February, 2025:

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.