The University announced that it would be launching a Voluntary Leavers Scheme (VLS) in an all-staff email on 29th October 2024. Since then, BUCU has been pushing Andrew Page, the new “Director of People and Culture” (formerly known as “HR”), to try and answer some crucial questions for staff about how the scheme will work, and how the University plans to mitigate the inevitable workload impacts of losing several hundred staff in a short space of time. 

Our most recent questions (see “further clarification needed” points below) were sent to Andrew on 17th December, with a request for a response by Monday 13th January. We are still awaiting replies to these, and—due to the time-limited nature of the VLS scheme (whereby applications close on the 31st January 2025)—we are now sharing the correspondence in full with you.

The BUCU position remains that the VLS scheme is not financially necessary, and the resultant job/role losses will result in significant additional workload and work-related stress for many staff. We are also concerned with the lack of transparency around how decisions are being made, and whether the existence of the scheme will be used to pressure some members of staff to leave involuntarily. 

If you have any questions or concerns about the VLS, please contact us via casework@birminghamucu.org.

1. As per Andrew Olson’s email of 14th November, please share with us the detail in relation to how the settlement figure is being calculated for members.
   • Response: See attached (also taken from the VLS site)—VLS FS 2024 Scheme.docx.
2. Please share with us the wording of the settlement agreement that staff who leave via the scheme will be required to sign.
   • Response: We normally do a standard letter confirming the terms of the VLS scheme [shared with BUCU].
   • Further clarification requested: We understand that this template letter is only to be used in ‘non-contentious’ applications, and that there are other versions whereby an additional settlement would be part of the agreement to terminate employment. Could you also share these with us?
     
     Is there any reason why the standard VLS Acceptance Template Letter includes a non-disclosure agreement clause (particularly given the University is a signatory to the ‘Can’t Buy My Silence Campaign’)? Whilst we would reluctantly accept this in the non-standard / contentious version (until such time as we can pick up discussions around this in full), it is surely not necessary in the standard letter?
3. Please provide the financial business case for the VLS. I appreciate there is some care being taken to avoid the detail of the financial position becoming widely known within the sector (though I have to admit I didn’t quite see the logic behind this)—therefore BUCU are happy to treat any information you share with us as confidential.
   • Response: As we stated at the confidential briefing, we do not have a target. We modelled a range of scenarios and the overall business case of the scheme will be that it pays back financially after one year versus the cost of severance. This scheme has been put in place to help us ensure we have the right resources in the right place and ensure we remain financially sustainable given the wider challenges in the sector.
   • Further clarification requested: Please can the modelled financial scenarios be shared with BUCU.
     
     Whilst we are in the process of conducting our own analysis of the latest financial accounts, anything more that you or Erica can share, in order to help us understand the business case for the scheme will be very much appreciated. 
     
     Our fundamental concern with the VLS scheme is that it is not financially necessary, and that the major detrimental impact of the scheme will be on remaining staff workload (compounding pre-existing concerns around the management of work-related stress for which the HSE will be investigating/inspecting.
     
     I’m afraid this response is not sufficient to allay these concerns—for instance, what is meant by “the right resources in the right places”? Whilst we understand that the sector faces financial challenges, we are still really struggling to understand the local narrative here, given the “sound financial footing” of UoB’s current position.
4. Please provide the Equality Impact Assessment, which has presumably been undertaken for a scheme of this nature and scope. We note that in the last VLS during 2020/2021, the role of the Disability Advisor was lost and not replaced. We believe that this role should not have been accepted for the VLS due to the detrimental impact on equalities that the loss of this role has had on staff—what checks and balances are in place to ensure similar key roles are not lost in the 2024/25 FS VLS?
   • Response: Each application will be lodged via the online portal, the applications will then be reviewed by the area/line manager and finally they will reviewed by the UoB panel consisting of the Registrar, Provost, DVPC Equalities, Finance Director and People and Culture Director. As part of this process we will review the EDI data and where we know any relevant Disability data to ensure the overall outcome does not disproportionally impact any group. As the department/area reviews the initial application they will need to ensure they can manage the loss of the role and how the workload will either be stopped, absorbed elsewhere or done differently.
   • Further clarification requested: Please can a BUCU and a UNISON representative form part of the final decision-making panel on VLS applications.
     
     Please provide further information on the process involved for how you will “review the EDI data”—particularly given that some applications are being approved prior to the 31^st Jan deadline (therefore the overall EDI impact of individual acceptances cannot be known until the scheme as a whole draws to a close)
     
     Please can we have further information on how Departments are being supported to make decisions on the local impact of losing the role—in particular where it is proposed that workload will be ‘absorbed elsewhere’ or ‘done differently’. How can you ensure that there will not be a detrimental impact on the workload of remaining staff in any given area?
5. Please provide details of how decisions on applications will be made, and by whom. The information under the FAQs is wholly insufficient and lacks transparency (point 5—“Q: If I apply, will I be accepted for the Financial Sustainability Voluntary Leaver Scheme and who decides? A: Your decision on whether to apply to leave under the Scheme is entirely voluntary and acceptance is not guaranteed. Once your application is received, it will be considered by the University, and the decision is entirely at their discretion.”)
   • Response: See above and as we discussed we will consider, the individual circumstances, the financial payback i.e. must start to improve the Universities financial position after 1 year max, the current and future workload of the area and finally a relevant EDI/Disability check to ensure no one group is disproportionally impacted
   • Further clarification requested: In point 5 above, you state that applications will be reviewed by the area/line manager. Please provide a list of the decision-maker within each area (e.g. is this Heads of Department, Heads of School, or Heads of College—and which level of managers within centralised Professional Services)? In Professional Services in particular, we would be very concerned if decisions were made only at the line manager level. For Academic applicants, we do have concerns that often the decision-maker may have a very poor grasp of the applicants area of research expertise, and therefore an inadequate understanding of future likely workload in that research team how will this be dealt with.
6. Whilst the University did provide us with some very limited data following the 2020/2021 VLS, this was insufficient from an equalities perspective, and we would like to know more about the impact of the previous VLS in order to better understand the potential impact of this one. Please provide data of the applicants and acceptances of the 2020/2021 VLS. The conversation at JNCC seemed to suggest that there was no learning or analysis of the last 2020/2021 VLS, but we assume this analysis has been done and you will therefore be able to share:
   
   1. Data regarding applicants and acceptances of the 2020/21 VLS by gender, contract types, and Grades, in relation to overall staffing in the five Colleges, between academic and PS, and in the university’s central PS department. Please provide the requested data in a set of tables in a powerpoint or PDF.
   
   2. Analysis of the relationship between casualisation and VLS in the 2020/2021 scheme; i.e. after VLS, were the roles replaced by permanent or fixed-term posts? What has been the trend in overall staffing during 2021/22 and 2022/23, and what proportion of staffing is fixed-term versus permanent in the five Colleges, between academic and PS, and in the university’s central PS department? Again, please provide the requested data in a set of tables in a powerpoint or PDF.
   • Response: We are happy to provide an analysis of the applicants and those who left the University under the Covid scheme showing role, college, gender, and EDI data. Zoe—lets you and I pick up based on the work done by Kerry already.
   • Further clarification requested: I note that you indicated this information would be forthcoming—thank-you! If you can let us now a time-frame, that would be appreciated.
7. Please provide detailed plans as to how you will mitigate the impacts of the VLS on staff workloads. Please note that we will be writing to the HSE to update them of the VLS development, as we feel that your previous response to them on workload concerns may well need to be updated. Please also, as previously requested, share with us the copy of your first response to the HSE.
   • Response: As discussed at the pre-briefing we will look at the workload on both an individual and department level and it will be for the relevant line/area manager to confirm their approval and to develop relevant plans in the affected area, this may include stopping certain activity, working in a different way and/or prioritising key activity.
   • Further clarification requested: Please, as previously requested, share with us the copy of your first response to the HSE.
     
     Please elaborate on how ‘key activity’ is being defined and determined.
8. Please provide information on the current levels of agency staff use across the University, broken down across Departments (MIU map). Please provide both staff numbers and overall costs. We have concerns that agency use will increase following the VLS (to “plug the gaps”) and we would like to monitor this.
   • Response: We will try and provide this, but will need to figure out the best way to provide the data given this data is not on core, but managed via the relevant budget centre.
   • Further clarification requested: This is concerning, as it implies that costs for agency staff could be significant, but that there is no central oversight of this. We will need to have ‘snapshot’ data for the situation circa 31^st Jan if we are to effectively monitor whether there is a subsequent increase in the use of agency staff to ‘plug the gaps’ left by VLS.
     
     Please confirm that you intend to get this data to us by 13^th January. If you cannot confirm this, we will start the process of contacting Heads of College and Heads of centralised Professional Services Divisions directly.
9. Please confirm (as you indicated at the meeting) that whilst most applications for VLS will be considered after the deadline has passed (to allow the University to get an overarching view of where applications are from and ensure that losses do not hit certain areas disproportionately or create risk to core business functioning), some applications may be approved prior to the deadline. This was stated as being “in those areas where we are already looking to reduce activity”. We can pick this up separately, but we would like to get a better understanding of strategic plans in relation to any reduction of activity in certain areas.
   • Response: We do not currently have any formal strategic plans to reduce workload in an area leading to compulsory redundancies, if that were to be the case we would of course consult with you. The vast majority of the decisions will be taken after the deadline for VLS as naturally most department/area heads want to be able to look at the workload/way of working in the round in their areas.
   • Further clarification requested: We can revisit this in JNCC or subsequent meetings—but for us to work effectively with you, it would be helpful to have more insight into strategic development plans even in such cases were consultation with the trade unions is not legally required (i.e. 20 or more redundancies). For now, a response to point 3 above will suffice.
10. Please confirm (as you indicated at the meeting) that if an application is made and accepted, the individual staff member cannot change their minds—the application itself is a binding part of the process. Therefore staff should be sure that VLS is the right option for them before making an application.
    • Response: Yes if an application is made and then accepted by signing the relevant offer, we would consider this binding.
    • Further clarification requested: We take this answer to mean that if someone applies for VLS and they are accepted, they are then sent the acceptance letter to sign, and you would consider that binding. However, there could be instances where an application for VLS is made and accepted, but the applicant changes their mind before signing the acceptance letter. Please clarify what would happen in these circumstances.
11. In point 2.1 of the Guidance, it is stated that “no pressure will be placed on any individual to apply for voluntary severance”. How does the university intend to monitor and ensure that this is not the case, and how would any concerns raised about this be managed?
    • Response: We have a range of avenues for staff to make any concerns heard including, but not limited to, speaking to a colleague, a line manager, another manager, a representative and the grievance process. We will monitor these channels to see if there is a particular range of issues or volume of activity coming through on this topic.
    • Further clarification requested: Your response here emphasises the final part of my question (about how any concerns raised are managed). But you have not addressed how you are proactively ensuring that line managers are equipped to handle VLS conversations in a sensitive way, and bearing in mind the intersections with other policies and employer obligations—particularly given the lack of time for implementing any training .
      
      Unfortunately we have already heard reports of extremely concerning and problematic discussions taking place around the VLS (e.g. instances where members have had leave requests for caring responsibilities denied, and where it was suggested that VLS was an option to consider).
12. It is stated in point 24 of the FAQs that the post associated with an approved VLS applicant will be deleted from the budget (i.e the roles are being made redundant). Presumably, there will be a process of re-creating roles which are very similar, after a certain amount of time (since the work being done by the current post holders will not cease to exist). Whilst this is clearly something of a legal loophole, this can perhaps be overlooked—but we would like to know the timeframe within which the university intends to recreate and re-advertise new roles following the VLS (e.g. will there be a recruitment freeze for a given period, and how long is that?).
    • Response: If we agree for an individual to leave via this voluntary scheme, in order to create a financial saving for the University, the role will likely be deleted. Clearly there will be some subtlety to this as we may be able to leverage a saving in a different way (e.g. a vacancy in the area). In the original affected area, we will potentially stop some work and/or need to work differently to manage the reduction. As we stated at the outset, we may create other roles in other parts of the University to ensure we are best placed to meet demand. By way of a reminder and for absolute clarity, this is a voluntary scheme.
    • Further clarification requested: We are well aware that this is a voluntary scheme. Please provide the timeframe within which the university intends to recreate and re-advertise any new roles following the VLS (e.g. will there be a recruitment freeze for a given period, and how long is that?)
13. Following on from point 11 above, can we have confirmation that any recreated roles will be permanent wherever possible, in order to ensure the University does not lose progress on its anti-casualisation agenda?
    • Response: Any new roles will follow the Universities current approach to resourcing i.e. generally permanent unless subject to specific funding.
14. The University is heavily reliant on internal secondments. For a member of staff on a secondment from their substantive post, how would the calculations for a VLS payment be made—on their substantive post or their seconded one? And how will you manage the impact of successful applications from seconded staff members (i.e. if there substantive post is effectively been made redundant, but they are not currently the one undertaking the work of that post, what happens to the person covering their role)? And if a seconded staff member’s substantive post is made redundant (but not the role they are currently in, but nevertheless they will be required to leave if they accept VLS) how will the work of the non-redundant but suddenly vacant position be managed? Or is it the case that staff members either on or covering a secondment are not eligible?
    • Response: If a seconded person applies, we would need to be clear in the application which role/post would then be deleted, any permutations of this would then be considered in the final decision making process. Again, to be clear this is a voluntary scheme.
    • Further clarification requested: How is this being communicated to staff and line managers (since presumably this could make decision-making quite complex?
15. The eligibility criteria may be discriminatory to those on PFED contracts, and risk breaching the Prevention of Less Favorable Treatment (Fixed Term Workers) Act 2002. Point 1a) in the FAQs states that eligible applicants must “be an employee working under a contract of employment paid from core University funds (i.e. not those on externally funded research grants and contracts) that is either open-ended or on a fixed-term contract that ends two years after your voluntary date of ending your employment”. This excludes staff on PFED contracts from applying as they are externally funded—despite, in many cases having been employed for more than four consecutive years (at which point their role should have been made permanent / funded out of core University funds).
    • Response: In order for someone to be considered for VLS, we need to ensure that the decision improves the financial sustainability of the institution i.e. we are not in a position to pay people severance for roles that we do not fund and/or would end soon, as there would be no benefit to the institution and we cannot afford to do that.
16. We have concerns that the calculation logic (albeit based on legal minimums) will discriminate against younger workers (under 40s) who have the same length of service and are at the same grade as older workers (over 40s). We believe that improving the offer for under 40s so that it is comparable with the payment for over 40s could help to reduce the risk of high numbers of very experienced staff leaving the institution (which comes with unseen costs through inefficiencies and additional training needs)
    • Response: The scheme is modelled on the current statutory calculations to ensure it is appropriately compliant.
    • Further clarification requested: We appreciate that statutory calculations have been used, as noted in the formulation of our original question. However, we are asking that you increase the statutory minimum amount offered to staff under 40 to mitigate against older members of staff being disproportionally likely to apply for VLS.
      
      If you are unwilling to do this, we would like you to share the financial modelling for the hidden costs associated with staff training that we believe may result from very experienced staff (with a large amount of institutional knowledge) leaving through the scheme.
17. We feel that the eligibility criteria in relation to seeking work elsewhere are unreasonably harsh and likely to be unworkable / unenforceable. It is stated that “The University only offers the VLS terms where the Employee has at the time of the application: (a) not resigned or been notified of the date of termination of their contract of employment for any other reason; (b) neither started nor been offered (either in writing or orally) or accepted other paid work in any capacity; (c) not been given any indication that an offer of paid work will be forthcoming. Any payment to the Employee under the FS VLS is conditional on these factors being so.” Point (c) in particular creates concern amongst members. At what point after applying for or accepting an offer under the VLS scheme is the applicant entitled to begin to discuss potential offers of paid employment with a third party? Is it the case that the university is saying that if it is identified that a staff member initiated conversations about possible future openings at another institution whilst their application was being considered, and then they later had an interview and took up employment there, that they would be liable to pay back any money awarded under the VLS scheme? Given how difficult the job market is at the moment it seems harsh to prevent people from having those kinds of speculative conversations before deciding whether or not to apply for VLS.
    • Response: Clearly this phrase is intended to ensure that people who have already secured an external role do not then seek a severance package as this would not be right. If someone makes an application and is ultimately successful we understand that during that process they will need to potentially look for another role.
    • Further clarification requested: This is not clear to staff—as evidenced by the fact we have received queries on this. Please consider amendments to the wording or adding further clarity for staff in the FAQs (we would be happy to work with you on this).
18. We have concerns (as outlined in the JNCC), that if the rejection rates are going to be higher in the FS VLS than it was in 2020, then this has the potential to create a significant GDPR issue around the creation of a database of disaffected staff. How will you manage this risk?
    • Response: We will keep all the application data confidential and it will not be used for any other purpose.
    • Further clarification requested: I’m not sure this adequately addresses our concerns. Through the process you describe in point 4, line managers will be aware of any applications made but not accepted—therefore they will be aware which of their staff are disaffected and looking to leave. Could you expand on how you will ensure that managers are explicitly trained to ensure fair treatment after the VLS scheme has drawn to a close?