In a quorate Emergency General Member’s meeting on Thursday, 13 November, members unanimously passed a motion to declare a local dispute over the threat of redundancies in Biosciences.  Staff, and especially teaching-focused staff, are threatened with redundancy despite 1) no financial necessity for redundancy; 2) No change to the configuration of the teaching programme; 3) No question over the commitment or performance of the staff threatened.  BUCU has formally declared a “failure to agree” over the redundancy threats. 

At the JNCC meeting which took place earlier in the week on Tuesday, 11 November, BUCU asked to raise a number of items: the Race Equality Charter, freedom of speech and academic freedom, update on the Workload Working Group, the main item of discussion (and what we will present in our blog post today) was the question of redundancies and grant capture. When BUCU first requested the meeting, the restructuring and redundancies in Biosciences had not yet been announced, however, we had heard reports from members that they were being summoned in for meetings regarding their grant capture success and were being threatened performance management for meeting targets. We strongly oppose these performance targets.

During the first JNCC of the academic year on 29 September, BUCU had explicitly asked management if there were to be any redundancies this year. HR replied that there would not be any redundancies. We returned to the question during this meeting: HR said that although were no plans at the time for redundancies, the Senior Management Team are *always thinking about redundancies* and this particular plan for Biosciences had to go through all of the levels of governance before it could be announced.

UCU’s position is that we are not opposed to change: however, there are different approaches to restructuring and change. The way that the proposal for the restructuring and redundancies in Biosciences has been rolled out is sudden and cruel. The staff in the redundancy pool were summoned to a meeting for Friday morning with less than 24 hours’ notice: after the meeting took place, the wider community of the College of Life and Environmental – colleagues and students – were informed over email the same day about the proposed redundancies. The way that this proposal has been announced to the LES community suggests that the redundancies are a fait accompli, and that there is no genuine intention for consultation. 

BUCU asked why a Vice Chancellor’s Internal Review (VCIR) was not conducted, which would have involved staff on the ground in an honest conversation. The staff in the redundancy pool have said that there is a real mischaracterisation of their research areas in the justification for the research restructuring.

While the Provost pointed out that the proposal document encompassed an academic vision that fully involved the School of Biosciences, our members have shared with us that the Head of School has been off sick since last year. The members who are in the redundancy pool include both Deputies of Head of School and the School Head of Education. The Acting Head of School is not in the redundancy pool. Nor are any staff from the school who have College roles in the redundancy pool. 

BUCU has pointed out that the employer has a legal obligation to train and give resources to the affected staff so that they can reorient themselves toward the new strategic vision. The Provost said that the posts at risk are in organisms and zoology and that the academic vision is essentially to pivot away from that area towards structural and molecular cell biology. Although several of our members in the redundancy pool have active external grants that they are working on (with an end date in 2027), they have pointed out that because their grants are focused on people, as in providing positions for researcher salaries, in the wider context of the sciences their grants are considered small change compared to the grant income that is possible in structural and molecular cell biology, due to the high expense of the equipment needed in the field which the proposal document suggests a pivot toward. BUCU reminded the University that it had stated that it’s position was one of “institutional impartiality” in relation towards the curriculum and academic research; at the time BUCU pointed out that “institutional neutrality” and “impartiality” is not possible, and we pointed out that the University’s proposal for the pivot toward structural and molecular cell biology demonstrates both the contradictions and breach in academic freedom in the position that the University SMT are taking.

BUCU suggested that a way of moving forward and working together constructively would be for the proposal to be taken off the table altogether and that a new consultation process without a threat of compulsory redundancies be started. The University rejected the proposal because it wanted to pursue the SMT’s vision of academic excellence (climbing global top 50 rankings) and to future-proof for the sector; BUCU pointed out that the logic of such an argument could be used to target any department in the University. BUCU’s position is that the SMT should not be making assessments about academic research in disciplines that it knows nothing about. Such managerial intervention in academic research is a breach of the University’s own ordinances and would put the SMT at odds with the entire staff of the University.

We again remind the University that academic staff have:

“(a)     Freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges;

(b)    Freedom in carrying out research without interference or suppression, in accordance with their professional responsibility and subject to nationally and internationally recognised principles of intellectual rigour, scientific enquiry and research ethics”

On Thursday, 13 November at a Emergency General Member’s Meeting (which we had originally called to discuss the branch position on anti-racism), we presented this discussion about the restructuring and redundancies to our members. The motion, which had input from members in Biosciences and activists representing the interests of disabled staff, was carried unanimously by the meeting.

University of Birmingham branch of the University and College Union Motion for Local Dispute Against Redundancies                                          

Passed at a quorate GMM on Thursday, 13 November 2025

Yes: 100%

This branch notes:

1. That the employer has proposed restructuring of the School of Biosciences that will put 13 staff (12 FTE) at risk of redundancy

2. That such redundancies are not based upon a lack of commitment and/or performance of the potentially impacted staff

3. That there is no financial case for the redundancies, as outlined in the proposed restructuring

4. That the School of Biosciences is still committed to delivering an unchanged curriculum with no changes to existing undergraduate or postgraduate modules.

5. The employer has failed to provide convincing evidence that the proposed restructuring and redundancies are necessary

6. While so far there have been no compulsory redundancies, there have been significant losses of posts in the Voluntary Leavers Scheme during 2024-2025 and not replacing staff. The impact of these job losses has led to increased workload for the remaining staff.

7. Members have reported that there has been a disproportionate number of disabled staff taking severance under VLS; likewise, the proposal for redundancies in Biosciences is structured in such a way that staff are targeted for redundancy on the basis of what could be considered legally protected reasonable adjustments.

8. The employer has refused to rule out compulsory redundancies; indeed, the employer threatens, in the pages of the proposal, that they will carry out compulsory redundancies if they don’t achieve the desired redundancies in the consultation period

9. The employer can carry out compulsory redundancies with only 30 days’ notice to staff, while UCU realistically requires 3 months to take industrial action to resist redundancies.

10. The UK-wide ballot opening the week commencing 20 October and ending on 28 November, in support of the joint unions’ claim for:

a. A pay uplift that is at least RPI + 3.5% or £2,500, whichever is the higher, on all pay points;

b. Joint action to protect national agreements relating to terms and conditions of employment; and

c. A national agreement to avoid redundancies, course closures, and cuts to academic disciplines around the sector. 

This Branch believes:

1. That the proposal to restructure the School of Biosciences is unjustified

2. That the School of Biosciences has not followed appropriate processes in proposing this restructuring

3. That the School of Biosciences cannot deliver an unchanged curriculum, including no changes to existing modules, under the proposed restructuring.

4. That the employer needs to fulfil its obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) to ensure that the University of Birmingham is an inclusive work environment for staff who have protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

5. That historic neglect of legal obligations to accommodate disabled staff has produced the conditions for illegal dismissal which disproportionately targets staff working with long-term illness or disability.

6. Given the discrepancies in timelines, we need an active mandate for industrial action in order to fight any job losses in the near future. 

7. Issues of concern to members raised over the last few months regarding progression workload have only become more urgent

8. A local ballot further strengthens our hand in local negotiations and local successes can provide momentum for other branches in UK-wide disputes on working conditions, cuts and funding reform. 

This Branch resolves:

1. ⁠To oppose any redundancies of staff in the School of Biosciences, in particular with the threat of compulsory redundancies;

2. To declare a trade dispute in opposition to the current proposal for compulsory redundancies in the School of Biosciences;

3. To insist that the University of Birmingham adheres to its obligations to its own processes and staff wellbeing when restructuring its academic units.

4. To maximise our turnout in the upcoming UK-wide ballot with Get the Vote Out efforts by reps and other member volunteers.

5. To put all necessary steps in place to proceed to a local ballot intended to begin during the UK-wide ballot and end in time to allow industrial action during academic year 2025-2026

6. To use our leverage to press our employer to engage with issues of concern to members covered by our local and UK-wide claims, particularly around workload, job security, progression, and equalities, and to respond any further proposed job losses