Reading University UCU

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.

This branch notes

• the hardship loss of pay and pension contributions faced by staff on account of the University senior management’s decision to delay the implementation of the nationally negotiated pay award;
• The significant ‘savings’ of circa £4.5m already generated by the University and borne by staff as a result of the non-implementation of the pay award and other austerity measures;
• Member concerns about the financial awards for certain members of the senior managers despite the current climate of cuts for staff;
• the repeated use by management of terminology such as “deficit” when justifying the potential cuts to staff jobs and pay, when concerns arise from shortfalls against overambitious and misguided student recruitment targets;
• member concerns over the ongoing ‘targeted’ voluntary redundancy scheme including;
o The flawed use of the Student-Staff-Ratio (SSR) as a shorthand metric to select departments or areas for targeting, especially given the differences in requirements in affected areas. Using SSR metrics in isolation presents a partial and misleading evidence base for making employment decisions.
o concerns about the specific targeting of the Chemistry department on spurious grounds related to skewed measures of departmental performance and SSR.
o concerns about delivery of future targets & educational standards; increased workload and potential pressure on staff arising from a poorly conceived or implemented plan of restructure and redundancies.
• that staff and students should not have to bear the future consequences of poor prioritisation of resources by senior management in the run-up to such shortfalls
• That staff and students should not have to shoulder the future consequences of poor staffing arising from a flawed redundancy process
• the urgency of the present situation, and the increasing efforts by some universities across the UK to create a climate of fear that preys upon sectoral underfunding, and some universities announcing cuts to provide this as an excuse to normalise wider unjustified cuts across the sector

This branch further notes that

• the Reading UCU negotiation team have asked the Vice-Chancellor that senior management give a written undertaking that there will be no compulsory redundancies before 31 December 2025.
• the Vice-Chancellor has undertaken to consider this request and will respond to UCU.

If senior management do not agree to provide the requested assurance that no compulsory redundancies will be made before 31 December 2025, this branch instructs the branch committee to

• request that the UCU Regional Office writes to the University of Reading to declare a trade dispute;
• initiate the necessary steps to immediately call a statutory ballot for strike action and action short of strike action (ASOS) and to begin mobilising for action;
• seek volunteers from amongst UCU members to begin to organise a get the vote out (GTVO) plan to ensure maximum participation in the ballot and exceed the 50% turnout threshold necessary for action to be authorised;
• initiate actions to improve the size and health of the local hardship fund and encourage members who may have a need to claim from the fund, so that if sustained action is required, then members are adequately supported;
• encourage members to contact local elected representatives to inform them of the developing situation and to seek their support;
• encourage members to seek support for RUCU from students, alumni, external funders and professional bodies;
• seek assistance from sister unions and community bodies including via the Reading Trades Council.

Your committee have primarily been immersed in scrutinising university finances, engaging with management, and meeting and working with the Chemistry department and with other colleagues to mobilise around management plans to close the Chemistry department and/or ‘reshape’ the university.

I now want to share with you where we are on a range of topics that we discussed at the recent Joint University UCU Committee (JUUC). There are items to report from that meeting on a range of topics, and I have tried to capture the key ones below. The minutes should be available from the University in due course.

This email is long but think it is important that colleagues have a full explanation, given the wider implications of our discussions.

Chemistry

Please note at the outset that we have not received a s188 letter formally notifying us of potential redundancies in Chemistry. [A s188 letter provides us with the details required by law, so that UCU can then effectively scrutinise the basis for any decisions around redundancies or changes to terms and conditions.]

I am somewhat relieved to share the news that the Chemistry department is not being closed “for the time being”. While this is an important step in the right direction, it is not the resolution we would have hoped for.

We remain puzzled as to the reasons why the flawed narrative of poor academic performance continues within senior management communications (see https://portal.reading.ac.uk/staff/all-news/2024/november/Chemistry-recommendations-Council-decision) , despite evidence from independent external examiners and from the Royal Society of Chemistry that shows this is a myth. While student outcomes and progression remain strong, and there is outperformance on quality of research as well as research income, it is disappointing that management continue to wrongly equate NSS scores (affected significantly by non-academic and non-departmental factors) to academic excellence. We will continue to work in the coming months to correct this misconception, as it is clearly having unjustified consequences.

The senior management decision to close the MSc Chem programme, deprives the Chemistry department of a reliable income stream that contributes to the department’s financial sustainability. Individual academics are concerned they will be deprived of the valuable contributions by students to their lab teams. Many of these students go on to do PhDs at Reading. It is worrying to find that senior management are seeking the end of such a crucial source of income on the basis of heavily disputed information at a time when they are also arguing for austerity on financial grounds. Senior management have had to admit to Council that some of the key data and analysis provided by them in support of the proposed cuts was factually incorrect. Despite this, and at a time when senior management are simultaneously pushing austerity on financial grounds, they have not yet chosen to withdraw the strategy and reconsider, which we continue to urge them to do.

Chemistry PGRs have formed an important part of the department and our community. The proposed closure of the MChem programme ends the possibility for many of our students to do PhDs and have careers in academia, because a Masters degree is a prerequisite for PhD level study in Chemistry. The postgraduate Masters loan is unfortunately insufficient to cover living costs and home fees; so a 4-year bachelors that results in an MChem, is an important access option, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Losing the MChem means that unless students can self-fund a Masters degree, Reading Chemistry graduates from working class backgrounds will not have a path to go on to careers in academia. The Chemistry department’s exceptionally diverse student body is a source of great pride, particularly with respect to inclusion in the sciences, and this regrettable decision by management will only further entrench the situation of groups that are already under-represented in academia.

Moreover, by eliminating support for research not aligned with REF UoA 3 (i.e., pharmaceutical chemistry) senior management will be denying a home to the high impact research done by our Chemistry colleagues in key areas such as energy materials, green energy and degradable plastics. Senior management are thus seriously undermining their own claims that Reading is a “green university”. We understand that colleagues have been told to expect “changes to staffing” and that colleagues not likely to be included in UoA 3 are understandably worried about the implications of such a statement.

Broader comments re Chemistry and the JUUC

In the run-up to this Council decision not to close the Chemistry department, a huge amount of support was received from students, external examiners, prominent experts and the Royal Society for Chemistry, all of whom chose to intervene without requiring prompting. Our Chemistry colleagues collectively met with RUCU committee on multiple occasions. During these meetings, we discussed various practical matters and our challenges to the rationale originally offered by UEB. These were then used as the basis for our branch negotiators’ discussions with management.

Specifically, at JUUC, I raised formally our members’ serious concerns about the information provided for the scrutiny by Senate, of the senior management proposal to close Chemistry. This Senate scrutiny step was a precursor to the UEB discussions with Council that took place on 19th and 20th of November. Your committee attends Senate in observer capacity only and was present when the Chemistry proposals were discussed. We discussed our concerns with Chemistry colleagues and members’ views were then raised the next day at the JUUC.

This was despite an attempt at JUUC by senior management to dissuade us from raising – during the RUCU president’s report – our concerns about the accuracy of the information provided by senior management to Senate, We maintained (politely and firmly of course) that waiting to highlight and address these errors, until after Council had authorised commencement of consultation for the closure of Chemistry, would just be too late. Senate and Council need to be confident that decisions of this magnitude are informed by accurate and robustly verifiable information. Senior management continued to argue that UEB would update Council with responses to the arguments put by the Chemistry department during Senate, and that the Senate representative on Council would try to capture what was discussed at Senate. We were not satisfied that this would be adequate. We also felt that this deprived Chemistry colleagues of the possibility to give a considered response to subsequent updates to UEB’s position. It would therefore result in an unbalanced narrative being heard by Council, which would be weighted in favour of the UEB position. We argued that any proposed significant changes to Chemistry (or to any other area) too are an integral and important component of scrutiny and discussion at JUUC. Despite some difficulty, we were ultimately able to bring home our arguments about the proposed closure of Chemistry and importantly ensure that these were recorded in the minutes.

One thing to note again, is that the relevant Council papers for the recent Council meeting were only made available / received on Friday/ Monday for a council meeting on Tuesday. This made proper scrutiny, reflection and comments very difficult, especially during a busy teaching term. Many of our members – even those who have exercised the right of all staff to have access to Council papers – may not have been able to provide comments or engage meaningfully. RUCU will continue to emphasise to senior management the need for colleagues to have the space and mechanisms to scrutinise decisions and raise queries. and raise queries consistent with senior management’s repeated position that staff can exercise this right.

We also ask that in addition to relevant information being circulated sufficiently in advance, it must also be accurate, complete and devoid of spin. You will recall the unfortunate redactions that I have already mentioned to you in my previous update.

RUCU continue to encourage ALL staff to request access to Council papers (https://reading.web.ucu.org.uk/resources/uor-governance/) and to keep abreast of what’s going on within the overarching decision-making structures at our University. Our engagement will allow for meaningful staff participation, remind those in governance positions including Senate and Council of our function of legitimate scrutiny, and encourage all of us to behave in a responsible, transparent and accountable manner. The engagement of all staff (including those who reside locally), with the Senate and Council papers, will also help us to engage with matters of interest to our community and to our students such as around the sale of University land, purchase of property and so on. Please share any comments about the most recent Council papers with ReadingUCU, if you have not done so already.

Temporary contracts for changes in hours

At JUUC we also requested a written update from about the use in some schools of contracts for temporary changes in hours and sought reassurance that colleagues in such categories are also given correct access to various protections e.g. during redundancies, redeployment etc.

Tanners farm

The Vice Chancellor apologised to us because senior management had failed to provide us with required information prior to the purchase of Tanners farm for around £16mn (See https://www.reading.ac.uk/news/2024/University-News/New-farm-supports-plan-to-transform-the-future-of-food) which they are bound to do under an agreement that allows us to scrutinise transactions exceeding £10 mn. [See point 27 of the Memorandum of Understanding of August 2020 (https://reading.web.ucu.org.uk/files/2020/08/200813-MoU-University-of-Reading-UCU-Staff-Forum.pdf )]

He agreed to check if investment decisions are also included in the scope of the agreement, This is important because minutes of our discussions on transactions over £10m are used to inform Council’s discussion and decision-making. We expect to hear the VC’s position on this in due course. We have acknowledged the VCs apology and asked for a written update on this transaction, in the context of the financial position of the university.

Observer Status at Council

It can be difficult for us as RUCU to do a thorough scrutiny when we receive hundreds of pages of Council papers without context and/or access to the discussion; minutes provide only an attenuated view of matters discussed. As an element of good governance at the University, we continue to seek observer status at Council. Despite initial management scepticism, we have continued to press for this and have now received a decision from Chair of Council that although this was not possible (for fear that Council members would self-censor while taking positions), she and Council are considering other ways of facilitating our access. We remain in discussion, and hope that a resolution that will encourage mutual understanding and trust can be found.

Changes to GTA Scheme, issues from recent changes in early retirement factors implementation, changes to progression policies and changes to committees offering Health and Safety representation

All these topics were touched upon briefly (see minutes for details) to agree status and next steps. These will be discussed in further depth, in separate or future JUUC meetings.

Other Reminders

RUCU Social, National consultative ballot and UCU Day of Action on Palestine

Please do vote in the consultative e-ballot on the national pay and pay-related elements campaign. It is really important that we strengthen our negotiators’ positions as national victories have local consequences. Ellen has last week sent you an email reminder of the recommendations from RUCU.

We hope to hear from many of you in-person at the RUCU Social tomorrow, and online at the meeting on Wednesday 27th Nov with Dr Ghada Karmi as our contribution to UCU’s Day of Action on Palestine (details are included in an email that was sent on Thursday).

Best wishes

Deepa

(Branch President, Reading UCU)

The Vice-Chancellor recently announced that our university management would not be implementing the 2024-25 nationally negotiated pay award. Reading UCU committee in consultation with the branch do not find this deferral to be well justified. We want to explain what the pay award is and what you stand to lose over the year.

Your branch committee has created an indicative spreadsheet to show roughly how much money individual members of staff across different pay grades can expect to lose. The figures are gross figures for full-time staff before tax and NI contributions are deducted (part-time staff will need to pro-rata it). Note that in addition to loss of pay, you will also lose the extra pension contributions that would go towards your pension.

The spreadsheet shows the following

-gross annual salary and how much you lose per month by spinal point
*Stage 1 of pay award – August 2024 till February 2025 (orange columns)
*Stage 2 of pay award – March 2025 till June 2025 (blue columns)
-total pay loss for full deferral (red columns)

UCEA’s pay offer for 2024-25 is a staged approach which results in final uplifts ranging from 2.5% to 5.7%. The staged approach means there would initially be a lower pay increase in August 2024 and the full increase would not be implemented until March 2025 as follows:

– From 1 August 2024, an uplift equivalent to £900 a year will be applied to all pay points.
– From 1 March 2025, the balance will be added to spine points to complete the uplift for 2024-25. Pay point 5 receives a total 5.7% uplift and the uplift gradually tapers to 2.5% at pay point 38 and above.

The UCEA guideline states that such a deferral does not require to be back paid.

We encourage members to share this information and to reply with any further comments.

We will also be sending around a survey to collect members’ views.

Best wishes
Reading UCU