Reading University UCU Rotating Header Image

academic freedom

RUCU letter to Council

Nov 21st, 2014
by UCU.
No comments yet

As part of our campaign to save Statutes and protect employment rights and academic freedom at Reading, the RUCU Committee has written to every member of Council in advance of their meeting on 21 November 2014. Below is the text of the email we sent (with some slight differences in wording on the one to members who are university employees).

Dear XX

We, the Reading branch of the University and College Union (UCU), wanted to make you, as member of Council at the University of Reading, aware that staff at the University have serious concerns about the proposed changes to Statutes, Ordinances and procedures.

Both academic and academically-related staff members’ concerns are that these proposed changes are not simply a case of small tweaks and ‘refreshing’ of existing procedures, but a wholesale transformation of employment procedures that will result in less protection for staff and limited powers of appeal, and therefore adversely affect all (both academic and academically-related) staff.

Colleagues are particularly worried about the prospect of governance of staff becoming a matter of policies which can be changed at any time without proper consultation and negotiation with staff and UCU. Either the status of such policies would have to be a lot more binding, permanent and secure and the procedures, including appeals, a lot more sound, or Statutes would need to be retained. Colleagues are unhappy at the prospect of finding themselves having to sign a new employment contract which will strengthen the University’s claims on the outputs of their work, creativity, energy and intellectual endeavor, when in exchange for that they end up with a lot less protection from arbitrary governance on the part of the University.

This month, we conducted a quick-response anonymous online survey. In just one week, 175 members of Reading staff participated, and the results are telling:

· 91% of respondents think that the changes will worsen their job security;
· 86% think they will undermine their academic freedom;
· 97% think they will make it easier to fire academic and academic-related staff;
· 98% think they will make it easier to impose redundancies on academic and academic-related staff;
· 89% do not think they have been adequately explained by the University management;
· 86% do not think they have been proposed for good reasons;
· 67% think they will make them more likely to look for a job elsewhere;
· and
· 91% of respondents are against the proposed removal of Statutes.

The opportunity to add further comments was also taken by staff, and responses include:

· “I am particularly concerned regarding the ill health parts of the Statutes – from personal experience I feel it is vital that a medical professional is involved in discussions regarding fitness to work etc.”
· “Laying down the conditions that enable academics to produce ground breaking research and offer innovative teaching is a delicate business. The importance of academic freedom and job security should not be overlooked. Without these in place, I think will become – despite myself – restrained in my thinking. The changes may well produce a timid and limited workforce. Heavy handed management does not produce world leading research, and does not help young people exceed their perceived potential…”
· “Academic freedom is only meaningful when backed up by proper Statutes. These proposals effectively abolish academic freedom, and are strongly against the long term interests of the university, as well as its academic staff. They are a disgrace and demonstrate that our leaders are out of touch with reality.”
· “I am saddened that the university management seems hell bent on eroding all good will with its staff. There seems a lack of awareness that if good staff are the backbone of a university and a disgruntled staff with low morale and high staff turnover will be the most detrimental thing for this university. I personally think some minor revision of Statutes and simplifying of some procedures is warranted but not what is delivered by the changes that are being imposed.”
· “To me this is all part of the neo-liberal drive to make higher education an obedient producer of ‘skilled’ consumers, not critical thinkers, and with work conditions for staff to boot: that they can be got rid of if their work is too critical or just if this is not about profit-production for the pay of the management.”
· “Senior management’s motivations for attempting to amend Statutes are laughably obvious – it is in order to ease the path to large-scale redundancies in the next couple of years in order to ‘save money’ (and boost their own performance-related pay, no doubt…).”
· “I fully agree that the proposals are not up to scratch and will enable an already bullying HR to treat undesirable staff as though dispensable. Better protections should be added for ALL staff, not just academics. The University should be trying to lead the way in enlightened peoples management, not treating its staff as corporate dogs-bodies.”
· “With morale so low, this proposal will make a bad situation even worse and inevitably impact of students. Reading already has a reputation as a poor employer and this action will further damage its image.”
· “These changes are unconscionable. The protections they mean to take away were put in place for good reason and must be preserved. A 19-day “consultation period” at the start of the academic year is totally and deliberately inadequate. Attempting to pass off these changes as an enhancement to academic freedom is shameful.”
· “The management has given inadequate notice for staff engagement, and together with all the other proposed and in train changes we are experiencing, this is totally unacceptable.”
· “Such changes undermine morale for all staff.”

We feel it is vital that we bring these serious concerns about these fundamental matters to your attention for the meeting of Council on 21 November 2014.

The proposed changes would remove oversight of the procedures by Council in many cases, which is based on assumptions by University management that Council would approve of this and does not wish to be involved in the day-to-day activity of the University. We ask you as a member of Council to consider what your views are on this, and to articulate them on 21 November.

The University’s Statutes have been revised many times over the years, and are by no means antiquated and obsolete. Indeed, the rights and protections enshrined in our Statutes put us in good company; Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds, Oxford, Queen Mary, UCL and other universities include virtually identical provisions in their Statutes. This is something that University should take pride in, not seek to discard.

We call on Council members to reject the currently proposed changes and to refer them back for reconsideration. We also urge the Council to mandate a proper staff consultation period when any revised proposals are brought forward.

Regards,
Reading UCU

Results of our recent online survey on the proposed changes to Statutes

Nov 17th, 2014
by UCU.
No comments yet

This month, we conducted a quick-response anonymous online survey. In just one week, 175 members of Reading staff participated, and the results are telling:

  • 91% of respondents think that the changes will worsen their job security;
  • 86% think they will undermine their academic freedom;
  • 97% think they will make it easier to fire academic and academic-related staff;
  • 98% think they will make it easier to impose redundancies on academic and academic-related staff;
  • 89% do not think they have been adequately explained by the University management;
  • 86% do not think they have been proposed for good reasons;
  • 67% think they will make them more likely to look for a job elsewhere;

and

  • 91% of respondents are against the proposed removal of Statutes.

Reading UCU will use this information in its continued fight against the proposed changes. If you haven’t already, join the campaign!

Save our Statute!

Oct 24th, 2014
by UCU.
No comments yet

The University is removing your rights as an academic

You will be aware that the University of Reading management wish to remove the current statute and replace the section that provides additional safeguards and employment protection for academic staff with much weaker policies. The additional protection within statute is recognised the world over and seen as necessary to avoid institutional infringement of academic freedom. However, the management at Reading see this extra protection as a bureaucratic burden that stands in the way of their ability to more easily dismiss academic staff. That is a stark truth that is borne out by even the most liberal reading of the management proposals.

What is the model statute?

The model statute or employment statute are internal rules that govern the procedures for dismissals and grievances of academic staff (and academic-related staff in some institutions). They have legal standing and can only be changed by an application to the Privy Council. Most chartered institutions still retain an employment statute based on the model developed by the Education Commissioners in the early 1990s. This model came about as a consequence of the Education Reform Act 1988 that introduced the idea of redundancies for academic staff – prior to that many academic staff enjoyed an element of tenure.

The reason that academic (and sometimes academic-related) staff are covered by the model statute is to recognise the importance of academic and related staff being able to exercise academic freedom without fear of dismissal. Thus the procedures are an attempt to ensure that any dismissals and grievances considered are undertaken in a transparent way with peer involvement and checks against infringements of academic freedom.

What protection does it offer?

The current model statute features:

  • detailed provisions within the statute itself – so it cannot be changed without approval by the Privy Council
  • academic freedom listed as a guiding principle
  • a redundancy committee – including academic staff – to be established by Council if management wish to make any academic (and related) staff redundant. The Committee must report back to Council
  • the need for a Tribunal – including a member of academic staff – to be established in cases of alleged serious breaches of discipline or capability
  • the right to representation, including legal representation at a Tribunal hearing
  • the right to a hearing by a Board – including a jointly agreed medically qualified Chair – for cases of dismissal on medical ground
  • the right to appeal against dismissal or disciplinary sanctions to a person who holds, or has held, judicial office or is a lawyer of at least 10 years’ standing. That person can decide to sit with 2 other persons – 1 being a member of Council not employed by the institution and 1 being a member of academic staff nominated by Senate
  • the right to representation, including legal representation, at appeal
  • the right to have a grievance heard by a panel including a member of academic staff.

Why are employers trying to change it?

Many employers are now seeking to make changes to the current model statute because they see the existing protection as old fashioned, cumbersome and restrictive on their ability to be ‘flexible’. Many see it as interfering with their right to manage and believe that current employment law is sufficient to protect our members and their right to academic freedom. UCU accepts that some changes would be desirable. However, we do not want to see these made at the expense of our members’ current terms and conditions.

In short, most employers want the provisions by which they dismiss academic (and related) staff to be streamlined, less restrictive and brought into line with other groups of staff. They also want to be able to change them without having to go to  the Privy Council and many want procedures to be removed from Council and Senate oversight. Of course, many just want to make it easier to dismiss our members.

The things that are important to protect and why

The need to go to Privy Council to make changes (i.e. to maintain protections in the statute itself), the involvement of academic peers in panels, the oversight by Council of redundancies, the need for a redundancy committee, the right to representation by any person and the right to an external independent appeal, are all measures to protect the academic freedom of academic (and related) staff and are therefore important to fight to retain. It is especially important in the current financial climate that these protections exist to ensure that academic freedom is not compromised when management decisions are taken.

It is usual for more detailed provisions to be found in ordinances, regulations or locally agreed procedures but having the main principles in statute offers additional protection for academic and related staff.

The way ahead

It is possible for management to work in partnership with UCU to amend the current statute but it is important that university management understands UCU’s position and how changes to the statute can threaten academic freedom. However, heavy handed attempts to detrimentally alter the statute can expect to be met with resistance from UCU.

What You Can Do

  • Talk to your UCU branch about what is being proposed by your institution. Contact anneketley.rucu@gmail.com
  • Talk to your colleagues about any threats to your current terms and conditions and to academic freedom.
  • Assist in any campaign being run by the branch in whatever way you are able. Contact anneketley.rucu@gmail.com
  • Make sure your employer knows how you feel about the issue.
  • Raise the proposed changes at any appropriate meetings and explain to others why they represent a threat to academic and academically related staff at the institution.
  • Keep yourself informed and WATCH THIS SPACE.