These are the motions that have been carried by our members during 2025/2026. When the member’s meeting is not quorate (25 members) then the motion is remitted to the committee for a vote. With a majority vote by both members and the committee, the motion then becomes a priority for the branch.

2025/2026

1. Trade dispute with Secretary of State for Education over funding (08/07/25 GMM, ratified 25/09/25 Committee meeting)
2. BUCU calls for resolution of UCU-Unite Dispute (01/10/25 GMM)
3. Process for Responding to Reported Health and Safety Hazards  (01/10/25 GMM)
4. BUCU Supports BUnison (01/10/25 GMM)
5. Opposing CoSS Caps on Study Leave (04/06/2026 GMM; 18/06/2026 Committee)
6. Opposing the imposition of the new PDR scheme without negotiations (04/06/2026 GMM; 18/06/2026 Committee)
7. Defending Jobs in Modern Languages (11/06/2026 AGM)

Defending Jobs in Modern Languages

This motion was carried at a quorate AGM on Thursday, 11 June.

Yes: 100%

This branch notes:

1. That five colleagues in Modern Languages have received formal notice of risk of redundancy, with consultation running 4 June – 3 August 2026.
2. The rationale for the redundancy is the closure of a PGT programme, the decision based on declining student numbers over the last two years.
3. That this forms part of a programme of restructures across the institution.

This branch believes:

1. That the selection pool is unfairly and too narrowly drawn, and that the outcome appears predetermined.
2. That the equality impact assessment is deficient or absent, and that those affected fall within a recognisable equality pattern.
3. That a redundancy rationale which coexists with plans to reshape and continue the same provision does not withstand scrutiny.
4. That these jobs can and should be defended through collective action.

This branch resolves to mandate the committee to:

1. Ask that the University rule out compulsory redundancies for the affected staff, and across the wider restructure programme, with redeployment, voluntary severance, and natural turnover exhausted first.
2. Ask for the dissolution of the pool.
3. Register a failure to agree and formal dispute through JNCC if above are exhausted.
4. Prepare, if the dispute remains unresolved, for a consultative ballot followed by a statutory ballot for action short of strike and/or strike action to save jobs.

Motion opposing the imposition of the new PDR scheme without negotiation

Carried: 4 June Emergency General Member’s Meeting

Ratified: 18 June Committee Meeting – 100%

This meeting notes:

1. That the University introduced a new PDR scheme in December 2025 and a new PDR form in January 2026.
   
2. That neither the scheme nor the form was negotiated or agreed with the recognised trade unions, and that the unions were not consulted on them.
   
3. That under the 2013 recognition agreement and Memorandum of Understanding, appraisal is a developmental conversation about medium-term aspirations and goals, and the agreement requires only that six specified areas are covered, leaving the format of any form open.
   
4. That the new form instead orients the review around the University’s Global Top-50 ambition, leaning on ‘SMART’ objectives and tying the review to the Birmingham Academic Career Framework (BACF), thereby recasting a developmental conversation as performance management.
   
5. That the form is disproportionately long and confusing, demanding far more than the six areas the 2013 agreement provides for.
   
6. That the University has produced neither an Equality Impact Assessment nor a published Data Protection Impact Assessment, so it remains unclear how information entered into the process is stored, processed, shared, or aggregated, and staff have not been asked to permit any such use.

This meeting believes:

1. That imposing the new scheme and form without negotiation is in breach of the recognition agreement, and is the common root of the problems above.
   
2. That conflating development with performance management is improper, demoralising and, by increasing demands, removing control, and imposing change without consultation, runs against the HSE Management Standards for work-related stress.
   
3. That, because the 2013 agreement requires only that six specified areas are covered and leaves the form open, declining the new form constitutes compliance with what has been agreed and does not constitute is not industrial action.
   
4. That meetings beyond the single annual review required by the agreement should not be obligatory, and should occur only when staff request them.

This meeting resolves:

1. In line with the previous agreed policy of 2013, that each member may use whichever form they prefer, including the new one. Until a new agreement is negotiated with BUCU the previous agreement on the PDR process remains in place.
   
2. That members on probation, in a capability or disciplinary process, or on fixed-term contracts hoping for renewal should seek individual advice from BUCU before deciding how to proceed.
   
3. That the branch will support and defend any member who acts in line with this position and asks members to report any pressure or detriment to the branch.
   
4. That BUCU will continue pursuing the matter formally with the University, seeking confirmation of the scheme’s governance and consultation status, requiring its suspension pending genuine negotiation, and asking the university to provide data protection, equality, and workload assessments that have not been conducted to date.

opposing CoSS caps on study leave

Passed: 4 June Emergency General Member’s Meeting

Ratified: 18 June Committee Meeting – 100%

BUCU notes:

1. That in the College of Social Sciences the University has capped study leave (sabbatical) at 5% FTE of staff in any given academic year.
2. That this cap was applied after applications for the round had already been submitted, so that colleagues who applied in good faith under one set of expectations were assessed against a more restrictive rule imposed retrospectively.
3. That the branch is not aware that the change was made in consultation with UCU or other recognised trade unions, nor that any equality impact assessment or assessment of the impact on work-related stress was carried out before the cap was applied.
4. HSE Management Standards are the recognised framework for assessing and controlling work-related stress, covering six areas of work design including Demands (workload and work patterns), Control (the say a person has over their work), and Change (how organisational change is managed and communicated in partnership with staff and their representatives).

BUCU believes:

1. That reducing study leave is a material change to colleagues’ working conditions that increases workload for those refused, who must absorb teaching and administration they had reasonably planned to be relieved of.
2. That an opaque and unpredictable allocation process, in which reasons for refusal are often unexplained, undermines colleagues’ ability to plan their research and damages career development, at times pulling against the University’s own progression expectations.
3. That cutting protected research time is difficult to reconcile with the University’s stated ambition for higher, globally competitive research performance, and that no clear strategic rationale for the change has been provided.
4. That imposing the cap retrospectively, without consultation and without a stress risk assessment, runs directly counter to the HSE Management Standards on Demands, Control and Change, and represents a foreseeable risk to health that the University has a duty to assess and manage.
   

BUCU resolves:

1. To call on the Senior Leadership Team to reconsider and reverse the cap as applied to the current round, on the grounds that it was imposed after applications had been submitted.
2. To call on the University to conduct any future changes to the study leave system in genuine partnership with UCU and other recognised unions, supported by an equality impact assessment and an assessment against the HSE Management Standards.
3. To call on the University to commit to transparent, consistently applied criteria for study leave so that colleagues can plan their research with confidence, and to strengthen support for the process materially rather than weaken it.
4. To mandate the branch committee to pursue these points through the appropriate consultation and health and safety channels, and to report back to members.

BUCU Supports BUnison

Passed: 100% at 1 October 2025 GMM

This branch notes:

1.That colleagues in the University of Birmingham’s UNISON branch—representing support staff at the university—have voted to take strike action over their pay and conditions

2.That to support its members taking this action, the UNISON branch will provide top-ups to their national strike pay, covering members who lose more than £50 through strike pay deductions.

3.That the leaders of the UNISON branch have requested our support in their action.

This branch believes:

1.That struggles against overwork and stress, and for fair pay and conditions, are shared ones that unite both our unions. An injury to one is an injury to all.

2.That the university relies on all workers regardless of grade or role, and that we together share a collective endeavour in the provision of research and higher education as a public good.

This branch resolves:

To donate £500 from our brunch funds to the UNISON branch strike fund.

Process for Responding to Reported Health and Safety Hazards

Passed 100% at 1 October 2025 GMM 

BUCU notes:

1.The University has statutory duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977.

2.The University must provide a healthy and safe working environment and consult meaningfully with trade unions.

3.Currently, there is no clear or effective process for addressing hazards identified by the union, especially where management practices cause risk. This gap undermines compliance and staff wellbeing.

BUCU inspections have highlighted hazards including:

1.Bullying, harassment, and intimidation.

2.Excessive workload and long hours.

3.Work-related stress and mental health impacts.

4.Without a defined process for escalation and resolution, hazards remain unaddressed, exposing staff to harm and the University to legal liability.

BUCU resolves:

1.To call on the University to establish and publish a clear process for responding to hazards reported by unions.

2.To require management acknowledgment within five working days.

3.To call on the University to engage in cooperative work with the trade unions to resolve reported hazards: for example, a joint investigation (union and management representatives) must begin within ten working days, with findings shared in writing.

4.To call on the university, in the event of a confirmed hazard, to agree a written action plan with the unions when including timescales for implementation and monitoring.

5.To call on the University to encourage staff to raise health & safety concerns and to make an explicit statement of protection from any form of detriment, in line with UK law and University policy.

BUCU calls for resolution of the UCU-UNITE Dispute

Passed at 1 October 2025 GMM, 100% Yes

This branch notes: 

1.The Unite LE127 branch which represents staff working for UCU has been in dispute over a ‘Safe and Professional Workplace’ since March 2024, and have taken 26 days of Strike action. 

2.This dispute covers a wide range of issues related to health and safety, racism and bullying in the workplace, and the breakdown of industrial relations.

3.UCU staff have experienced a rise in days of sickness absence due to work-related stress and mental health from 123.5 days in 2022 to 912.5 days in 2024.

4.In November 2023 the HSE issued UCU with a Notification of Contravention. 

5.During the most recent period of strike action, Unite UCU has reported that UCU edited the out-of-office replies of striking UCU staff to remove reference to the strike, and threatened striking staff with disciplinary action if future auto-replies mention strike participation.

6.During the strike action taken by Unite UCU, the webpage providing advice to UCU members on strike out-of-offices was taken down.

7.UCU’s current FAQ on the dispute includes information on multiple ongoing disciplinary cases, which risks prejudicing the outcome of these cases and is not in the spirit of the ACAS guide on discipline and grievances at work. 

8.UCU’s Rule 29 specifies that the elected UCU National Executive Committee maintains a certain level of oversight in relation to the conditions of employment of staff.

9.UCU Trustees are directly responsible for the assets of UCU and our good standing as an organization

BUCU believes that:

1. A trade union has an obligation to model good employment practices

2. The work that UCU staff provide to our branches is valuable, and we expect them to have access to the same fair work practices that we fight for as a union.

3. Should our union engage in problematic employment or strike breaking practices, there is thea risk that our own employers may observe this behavior and use it against UCU members.
BUCU:

1.Calls on Jo Grady and UCU SMT to enter negotiations with Unite UCU without preconditions.

2.Calls for a stop to the threat of punitive deductions for ASOS –this breaches UCU and TUC policy and only serves to undermine all of us, not least those UCU members currently involved in legal test cases against punitive deductions after taking lawful industrial action.

3.Shares the linked open letter (https://tinyurl.com/UCUOpenLetter), which calls on the NEC and UCU Trustees to try to bring about an end to the ongoing dispute, and encourages all branch members to sign it. 

4.Encourages members to consider making a donation to the Unite LE127 Strike fund: https://unite-ucu-strike-fund.raiselysite.com/

5.Agrees that Unite UCU can publish the list of the branch committees that have signed up to this request.

Trade dispute with Secretary of State for Education over funding

Passed at 9 July 2025 GMM, Ratified at 25 September 2025 Committee meeting

This branch notes:

1. HE14 “Trade union dispute with Secretary of State for Education over funding” overwhelmingly passed at the UCU Higher Education Sector conference.
2. HE14 included a reference to legal advice that shows the viability of a trade dispute with the Secretary of State over the funding of HE.
3. HE14 resolves to open a trade dispute with the Secretary of State for Education over HE funding; To coordinate with other HE unions and students to build wide support for the dispute; and To campaign to build awareness and support for the dispute, highlighting the direct link between sector funding, employment conditions and student experience.

This branch believes:

1. HE14 was successful because it is the result of a long-term, democratic, rank-and-file campaign organised by workers in higher education
2. In order to make HE14 a reality in the union, rank-and-file members need to continue campaigning
3. A well-organised dispute at the national level is necessary to challenge the systemic erosion of working conditions across the sector.
4. Collective action from all university unions is required to compel the government to reform the funding model.

This branch resolves:

1. To organise an open general meeting with other campus unions to discuss HE14 and the strategy before the start of next term.
2. To contact the local student union and other student groups to discuss the campaign and funding model.
3. To send members to the next cross-branch meeting about the strategy
4. To contact the local MP to discuss the dispute, calling on them to raise the issue with the Secretary of State for Education.
5. To contact the local press to discuss the dispute and the impact on the local community of cuts and redundancies.
6. To call on the UCU general secretary to work with other higher education unions to establish a democratic “Higher Education Workers Conference” to plan the next steps in the dispute.
7. To write to HEC to ask for regular updates on opening a trade dispute with the Secretary of State for Education over HE funding.