HSE Finds University Breached Health and Safety Law on Workloads

Read the Times Higher Education article about the HSE Notification of Contravention here

The HSE finding that the University of Birmingham has breached health and safety law has made waves in the HE sector. The HSE enforcement action – the first of its kind at a Russell Group university – validates the years of campaigning by BUCU about crushing workloads and the erosion of our research time and academic freedom.

What We Want to See in the University’s Plan of Action

Read the HSE letter to the Vice-Chancellor – here 

Read the UCU letter to the Vice-Chancellor – here 

Workplace stress is a serious and growing problem at the University of Birmingham, as it is across the UK’s higher education sector. The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) notification of contravention to the university, issued on Thursday 11 December, confirms that the university has failed to put in place appropriate protections for staff, or to involve workers and unions in addressing problems with stress and overwork. We call on the University now to work with us and take serious steps towards building a safer and healthier workplace.

As the local branch of the University and College Union, we have been campaigning on these issues for years. Too often, our efforts to secure reasonable protections for workers’ health and wellbeing have been ignored by senior university managers.  The BUCU Workload survey, conducted in spring 2025, showed widespread over-allocation of work, as well as under-counting of working time in many areas. These problems are only getting worse as the university has chosen to disinvest from staff in both academic and academic-related and professional services (ARPS).  

While the HSE’s notice of contravention does not explicitly address Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), we are also particularly concerned about the significant EDI implications of workplace stress and overwork, which disproportionately affect junior and precarious members of staff, as well as those from underrepresented communities who navigate the toll of discrimination and exclusion due to their protected characteristics. Our experience fighting for members suggests that employees on fixed-term contracts are regularly pressured to take on unreasonable burdens in the hope of securing permanent employment. Some colleagues spend decades on insecure contracts, in which it is difficult for them to push back against unreasonable workload demands.

Since July, following the HSE’s investigation, our negotiators have been taking part alongside university representatives in a Workload Working Group aimed at agreeing top-level principles for academic workload management across the University (the University has yet to begin a similar process for professional services staff). We are hopeful that this process will lead to positive change. But we are also clear that top-level principles are not enough. Without proper investment in staff, addressing precarious fixed-term contracts, and a top-to-bottom commitment to workers’ wellbeing, workplace stress is likely to remain a major issue at the University of Birmingham.

How the University Can Respond to the HSE’s Notification of Contravention

The University must respond to the HSE by 28 January 2026 with a time-bound action plan. While the University has scheduled a meeting with union representatives on 22 January, we note that this is only 6 days ahead of the date set by the HSE for the submission of the University’s action plan. On Wednesday, 17 December UCU Regional Official Anne O’Sullivan wrote to the Vice Chancellor to set out what the Unions would like to see in that action plan. This includes:

1. Meaningful Union Consultation on Workloads Across the University The HSE found that “where it has been identified that workload is a factor, there is no assessment of what else can be done to reduce workloads.” We want to see the Academic Workload Working Group address the systematic erosion of research time by protecting dedicated research time for academic staff, in line with what is in place at comparator institutions such as Warwick and Durham. Any workload model that affects staff needs first to be agreed with the union as part of meaningful consultation.
2. Greater Voice for Academic-Related and Professional Services StaffThere is currently no forum for similar discussions to take place for our ARPS colleagues. A joint-unions working group needs to be established to develop, implement, and monitor effective workload management systems for ARPS roles.
3. Protected Time for Union RepresentativesUnion representatives cannot effectively represent our membership and fulfil our statutory duties if we face detriment for undertaking union work. We need a working group to ensure adequate facilities time is provided and protected, so that union representatives do not suffer workload pressures and/or career disadvantage because of their union roles. Safety representatives must be guaranteed access to sufficient time to conduct inspections, investigate concerns, and participate in consultation processes without impediment. 
4. Democratisation of University and Academic GovernanceThe HSE found that the University has “not involved your employees in the development of the organisational risk assessment or in determining how to address the failures in current performance.” Meaningful consultation requires trade union representation at all levels of decision-making. We request a seat for each of the recognised trade unions on University Council, Senate, and any university-level committees whose remit includes health and safety strategy, workforce planning, and workload management.
5. Review of Absence and Wellbeing Data and PoliciesThe level of stress-related absence at the University was a key driver in our initial complaint. We are increasingly concerned about presenteeism, with staff reporting reluctance to take sick leave due to workload pressures and concerns about management response. Analysis indicates that stress-related absence tends to be of longer duration, suggesting staff may be continuing to work whilst unwell until reaching a point of more serious ill-health. This must be reviewed with the unions and improvements made as part of the action plan. 
6. A Safety Committee that is Fit for PurposeThe University’s Joint Safety Advisory Committee needs agreed terms of reference that will enable it to function effectively as a forum for consultation on health and safety matters, including work-related stress. These terms of reference must be developed jointly with the recognised trade unions and must ensure the committee has a meaningful impact on health and safety policy and practice.

What Happens Next

These are not only reasonable requests, they reflect legal obligations under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977. The HSE has made clear that the University’s current approach to workload is non-compliant. 

The University has until 28  January to demonstrate that it understands the seriousness of this situation.  We will want to see whether the University’s action plan represents genuine  commitment to change or just another exercise in box-ticking to placate regulators  while maintaining business as usual. It is time for the University to prove  that it takes staff wellbeing seriously.