January has been a busy month for our negotiations – this includes one ‘Meet the VC’ meeting and two formal negotiation meetings. We therefore have a bumper update! See below for a summary of the current state of our local negotiations:

• workloads
• the war in Palestine
• academic freedom – freedom of speech
• recruitment and promotion of minoritised staff
• support for disabled staff
• facilities time for casualised staff
• flexible working, hybrid working, and timetabling
• nursery fees
• family-friendly enhancements
• anti-casualisation
• MEQ-based performance management?
• car parking

Workloads

In our meeting with VC Prof. Tickell, BUCU raised the issue of high workloads, the need to negotiate WAMS, and the health and safety issues implications..

Adam Tickell responded that workloads are lower at UoB compared to other institutions and that staff have significant agency in their work.  The perception of high workloads is complex.  People may be putting themselves under pressure and their resilience is lower than it used to be.  Beyond these factors there are some processes that the university does not conduct efficiently.  It is important to find and eliminate the unproductive work that people do.

Prof. Tickell mentioned the recent PWC report (commissioned by the University employers) on financial pressures on the sector which means that, financially, universities are running to stay in the same place.

WAMs are devolved to Colleges who are locally responsible for them.

BUCU commentary:  There was a basic unwillingness or inability to knowledge that workload issues are real and the university’s role, as an institution, in creating the pressures that staff feel.  BUCU will seek to work directly with college representatives on WAM issues.

The war in Palestine

We also asked VC Tickell about whether the university would speak about the humanitarian situation in Palestine, in the same way that it spoke about the war in Ukraine earlier.

Prof. Tickell responded that the institution could not make an institutional statement because that would be perceived as taking sides.  The difference with Ukraine was that there was one side in violation of international law, while in Gaza both sides were in violation of international law.  In addition, the university has members from different communities that have different perspectives on events in Gaza.  With Ukraine, there were very few Russian staff and none who supported the Russian invasion.  Adam mentioned some work that Robin Mason was doing regarding academics in Palestine.  No details, however, were available.

The VC also mentioned the constraints that might be created by the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

BUCU commentary.  There were no concrete proposals to address humanitarian issues and/or the situation of higher education institutions affected by the war and no willingness to take a leadership role in asking for a peaceful resolution for all parties. Over 26,000 Palestinian civilians to data have been killed in Gaza, (250.8 / day) – a daily death rate in Gaza is higher than any other 21st century conflict.

Academic freedom – freedom of speech

BUCU has now raised in multiple forums the issue with the cancellation of the Listening Event on Palestine in the Law School. We have asked what procedure was applied to prevent the event from taking place and what criteria, from the code of practice on freedom of speech, were used to cancel the event.

The response has consistently been to say that the event had not been cancelled.  It has been postponed – and that this was due to student complaints and concerns over how the initial application for the event deviated from the actual planned content/advertising of the event. 

BUCU’s view on this matter is that the objections that have been raised are unfounded – in the application for the event there were assurances given to the university regarding the event being objective (in the sense intended by lawyers), sensitive, inclusive, student-led and open to different views. All of these reassurances remain in place. We are concerned therefore that what really happened is that concern over student complaints was allowed to trump due process. We have been repeatedly told that the event could easily now go ahead, provided the necessary changes are made to the application – but no statement or summary of what those necessary changes are has been provided. Until the university provides that basis, which it has had ample opportunity to do, the denial of the event constitutes just that:  a prohibition without any indication of how the prohibition can be removed.  We are anxious that this situation be addressed urgently, as due attention to the concerns of the staff in Law and due attention to the seriousness of restrictions on academic freedom requires.

Recruiting and promoting minoritised staff

In our meeting with VC Tickell, BUCU asked if University of Birmingham was doing as much as it should to recruit and promote staff from minority backgrounds.

VC Tickell responded that the issues were sector-wide and not special to University of Birmingham.  He acknowledged that there was a workforce composition challenge with more non-white staff in lower paid jobs and this was partly the nature of the local community.  In his view, more people from white backgrounds could be recruited for lower-paid positions, but that would not be a genuine solution to the problem.  The processes for reviewing promotions, he claimed, were robust and the university sought to bring people through as best they can.  A working group was not considered a good solution, but consultation with BUCU would continue.

BUCU commentary.  The response characterised the problem, but does not adequately indicate that significant effort will be needed to address it, nor signal that this effort is especially appropriate, exactly because the Birmingham community is diverse and can have a reasonable expectation that we will do better.

Support for disabled staff.

In several of our negotiation meetings we have again sought to raise the issue of the missing Disabled Employees Advisor, a post which has been vacant for over two years, leaving disabled staff with no advisor to turn to for support with seeking advice on working at the University or seeking reasonable adjustments.

We have been told that there is now created a new ED&I Hub, including two new project staff, neither of whom will do the work of the previous Disabled Employees Advisor. As such, recruiting one or more Disability Advisor(s) to be the first point of contact for disabled staff remains an urgent request from BUCU. An Online One-Stop-Shop for resources cannot replace the experience, judgement, accountability, and personalised advice and support that Disability Advisors would provide. 

We are also seeking a review of the Reasonable Adjustments form and overall process for seeking reasonable adjustments. Currently, the process is embedded in a medical model of disability (rather than a social one) by portraying disabled staff’s impairments, neurodivergence, chronic illness, and/or mental distress as problems and sources of inconvenience to the institution. Instead, the process needs to focus on the institutional duties and responsibilities to make the working environment less disabling and more reasonable for staff. Given that the University SMT is keen to increase self-disclosure of disability by staff, a welcome step would be to ensure that the working environment, resources and people to support disabled staff are in place first. This would show that the recent institutional focus on disability is meaningful and build confidence among disabled staff

Facilities time for casualised staff

We are pleased to report that one of our branch officers on a casualised contract has, at last, managed to secure an appropriate allocation of facilities time (time off for union duties). This is a welcome achievement, but the provision needs to apply to all casualised staff. 

VC Tickell has told us that he is a believer in strong and constructive trade unions. We hope this will translate into meaningful action.

Flexible working, hybrid working, and timetabling.

We have now repeatedly raised the issue that there needs to be an improved approach by the University to flexible working, hybrid working, and timetabling. Staff across the University have concerns about how timetabling is working, and about flexibility needed for parents and others with caring responsibilities, and about the extended working day (9-7pm).  

BUCU views on these matters are as follows:

On hybrid working:

The current Hybrid Working Policy was taken off the university website within days after BUCU contested a statement made by Prof. Tickell in his message to all University staff on 1 December 2023 that all staff needed to be on campus three days a week.

The current Hybrid Working policy, which had been agreed with BUCU, states that employees can work away from campus for any amount of time, provided that it does not reach 100% of their employment. 

We note that the nature of staff work across the university (Library, IT Services, Careers Network, Counselling, academic areas, Finance, and other work) varies considerably and physical presence on campus is not necessary for many aspects of staff work. Unless staff choose to come to campus and it is absolutely essential for staff to be on campus for particular tasks (and the meaning of ‘essential’ should be negotiated with the union), they should not be required to work from campus for a set proportion of time. All of this was already established under the (now vanished) Hybrid Working Framework.

The outcome of the most recent JNCC was that this issue of hybrid working would be considered ‘pending further discussion’ and we have asked that the University reinstate the Hybrid Working Policy and Framework (which were initially negotiated with BUCU) until an agreed change can be put in place.

BUCU members should note that our procedural agreement with the University clearly establishes that any changes to working practices – such as the new “3 days on campus” rule – needs to be first agreed with BUCU. 

On timetabling:

We are seeking access to the University Timetabling Policy and the Equality Impact Assessment on the Timetabling Policy. Currently we believe that each of these simply don’t exist.

If the University has not yet created a Timetabling Policy, then we ask that they consult BUCU to create one. This needs to consider the institution’s own Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and Health and Safety policies, as well as HSE and TUC guidance on stress. 

Since the new timetabling software was introduced two years ago, the investment in Enterprise Timetabling Software has been cited as a reason for not being able to agree to Flexible Working requests. It is extremely problematic that the business decision to make an investment in a software that is inflexible can be cited by the University to refuse a flexible working request, and thereby result in discrimination.  

Other universities using the same timetabling software have created timetabling policies which are joined up with other institutional policies relating to reasonable adjustments for disabled staff and students, and flexible working entitlements. Local heads of school and heads of other departmental units consult with the staff members’ availability to ensure that requests for flexible working (related to caring responsibilities and reasonable adjustments) are honoured

On flexible working:

We are seeking consultation for a new Flexible Working Policy that brings it in line with the new Flexible Working regulations which will take effect on 6 April 2024. The new legislation states that Flexible Working is a Day 1 right for all employees and that employers must give serious consideration to all requests for Flexible Working. We are seeking to ensure that any such policy takes into proper concern the relevant equality impact assessment.

Last summer, we conducted a survey among our members about Flexible Working. Our survey showed that current practices across the University are highly variable, and that the timetabling software has been cited as a barrier in allowing such requests. Some managers did not give any reason for refusal. According to the new legislation, the University must provide a reason for refusal and may not make pro forma statements to deny Flexible Working. It is not acceptable to cite timetabling or hybrid working, both of which the University has intentionally obfuscated, in order to evade staff entitlement to flexible working arrangements. The University SMT must provide evidence (and not merely state) that work cannot be reorganised, nor additional staff be recruited, nor that there is ‘detrimental impact’ on ‘quality,’ ‘performance,’ or ‘impact on customer demand.’ The evidence that line managers provide must be specific to the workplace context. 

Our survey also revealed that there have been vast inconsistencies in the way that flexible working requests have been approached. There is a perception that whether flexible working requests are granted and honoured can depend on the employee’s rank and status, and relationship to the line manager. 

The University now must respond to a Flexible Working request within two months. If a request for Flexible Working is refused, the appeal needs to be handled by a manager in another part of the university (a different department or college altogether). This would be consistent with grievance and disciplinary procedures and is in line with general fairness principles. If the appeal is merely a re-hearing by the same initial decision-maker or someone in the same part of the organisation, then there is no scrutiny of the fairness of the process. Employees have the right to make two Flexible Working requests in a year. 

Nursery fees

It has been confirmed to us that the 10% surcharge currently applied to staff using the staff nursery salary sacrifice scheme will be removed from 1st April, We thank the members that initially raised this issue with us and we should be pleased with the fact that we UCU members have now successfully lobbied for the removal of this highly irregular surcharge. We do though remain concerned that it is taking so long for the decision (which we were told about mid-2023) has taken so long to come into effect. This should not be the case and we are working to fast track issues that impact members, in the interest of good industrial relations. Members should note, also, that there is a plan to conduct the ‘usual’ nursery fee review in May, and so we need to keep an eye on whether this rise is unusually high, or look out for some other attempt to clawback the surcharge. 

Family-friendly enhancements

We are pleased to report that the University has now decided to remove the qualifying period for maternity pay and adoption pay, with immediate effect. This is a good outcome and one that we have helped to push for over the past few years.

Anti-casualisation

We are also pleased to report that the University continues to uphold its earlier promised commitment to do the following:

• fractional contracts as standard for GTAs
• 3-month bridge funding for research staff between external funding grants
• the removal of the notorious PFED (Permanent with a Fixed End Date) contract

The latter two of these provisions are the subject of a paper due to be considered by the University Executive Board (UEB) at the end of this month. So it still remains the case that the execution of these promises is still to be confirmed. We would think it could be quicker to agree this, but are glad to see it should eventually be agreed.

MEQ-based performance management?

We have heard considerable, and reliable, information that there is a plan brewing (or brewed?) amongst the University management, to use the module evaluation questionnaires (which were rapidly introduced mid-term last term) as a new mechanism of performance management. We have quizzed the management on this, and  received some cryptic responses which suggest that there may, or may not, be such a plan. We have been told that it will now be standard practice for Heads of School, and potentially Heads of College, to sift through MEQ results to see if they can spot an under-performer. We reject the use of MEQs for such performance management practices, for the obvious reason that they are highly discriminatory, and well known to be, as well as being unhelpful methods of improving teaching practices. We will return to this matter when we next meet with the University management.

Car parking

You will have seen the news that car parking fees are going up. Both UCU and Unison have some concerns with this plan, and the way in which consultation on it has been handled. We acknowledge, and support, the need to address climate change. But we are not reassured that the current plan will necessarily help, or will be just or fair. We (UCU and Unison) are therefore seeking the following seven amendments to the current plan:

1. A broader range of disabled staff and students need to be eligible for free parking and the stipulation of the blue badge requirement has potential to discriminate and prevent access to university premises – not least in the context in which particular groups of disabled people such as chronically ill, neurodivergent, and learning disabled people face unfair rejections following an onerous application process for a Blue Badge. For the University of Birmingham to become a less inaccessible and more welcoming place of work and learning, transport to, and physical movement on its premises must be significantly improved and well-resourced with adequate infrastructures for current and future students, staff, and the wider public.
2. Members have noticed that the sustainability and green campus initiatives were mostly re-announcements and had not been updated in relation to factors such as lack of and inadequate bus service, as well as high-cost train fees. Clearly improving these, through staff incentive schemes, would give staff a greater incentive to switch from driving to work. We feel this is a necessary prerequisite to any disincentive in the form of increased charges – failing to do this will just cause financial loss for staff for limited environmental benefit. 
3. The impact of the increased charges will be felt most by those earning the least, and we note that the monthly permits will be more expensive for anyone earning £17.6k or more by April 2025. We think a higher cap / payment band for the very highest earners should be considered, with any additional income from this being invested in increasing public transport subsidies and reducing parking costs for the lowest paid.
4. Allowances need to be made for those who work anti-social hours, on weekends and closed days, and for carers who have no choice but to drive.
5. Any future increases (i.e. the post 2024 increases) need to be negotiated properly according to our recognition agreement. We suggest discussing this in parallel with annual pay talks (or via the JNCC for UCU). 
6. We propose a “double lock” on index linked increases – the maximum possible increase should be capped at either the lowest of either CPI or the lowest wage increase received by any member of staff.
7. We are concerned that the proposals heavily incentivise paying on a monthly basis, meaning that staff are more likely to choose driving as their primary form of transport and drive to campus every day. This also disproportionately and unfairly affects those on fractional / irregular contracts who have to choose between paying a set fraction of their salary whether or not they attend campus or paying a huge premium to park day-by-day. The daily rate needs to be reduced to take account of this.