have repeatedly requested the VC to confirm that there will be no compulsory redundancies especially given that staff and students have repeatedly borne the costs when management has proposed cuts. The VC has previously told us that he is unable to provide such an assurance about taking compulsory redundancies off the table.

So when we met the senior management team that forms the consultation group on 4th February, your negotiating team – taking into consideration a range of factors – tabled formally a proposal for no compulsory redundancies until Dec 31, 2025. While we do not accept the premise that redundancies are the correct way for management to address the shortfall created by unrealistic management projections in budgets or other factors, we have specific technical reasons for making this proposal and selecting this date as the timeline for the assurance we request in respect of compulsory redundancies. I will specifically address this timing matter at the branch meeting on Tuesday, as it is useful that we are all on the same page in this regard and that members are fully appraised of the pros and cons of various options we have considered. The VC had agreed at the consultation meeting of 4th February to provide a prompt response to us in the next days. I have since contacted him a week after that meeting, to request an update, and was promised one by the end of this week. I will of course inform members immediately if I find out that our request has been met.

The window for voluntary redundancy applications in Chemistry and in other departments has now passed. Your negotiators are aware, that the branch must be in a position to respond promptly and effectively, should the prospect of compulsory redundancies suddenly make an appearance. At the quorate 6th Feb meeting, the branch therefore passed an important Defend Our Jobs motion to surmount some of the organising obstacles placed by the anti-trade union legislation in our way. The further measures proposed by this motion are important because there are a number of simple and complex steps that need to be undertaken by RUCU before industrial action to defend members can be undertaken lawfully under both UCU internal procedure and UK trade union laws. We do not want to be caught out, should compulsory redundancies suddenly surface.

Any industrial action will only be taken by our members, after a successful ballot, and if it is absolutely necessary. We would want such action to be well-justified, well-timed, well-supported and effective. We continue to take pride in being reasonable, open and patient in our negotiations with senior management and to contribute constructively to the process. I hope you will agree that we must now be prepared and vigilant at this time, especially because we are concerned about the speed at which further adverse events could now potentially unfold.

Thank you to all members to participated in the survey.

This is a reminder of the indicative losses spreadsheet prepared by our committee to show approximately how much money individual members of staff across different pay grades can expect to lose (please click on the pink link ”Pay Deferral Losses”: https://reading.web.ucu.org.uk/2024/11/12/cost-to-individual-members-of-reading-senior-management-decision/pay-deferral-losses/). The RUCU context for this indicative spreadsheet is on our blog here: https://reading.web.ucu.org.uk/2024/11/12/cost-to-individual-members-of-reading-senior-management-decision/. Members have asked us if they can share this information with non-members: Yes, please feel free to do so, with the accompanying caveats.

The headline results of the survey are as follows:

• Roughly 12% of our branch members responded to the survey.

• Of those members who answered, an overwhelming majority felt that the key impacts on them were from:
-the non-implementation of the pay award (pay deferral) (97%) and
-the associated pension loss (73.3%). It is worth pointing out here that while the pension loss may not seem such a large amount, the cumulative effect of a small loss of pension ends up having a magnified effect on the Defined Benefit component of USS pensions.

• Roughly a third of members noted that increases in parking and freeze of spinal points as affecting them and other matters including the promotion freeze during 2023-24 and barriers to regrading processes, were placing a burden on them

• Members also noted the burdens placed by
-colleagues who had left not being replaced and the associated impact on workload and mental health
-additional PRP (Portfolio Review Project) work
-self-funding conference travel
-expenses for home working
-visa and NHS charges for migrant workers.

• Close to 60% of respondents said the non-implementation (delay by 11 months) of the nationally negotiated pay award (to a lesser degree) would have a significant impact on their income and expenditure.

• The qualitative responses also showed something quite striking : When asked what the pay award increase would have been used for, it was not luxuries or ‘like-to-have’ extras that colleagues will be doing without. The responses overwhelmingly showed that basic living expenses, covering costs of mortgages, rent, house repairs, bills and debt repayments were amongst the most mentioned areas our lost wages would be spent on.

• Also key were general living expenses with the increased cost of living, age, supporting the family (including childcare, after-school activities and grown children at university), diet and extra health-related costs. There is a clear impact on those confront equality barriers.

• The survey also revealed that nearly 40% (37.84%) don’t currently use all of their annual leave allowance. We will undertake further work in this area to find out why, and intend to include it as part of our workload working party’s agenda

• We asked members what they thought about senior management offering staff 2 further days annual leave to take at a time of their choosing. The overwhelming consensus was that these 2 closure days do nothing to change the workload and therefore the majority of our members would still be working on these days or feeling the pressure upon return to work, particularly given the introduction of exams in January. 38% replied that they do not even use their full annual allowance. Members noted that days off don’t pay the bills and they would have preferred the pay award. It was also noted that a closure day was taken away from Easter allowance. We will raise this at the next JUUC.

• It is revealing that only 12% of members who responded believed that UoR senior management would use the money gathered from our pay deferral losses in the corresponding 11 month period to ensure the financial sustainability of our University. Other respondents either didn’t know or thought not

• Members offered a range of suggestions about how your committee should raise these issues in dialogue with senior management.

• Members were clear they wished us to hold management to account and they wished to see clear evidence of long-term planning by UoR senior management that takes into account how any savings including those ostensibly justified by austerity and staff cuts would be used. Concerns remain that senior management pay rises / bonuses have not been clawed back, while staff bear the brunt of austerity. Sustainability bursaries, DTS spending and spending on travel / hospitality were also raised as concerns

• Members were keen for us to seek confirmation that the senior management team are also foregoing any pay increases this year. Members remain deeply concerned about, and committed to our lowest paid and vulnerable colleagues. Members remain worried about the necessity for some staff to use food banks to make ends meet.

• Circa 40% of members proposed a vote of no confidence in senior management as one of the responses to the non-implementation (deferral by 11 months) of the pay award.