At this meeting, academic members will decide BUCU’s formal position on the new Performance and Development Review (PDR) scheme introduced in December 2025 and the form introduced in January 2026. This briefing sets out what is wrong with the new form, the choices in front of us, and — if members vote to reject the form — how to do so.

What is wrong with the University’s current form, imposed without negotiation?

The problems are several and they share a single root: the new scheme was imposed without negotiation.

• Non-negotiated. The new system was not negotiated with the trade unions, and we were not even consulted on it. This is the source of the problems below, and on its own it places the scheme in breach of our recognition agreement.
• Data protection. It is unclear how information entered into the new process is stored, processed, and shared, or whether it may be aggregated or used for purposes beyond the individual review. Staff have not been asked to permit any such use.
• Development or performance management? The new form is oriented around the University’s Global Top-50 ambition, which is why it leans on ‘SMART’ objectives and ties the review to the Birmingham Academic Career Framework (BACF). Under our 2013 Memorandum of Understanding, appraisal is meant to be a conversation about medium-term aspirations and goals — not a mechanism for setting near-term performance targets or performance management. Conflating development with management in this way is demoralising, and a long, imposed form runs against the HSE Management Standards for work-related stress — increasing Demands, removing Control, and imposing Change without consultation.
• Ambiguous framing of check-in/future meetings.  It should be clear that meetings are not obligatory for staff outside the once-per-year requirement.  Additional meetings should only occur when staff request them.
• Not equality-proofed or monitored. There has been no assessment of whether the new form leads to indirect discrimination against groups of staff. BUCU has asked the University to produce an Equality Impact Assessment.

Three possible choices:

1. Use the new PDR form but ask individuals to include a statement that this form has not been agreed and staff do not agree with its use until a proper agreement exists. This is the weakest position in opposition to the principle that the University can change appraisal without agreement.
2. Insist on choice, but leave the choice to individuals — let each member use whichever form they prefer, including the new one. This avoids a collective position, but leaves members exposed individually.  The message to the University is that we insist on respect for the previous agreement (where there was choice), but this position also allows the new form to become a default.
3. Reject the new form — ask members not to use it, and use the alternative form instead. This is the strongest collective position. Because the 2013 agreement requires only that 6 topic areas are covered and leaves the format of the form open, declining the new form constitutes compliance with what we have agreed — it is not industrial action.

The six areas from the 2013 agreement are: 1) a statement of the objectives agreed following the previous interview; 2) a summary of relevant activity and achievement since then which shows how those activities and achievements measure up to the objectives, together with an explanation of the reasons for any variation from the agreed objectives; 3) suggested objectives for the next year (although this does not preclude the possibility of longer term objectives being suggested); 4) aspirations for the future (eg promotion, retirement etc); 5) any ideas for continuing professional development or personal development; 6) any other items for discussion not included in the above.

If members vote to reject the form: how to do it

1. Take part in the PDR conversation. The interview is what the 2013 agreement requires, so attend and engage with it as normal.
2. Decline to complete the new form. Do not enter your review into the new form either on paper or online.
3. Use the alternative form instead. Complete the alternative form BUCU has provided  in place of the new one:
   • Link for alternative form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19YsVD8MwOn3aGqbZ8hcRxgan5TGAie8I/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=109258465705889800857&rtpof=true&sd=true
   • Information about topics to cover: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15aTbVFlLz4jN7zvkf9G3-dydF1t1vl5J/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=109258465705889800857&rtpof=true&sd=true
4. Include the BUCU covering statement. When you submit, attach the short BUCU statement explaining that you are using the alternative form in line with the branch’s agreed position:
   “I am completing my Performance and Development Review using the alternative form provided by Birmingham UCU (BUCU), in line with the position my branch has collectively adopted. The University recognises BUCU for collective bargaining and consultation under our recognition agreement. BUCU’s position is that the new PDR form, introduced in January 2026, falls within the matters the University is required to negotiate with the union, and that imposing it without that negotiation breaches the recognition agreement; it has therefore not been agreed. The imposed form is also disproportionately long and confusing to complete, and demands far more than the six areas the 2013 PDR agreement provides for. It recasts a developmental conversation as performance management; conflating development with management in this way is demoralising, and — by increasing Demands, removing Control, and imposing Change without consultation — runs against the HSE Management Standards for work-related stress. Under that agreement the interview is required but the completion of any particular form is not: the alternative form I am providing covers the six areas clearly and proportionately, so by attending my review and providing it I am meeting what has actually been agreed.
   I provide this form for the purpose of my Performance and Development Review conversation with my reviewer. As the scheme was introduced without negotiation, its data-protection arrangements have not been agreed or scrutinised. I object to its contents being stored, shared, profiled, or otherwise processed for any purpose beyond that conversation in the absence of a clearly identified lawful basis and a published Data Protection Impact Assessment, and I do not consent to any such further processing.”
5. If you have already completed the new form: review whether your objectives are appropriate, and ask your department to confirm in writing that your data will not be used for any new purpose beyond recording that the review has taken place. “I have already completed the new PDR form. BUCU’s position is that it was introduced without the negotiation required under our recognition agreement and has not been agreed with the union. The form is also disproportionately long and confusing, and recasts a developmental conversation as performance management; conflating development with management in this way is demoralising, and the form runs against the HSE Management Standards for work-related stress — increasing Demands, removing Control, and imposing Change without consultation. I am reviewing whether the objectives I entered remain appropriate. I object to the contents of my PDR being stored, shared, profiled, or otherwise processed for any purpose beyond the conversation with my reviewer in the absence of a clearly identified lawful basis and a published Data Protection Impact Assessment, and I do not consent to any such further processing.”
6. Tell us if you are put under pressure. If a reviewer or manager presses you to use the new form, or if you face any detriment, contact BUCU. The branch has resolved to support and defend any member who acts in line with this position.

Take individual advice first if…

you are on probation, in a capability or disciplinary process, or on a fixed-term contract and hoping for renewal. You may be more exposed in these situations, so please speak to BUCU before deciding how to proceed, rather than following the general advice automatically.

What BUCU is doing alongside this

The branch is pursuing the matter formally with the University: seeking confirmation of the scheme’s governance and consultation status, requiring it to be suspended pending genuine negotiation, and demanding the outstanding data protection, equality, and workload assessments.

Questions, or need advice before your PDR?

Contact: casework@birminghamucu.org