Reading UCU has become aware of this Open Letter from Jo Grady to University of Reading on Supreme Court ruling: sent on 19th May 2026

Further to our recent branch meeting, I am writing to keep all members updated on the various things your RUCU committee, case workers and departmental reps are working on:    

• Consultations (largely covering redundancies): Committee members have been in a number of detailed and important discussions both at university level, and at the level of services or departments that have been affected. I will not include too much detail in this email for reasons of privacy and sensitivity. But we know members recognise the “drip-drip” nature of small changes that over time, can lead to a complete overhaul of  the workplace, ethos, culture and student offering / support at the University.

• Our caseworkers have contributed to supporting members during what is a very stressful time and I would like to thank them for this important work

• The branch committee are also acutely conscious that precarity travels and indeed has travelled around our university. On the one hand we are working hard with the university to move more precariously employed colleagues into permanent roles. On the other, repeated rounds of change and redundancy for those in permanent positions, have led to an erosion in the feeling of security one can expect to have in any permanent roles. This has implications for students, colleagues and the institution.
• Of the various consultations that have recently taken place, I want to particularly flag the change in internal audit that has seen the appointment of an external provider to deliver these important checks and balances.
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS: We ask members to encourage non-members to join the union. It is also worth reminding new members that UCU offer very reasonable rates for those who are lower paid. https://www.ucu.org.uk/subscriptions

Note: Often by the time a problem hits, it is too late to join the union and request meaningful union support, especially given the window of time that must elapse after joining the union to be eligible for matters such as legal support.

That said, as many of our members will attest, joining the union is not just some sort of insurance policy to use in case of difficult circumstances at work. Mutual solidarity, shared learning and a sense of commitment to education and to our communities at work and beyond, without expectations of receiving something in return, are core to the membership of our trade union. As we mark the 100-year anniversary of the 1926 nationwide general strike, we are aware of the sacrifices that have granted us the hard-fought workers’ rights that have vastly improved the situation of working people and we work to continue to advance workers’ rights in that tradition .

• USS Pensions: As we head to Congress 2026, the topic of more joint work by UCEA, USS and UCU on the potential for conditional indexation (CI) of the USS pension scheme will be one of the important themes we will be discussing at the HE Sector conference. different views will be articulated. Southern region alongside other branches is taking forward a motion (HE11). This motion is driven by the concern that onditional indexation is a one-way risk transfer from employers to members. With war, increasing inflation, stagnant wages and the crises in many segments of HE, the worry is that introducing conditionality to indexation creates huge, lifelong vulnerabilities for members. With many competing pressures on union resources, it is vital that UCU remains acutely sensitive to best using resources and energies towards those matters that will deliver good outcomes for workers, and not create more risks. There are many arguments for and against CI and the motion argues that there is a strong case against CI and for us to explore other means to increase Scheme stability if we want long-term value, that does not include imposing conditionality on indexation. To contribute to this debate I have written an article on this and would be very grateful if you could read, comment on and  circulate this article (written in a personal capacity) via email and whatsapp or other social media to colleagues and friends including deferred or retired members of the USS scheme. https://henrytapper.com/2026/04/27/why-we-should-not-gamble-away-our-retirement/ 
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS:  Please would you  prompt discussions with UCU members and non-members alike, because the topic of CI is important and UCU represents all members of the USS Scheme, not just those who are unionised. Please feel free to share the article if you so wish, with non-members are it is written with all USS members in mind.  
• USS commutation factors, which are reviewed regularly, are due to change on 01 October 2026 and our national pensions official has contacted the branch with information which we have shared with UCU members . You can find more information on the mail from me regarding commutation and also here. Some highlights are  “Exchanging pension for extra lump sum:  If you want to exchange some of your Retirement Income Builder pension for more lump sum, USS uses a commutation factor. On 01 October 2026, the factors will change and members may be slightly worse off than if they exchanged pension for more lump sum before 01 October 2026. Exchanging lump sum for extra pension: If you want to exchange some (or all) of your lump sum for more pension, USS uses a reverse commutation factor. On 01 October 2026, the factors will change and members may be slightly better off than if they exchanged lump sum for pension before 01 October 2026. You can get further information on Commutation factors here. Please do not accept this message as financial advice and members considering accessing their pension should seek independent financial advice. UCU members can, if they wish, use the services of Quilter Financial Advisers whom we have a partnership arrangement with. You can get further information here.” 
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS:  Please would you share with UCU members and non-members alike so all USS members are aware of the changes .  

• Academic Workload Model: We see this as a large and critical piece of work for the branch. The branch committee has gathered feedback based on initial information the project team led by senior managers have shared with us. I would like to thank departmental reps and caseworkers for the helpful feedback that informed our early rounds of response to this. While this has been a constructive engagement with the project team, we are acutely aware that we have been told that some materials that we have been shown are not yet in a position to be shared further with members (and we respect this request at this stage), We have made the project team aware that our members remain concerned that other actions on the management side have however been moving along in departments and schools. We are also acutely aware, and made a very strong case to the concerned senior management lead, that our members must be meaningfully engaged with, as such workload models can have very long-term implications. They can impact a range of topics, beyond workload management, including on progression, survival of roles and long-term careers.
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS: We would be grateful if members from some schools that are “piloting” the model could write to Ellen (ellen.ucu@proton.me) and me (deepadriver@protonmail.com) cc Colette (cmaxfield@ucu.org.uk) with any details or concerns they may be aware of. Any wider information to support our work on this project is also welcome. Members willing and able to contribute to the work are also, as always, welcome.
• Stress Risk Assessments and Workload: We have kicked off work on stress risk assessments. This is a space where we share expertise nationally and engage with the University Health and Safety Committee and HR, so as to effectively use legal rights and local negotiation possibilities. We press amongst other matters, for safe workplaces and appropriate and manageable workloads for all staff. Our work with UoR management on addressing risks arising from stress, is at any early stage.
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS: If you are in a (line) managerial role, please help us by actively using local escalation routes within the University’s managerial structures to address the complex issue of stress in a way that protects the safety and health of all staff. It would also be useful to highlight to RUCU committee circumstances where such internal escalation has not resulted in resolving matters despite your repeated attempts. Those in managerial roles, through their own actions in the day job in the workplace, can thus help to embed worker-friendly workplace practices and thereby further employment rights in a structural sense. The casework route continues apace for those members who specifically need direct support.
• URS Building – At the last JUUC, we raised our concerns regarding upwards of £40 million that will be invested in the changes to the URS building at a time when austerity and tightening of budgets is adversely affecting workloads, our experience of the workplace and importantly our students. The VC has confirmed that our comments were made known to Council Senior management and council have commenced work on the building, although they have yet to address the concerns and questions we raised. While we continue to press for them to address these, we will be monitoring closely the budget, risks, spending on and financial consequences of this project, so that staff and students are not asked to bear the burden, risks and costs of such decision-making.
• We are also acutely aware more widely of institutions (where UCU members are currently under attack) that have haemorrhaged time and all manner of resource on white elephant projects, where staff had subsequently to bear the costs of management decision-making in the form of job losses, pensions cuts and unsafe workloads. Our members (and senior management) will. we know, not want to see such outcomes at our University. The Gillies report to the Scottish Funding Council https://www.sfc.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Gillies-Report.pdf may be of particular interest to members.
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS: Please take a look at the Gillies report, which may help flag some parallels more generally with many universities today including our own, so we can ensure such mistakes are not repeated at UoR. Please continue to share with us information that you consider relevant to our work with governance bodies and senior management of UoR, so we can continue to raise and document matters of great importance to members.
• Equalities, facilities provision and solidarity with disabled and trans colleagues: It is over 300 days since a decision was taken to abruptly disrupt trans-inclusive policies (11th June 2025) and we continue to hear from members about the impact that these policy changes have had. Current facilities provision remains lacking for trans and gender non-conforming staff and students and members have told us that the approach that senior management have taken to address this through redesignated of accessible facilities has directly impacted disabled colleagues and students ,
• While we continue to press these matters with senior management locally, Regional Office have also been providing advice and support to members involved in raising issues. We see this as a multi-pronged effort and support and recognise the important work of colleagues in the staff networks at the University. We also recognise that this is a wider equalities issue that is impacting many members and not just those who are trans/gender non-confirming or disabled . We also know that such matters go beyond simply access to a toilet. We have raised our members’ concerns regarding the changes to the Bullying and Harassment Policy.
• We also note the recent successful appeal by The University of Sussex against the fine imposed by the OfS. UCU nationally are digesting what this means for inclusive policies and freedom of speech and will no doubt share further materials with members.
• Your committee remain steadfastly committed to equality, diversity and inclusion for all members. Our next JUUC meeting with senior management is in a few weeks and we intend to continue to press matters on this front.
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS: We continue to ask colleagues to contact Colette if they need specific casework support. We also ask members who are in line management roles, to raise concerns consistent with their managerial responsibilities and duty of care. Please encourage those in the management hierarchies to formally escalate lack of access (and consequences of such failings) and to use their positions within the formal structures of the university to take action to resolve these matters.

• Casework: I would like to thank Colette (who coordinates our case work) and our case workers, who continue to play a vital role in securing the rights of colleagues who are in all manner of difficult situations. The commitment and consideration our caseworkers show is deeply valued, and their work plays a key part of what we offer via the UCU branch,
• Marking the 1926 general strike, contributing to local history and the idea of RUCU Time Bank: The committee would like to encourage active participation by members who often have limitations arising from the paucity of time and therefore can’t offer a regular ongoing commitment. To do this, we are setting up an RUCU time bank.
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS: Please write to Colette ccing Ellen and me, if you are able to make a contribution of anywhere between 1 and 5 hours every academic year as you contribution to the union. The tasks those hours could we devoted to, include:
  • helping us prepare for, and staff a 45 minute UCU stand in your department or service’s building foyer. You will be accompanied by committee members or reps and won’t be on your own.
  • helping to design and / or sew a new ReadingUCU cloth banner for us to take on national demos, marches and use at pickets. This is what UCU’s other branches’ banners look like.
  • We are hoping to revitalise the UCU branch office as a space where members can engage with this work in a convivial atmosphere (accompanied by tea and biscuits)
  • helping ReadingUCU to make a written contribution to a pamphlet marking 100 years since the 1926 general strike, which we would like to deliver to our sister unions at the RTUC as a contribution from members across the university.
  • bringing other ideas you would like us to work together on, as a union
• Solidarity to UCU branches in dispute: Recently I spoke at the London Met Picket where staff are striking against far-reaching cuts. I was also invited to speak at the Ulster UCU meeting to contest redundancies and was energised by the mobilisation of the branch. Our branch invited Melissa D’Ascenzio (Dundee) and Stephen Desmond (Southampton Solent) to tell us about the struggles they are in. They spoke at our most recent branch meeting about the cuts affecting Scottish branches, and the disgusting attack on pensions in our region at Southampton Solent https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/14481/Solent-University-staff-to-strike-for-5-days-in-fight-to-save-pension.
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS: We hope Reading members who live in or near Southampton or are able to commute, will visit their pickets next week (8am-12 noon – Tue 5^th May – Friday 8^th May at The Spark Building, Southampton Solent University, East Park Terrace, Southampton, SO14 0YN)
•  Committee members continue to contribute to Solidarity Movement organising meetings (all members welcome – the meeting takes place online on Tuesdays 6-7 pm) and we also continue to attend pickets and solidarity meetings for branches on strike. Our branch has also made small solidarity donations.
• RTUC meetings: I would like to thank our rep to the Reading Trades Council, John Oversby, who continues to help us maintain a strong contribution to the local trade unions and community. This is important work.
• ACTION REQUESTED FROM MEMBERS: Any members who would like to join John in contributing to these efforts would be welcome and the time commitment is not expected to be large.

The matters above, are in addition to work involved re: Senate and Council, finances, case work, departmental matters led by our departmental reps, and more. But I will stop here. As you can see, it has been a long list of things your committee is seeking to make progress on. Thanks again to reps, case workers, Colette, activists, regional and committee members for their efforts. Please continue to attend branch meetings, speak to your departmental reps and to committee,  and please do write to us, so we can fully reflect your concerns and priorities. We are always keen to hear from you

In solidarity

Deepa

(Branch President – ReadingUCU)

Solent UCU Picket Lines

Dundee and London Met UCU (photos courtesy of Dundee and London Met UCU):

At our OGM on 4th September 2025 the Motion  Opposing Trans-Exclusionary Facilities Policies and Supporting Inclusive Practice at the University of Reading was carried with overwhelming support. This motion and the level of support it received reflects the strength of feeling across the University and was a strong show of solidarity and support to our trans, non-binary and gender non-conforming colleagues and students.

We last emailed you all about this matter at the end of July, and in that email I reaffirmed that Reading UCU stands in full support and solidarity with our trans and non-binary members. UCU’s National position is very clear and the motion passed at the OGM reaffirmed that our members also stand by that national position. I therefore state once again 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.

Your committee continues to engage with the University on this matter using formal and informal channels available to us, and the matter is on the agenda for the next JUUC on the 21st October 2025 as well as in less-formal channels.

Specifically on the issue of facilities access: The University published a list of “unisex” toilet facilities on the Staff Portal on the 18th September. Since the publication of this list the facilities at all three UK campuses has been audited (with thanks for the Staff LGBTQIA+ Network and RUCU Members who undertook this work). This audit has focused on three things:

1. Is the list correct? Do the published facilities even exist?

2. Are the listed facilities open access? For instance, they are not suitable if they are in a building with key-card access only.

3. Are the listed facilities actually “unisex” facilities, or are they Disabled/Accessible facilities which have been “co-opted” for this purpose?

We went to 72 of the listed toilets across the three campuses. Out of these, we were only able to verify that 29 (40%) actually exist, were publicly accessible, and not specifically designated as accessible or baby changing rooms. Many of these are hard to find, have incorrect room numbers on the list, and are not open out of hours. We have shared the full results of the audit with University Management and have so far received a response that they will be following up with Estates and get back to us with a full response in due course. The response recognised that “there is more work to do to increase the number of facilities”. We await a more comprehensive response and any updates to the list and encourage University Management to engage with trans and non-binary staff and students in decision making.

The motion committed us to carrying out the following actions. While this is not a checklist that we can say “done” to, we felt it was right to share this update as to what actions we have already been undertaking and how we will ensure that all commitments are followed through.

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. 

We believe that all staff have the right to safety and dignity in the work place and students have the same rights in their place of education. Reading UCU has previously stated its support for trans and non-binary staff and reasserts this position now. We believe that all staff have the right to safety and dignity in the work place and students have the same rights in their place of education. The University has confirmed to us that there are no plans to “police” facilities on campus and we encourage any member who experiences discrimination or harassment while using facilities to make us aware.

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. 

This matter has already been raised at the JUUC and we have reminded the University of the need to consult with us. This is on the agenda once again for the upcoming JUUC.

Your Reading UCU committee continue to raise this matter with University Management at all available opportunities and have impressed upon them the importance of meaningful consultation. As stated above, we believe strongly that all staff should be able to expect dignity, safety and inclusion in the workplace.

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.

We have already called on the University to do this, as the matter was on the agenda for the last JUUC. We continue to keep the matter on the radar and it is on the agenda once again for the October JUUC.

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. 

 We have already called on the University to do this, as the matter was on the agenda for the last JUUC. We continue to keep the matter on the radar and it is on the agenda once again for the October JUUC.

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.

The audit of facilities has so far been carried out in collaboration with colleagues from the LGBTQIA+ Network. We have reached out to the Student’s Union to connect with student officers to identify ways of working together.

We remain concerned about a range of equality issues and welcome any member who wish to work with us in this space. 

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

We are currently supporting members who have approached us about the impact of this policy change on their working conditions. We will continue to provide caseworker support and encourage all members to contact us should they wish to raise concerns. For members who do not wish to pursue a formal grievance process we are still able to provide supportive listening and signposting to support resources.  Any members who require Case Worker support should contact our branch administrator. Counselling and support is also available to UCU members through Education Support.

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

This has been done and ongoing support is being provided by the South Regional Office. There is ongoing work being done across the Union in this space and we will continue to play an active role in this.

This is an ongoing situation and we will work to keep you updated as matters progress and I invite all members to feel able to reach out should they need support or advice on any matters concerning their safety, dignity and respect in the workplace.

With strength and solidarity

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.