Disciplinary cases/student complaints

November 18, 2017 § Leave a comment

This branch notes with great concern that the University of Birmingham is instigating and pursuing an increasing number of disciplinary cases against staff under the Ordinances based on student feedback and comments without any formal complaints from students. How to raise concerns and complaints is unambiguously set out in the Code of Practice on Student Concerns  and Complaints (SCC).

This branch regards the use of feedback and comments from students, either deposited anonymously, for example in Module Evaluation Questionnaires, or in person, for the instigation of staff disciplinary procedures, without any formal complaints as set out in the SCC Code, as a breach of trust and confidence.

This branch objects to the use of MEQ data in any disciplinary and complaints procedures – and notes the negative impact on equality.

This branch calls on the University of Birmingham to refrain from instigating disciplinary proceedings against staff under the Ordinances based on any student comments or feedback if no formal complaints have been filed and to adhere to the Code of Practice for Student Concerns and Complaints. This branch also calls on the University to immediately withdraw any such ongoing disciplinary cases.

Should the University not constructively engage with this resolution this branch instructs its negotiators to refrain from any further negotiations with the University until the above demands have been met to the satisfaction of the branch.

Resolution adopted 15 November 2017

University communications

October 11, 2017 § Leave a comment

This branch is highly concerned about the wording of recent e-mail communication of the University with staff (e.g. UoB Matters e-mail of 15th September 2017) in which the University accused BUCU of unsubstantiated communication about disciplinary procedures at the University of Birmingham.

This branch rejects this slanderous statement and calls on the University leadership to refrain from any further attempts to discredit BUCU with immediate action and to revert to professional conduct in regard of the University’s communication with their staff.

Resolution adopted: 11 October 2017

Code of Practice on Lecture Capture at UoB

October 11, 2017 § Leave a comment

This branch rejects the unilateral imposition of a Code of Practice on Lecture Capture at the University of Birmingham. We call for a proper negotiation with UCU, in drafting an agreed Code of Practice. This should deal with the serious issues that have been raised by UCU, including:

  • Copyright and intellectual property
  • Disciplinary procedures
  • Distribution, downloadability and retention of videos

Resolution adopted: 11 October 2017

BUCU Gender Equality Update

July 12, 2017 § Leave a comment

UCU members may remember the BUCU report on gender and governance which compared the compositions of the Executive Boards, Senate and Councils (or equivalents) of Russell Group Universities for the academic year 2012-13.

Our University did not do very well in this comparison. It was ranked 24th out of 24 both for Senate and Council and 18th out of 24 for the Executive Board.

Two years on and after the Year of Equality, we thought it would be interested to see what, if any, progress has been made (all information on UEB, Council and Senate was taken from the University of Birmingham’s website on the 15th April 2015).

Executive Board

In 2012-13, out of the thirteen members of the University Executive Board, ten were male (77%) and three were female (23%). Since then, four people (2 men and 2 woman) have left their posts and have been replaced by three men and one woman.

We are therefore now in a situation where UEB comprises eleven men (85%) and two women (15%).

  1. Does UEB have a more equal gender balance after the Year of Equality?
  2. No.

BUCU awaits with baited breath to see what happens with the two vacancies that have arisen this academic year.


In 2012-13, 83% of Council members were male and 17% female; in 2014-15, this has improved somewhat so that 71% of Council members are male and 29% female (see Table 1).

This would place the University, ceteris paribus, joint 14th out of 24 in the 2012-13 Council rankings.

  1. Does Council have a more equal gender balance after the Year of Equality?
  2. Yes, good progress has been made but 29% female membership is still two percentage points below the 2012-13 Russell Group Council average.


Table 1: Council Membership by Gender

Council Membership
  Lay Members (%) Academic Members (%) Student Members (%) Total (%)
Male 11 (79%) 4 (80%) 0 (0%) 15 (71%)
Female 3 (21%) 1 (20%) 2 (100%) 6 (29%)



In 2012-13, 81% of Senate members were male and 19% female; in 2014-15, this has again improved somewhat so that, excluding vacancies, 72% are male and 28% female. This figure would be even more impressive if student members were excluded, as 100% of student members are currently male, compared with 60% two years ago.

This would again place the University, ceteris paribus, joint 14th out of 24 in the 2012-13 rankings.

However, this total figure does not tell the whole story. If we look at the breakdown of Senate membership in Table 2, we can see that the increase in the percentage of female members is being driven almost entirely by an increase in the number of elected female members (55% now in comparison to 30% in 2012-13). Male and female Ex Officio membership remains the same and the number of women who have either been nominated by Heads of College or co-opted by the VC has risen from one to two.

  1. Does Senate have a more equal gender balance after the Year of Equality?
  2. Yes, good progress has been made but 29% female membership is still two percentage points below the 2012-13 Russell Group Council average and the rise has almost nothing to do with whom the Heads of Colleges nominate or the VC co-opts.


Table 2: Senate Membership by Gender

Senate Membership
  Ex Officio (%) Nominated/Co-opted (%) Students (%)* Elected (%)^ Total (%)
Male 9 (90%) 17 (89%) 5 (100%) 5 (45%) 36 (72%)
Female 1 (10%) 2 (11%) 0 (0%) 11 (55%) 14 (28%)
* Excludes 1 vacancy; ^ Excludes 4 vacancies



Thanks to the Times Higher Education and their annual pay survey, we are now in a position to compare the gender pay gap for Russell Group Universities. As can be seen in Figures 1 and 2, in this regard, the University of Birmingham is doing pretty well.

At the professorial level, female professors are paid just under one percent less than their male counterparts are. This is much lower than the average professoriate gender pay gap for Russell Group universities. Birmingham are ranked 4th out of 24 in this regard.

Looking at academics as a whole, the picture is less rosy. The gender pay gap for the University of Birmingham is nearly 15%. This is quite a large gap but only very slightly above average for the Russell Group. Birmingham are ranked 12th out of 24 in this regard.

It is not possible to offer comparisons for the category ‘Other Senior Academic’ (which previously was called ‘Academic Managers’) because universities with seven or fewer female and/or male ‘other senior academics’ did not have to return data for that sub-category (although the fact that Birmingham has more than seven male ‘other senior academics’ and seven or fewer female ‘other senior academics’ should be noted).

Figure 1: Professorial Gender Pay Gap Expressed as a Percentage


Figure 2: Total Academic Gender Pay Gap Expressed as a Percentage



‘Other Senior Academic’ Pay

However, before we get too congratulatory on pay and uncork the champagne, let us have a closer look at the pay of ‘other senior academics’ across the Russell Group.

Figure 3 shows us the average pay of all members of staff within the ‘Other Senior Academic’ category for each Russell Group university (Cambridge and Newcastle are not included in the data below because no figures were provided for these institutions in the survey). The figure for Birmingham is £154,218. This is by far the highest figure and completely out of kilter with other Russell Group universities. The Birmingham figure is £56,625 higher than the average and £34,521 higher than the second institution on the list, University College London. Indeed, if the figures took into account London weighting, the difference between Birmingham and the rest would be even wider.

This picture perhaps becomes even clearer if we look at Figure 4 which shows the percentage difference from the average figure for all Russell Group universities (the green lines indicate the boundaries of standard deviation). Birmingham sticks out like a very sore, very big and very much overpaid thumb.

Under any circumstances, this situation would be notable and of deep concern. Given that, under current circumstances, the University of Birmingham is still not a Living Wage Employer, the Barber Institute has recently been named and shamed for not paying the minimum wage, University senior management receive consistently poor results in the Staff Have Your Say Survey, and redundancies and cutbacks are taking place across the University, these figures are both absolutely inexplicable and utterly disgraceful. They also suggest that the University’s Remuneration Committee should be sacked in its entirety and that the Council should seriously consider whether it is undertaking properly its duties with regard the oversight of finances, budgets and performance within the University of Birmingham.

Figure 3: Average Pay of ‘Other Senior Academic’ Staff in Russell Group Universities


Figure 4: Percentage Difference from Average ‘Other Senior Academic’ Pay in Russell Group Universities (with Standard Deviation Shown)


Management practices at University of Birmingham

June 26, 2017 § Leave a comment

This branch is distraught about the top down approach to people management as a continuing issue impacting on the health, wellbeing, performance, and morale of staff at the University of Birmingham.

Over the last two years the elected branch negotiators have been trying to negotiate an agreed performance management system based on a branch approved position statement but the University has failed to engage with BUCU in a professional and constructive way. Concomitantly, the University implemented and continued performance management practices that were neither discussed with nor agreed by BUCU.

Image result for birmingham university clock tower photoThis branch notes with great concern that a “PIP” has been put in place based on a score that entails REF grading of publications, grant applications/capture, PGR supervision, WAM data, and MEQ data. BUCU rejects this unilaterally imposed  “PIP”. This branch objects against the use of WAM data, REF criteria, student MEQ data, and grant capture in any form of performance management.

This branch is very alarmed about performance records being created secretly and behind the back of staff and that these records are reduced to a few un-negotiated performance criteria while a majority of duties and competencies remain unconsidered. This branch does not accept the top down approach including the use of dubious evidence compiled by senior management handed down to Heads of Schools who are then instructed to put unfairly selected and targeted staff through very stressful performance management procedures irrespective of their competencies, overall duties and achievements and irrespective of how they contribute to their School.

This branch objects against the implementation of performance management procedures outside the negotiated and agreed PDR system.

This branch has come to the conclusion that the University has intentionally maintained regular meetings with BUCU in order to mislead BUCU.  As such, this branch does not believe any longer that the University has been negotiating with BUCU in good faith to resolve the issues around performance management at the University of Birmingham but  has breached the implied duty of trust and confidence.

University of Birmingham branch of UCU,
Annual General Meeting, 21 June 2017

BUCU review process of disciplinary proceedings at the University of Birmingham

March 1, 2017 § Leave a comment

This branch instructs the BUCU committee to carry out reviews of all disciplinary cases in which irregularities were found and reported by the BUCU case workers. Such reviews, anonymised and approved by the BUCU working group on performance management and disciplinary procedures, shall subsequently be presented to the branch, if /when the affected members of staff have given their permission, to decide on further action, which may include protest actions, formal objections, publicity and media campaigns, and, as a last resort, industrial action.

Agreed 15 February 2017

Resolution on Performance Management at the University of Birmingham

March 1, 2017 § Leave a comment

This branch remains highly concerned about the performance management practices at the University of Birmingham and the number of staff who report being treated unfairly, bullied, and harassed. This branch notices with great concern an atmosphere of fear and low morale amongst staff, created by the heavy handed approach of the senior leadership of the University. This branch regards performance management at the University of Birmingham as unprofessional and unacceptable. This branch calls on the University of Birmingham to acknowledge the BUCU position statement on performance management as a policy/code of practice document setting out practice of how to carry out performance management at the University, distribute the document to all performance managing line managers, and instruct all performance managing line managers to adhere to this document. Should this matter not be agreed between BUCU and the University by 1stMarch 2017, either through direct agreement by the University or agreement found in further negotiations between the elected BUCU negotiators and University appointed decision makers (Provost and/or Vice Chancellor), the branch instructs the BUCU committee to run an indicative ballot for industrial action during the first two weeks of March.

Adopted 15 February 2017