We are delighted to announce that on 30 April 2025, the following members were duly elected to our 2025 Senate House committee:

• Chair  – Aurela Neli
• Treasurer – Tim Hall
• Membership Secretary – Jo Lings
• Anti-Casualisation Officer – Eve Hayes De Kalaf (IHR/SAS)
  
  Ordinary Member:
• Clare George (SHL)
• Joseph Ford (SAS)
• Chris Rossi (Central UoL: Governance)
• Anna Armstrong (Worldwide)

A huge thank you to everyone for supporting our work.

The following motion was passed unanimously at our last members meeting. It has now been sent to JNCC management representatives to provide a response.

Worker and student representation on the Board of Trustees

UCU Senate House Branch notes:

1. That despite our branch’s continued advocacy and representations for more worker representation at the highest level of governance at the University of London, there is still none;
2. That although the University of London state that the Board of Trustees is set up “In line with the Committee of University Chairs’ Higher Education Code of Governance” (https://london.ac.uk/5436htmlcentral-university-governance/board-trustees), the current arrangement of the Board of Trustees excludes any worker or student representation;
3. That the Higher Education Code of Governance 2018 states:
   1. “There is an expectation, often enshrined within the constitutional documents of HEIs, that governing bodies will contain staff and student members and encourage their full and active participation.”
   2. “Student and staff members of the governing body share the same legal responsibilities and obligations as other members and must not be routinely excluded from discussions.”
4. Staff, student and trade union membership of highest governance of university is standard practice across the Higher Education sector (examples are provided below). According to a survey undertaken in early 2022, the University of London is the only member of the University of London Federation that does not have staff membership of  the Board or Trustees of the equivalent highest governance committee of the university. We are falling behind in terms of the sector and our own Federation. This is in urgent need of reform:
   1. At the  University of Bristol, there are 20 members of the Board of Trustees, with a lay majority. The members are the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Treasurer, up to 15 lay members elected by Court upon the nomination of Court’s Nominations Committee, a member formally nominated by Convocation, 3 members of the academic staff, 2 members of non-academic staff and 2 students. Elected and appointed members serve for renewable three-year terms, with the exception of student members who serve one-year terms.
   2. At the Open University, the Council has a membership of 21. The majority (11) are external non-executive members, of whom the chair, the Pro-Chancellor, is one. There is also one executive member, the Vice-Chancellor, five members of the Senate one of whom shall be an associate lecturer appointed by the Senate, the President of the Open University Students Association and one other student, one associate lecturer and one member of the non-academic staff.
   3. At the University of Manchester, the Board of Governors meets formally at least five times in each academic year. Its membership of 25 has a majority of persons who are not employed by the University, known as lay members. The Chair of the Board of Governors is appointed by the Board of Governors from within the lay category of the membership. Members of the Senate, members of the support staff and a student representative also serve on the Board.

(This list is in no way exhaustive and further examples can be provided on request.)

UCU Senate House Branch believes:

1. That workers and students are affected more than any other group by Board of Trustee decisions and deserve a say in how they are made;
2. That the University of London does a disservice to its students, its workers, and itself as an organisation by refusing to have appropriate representation on the Board of Trustees;
3. That appointing worker and student representatives would make the Board of Trustees a more diverse, transparent, and better operating component of the University of London.

UCU Senate House Branch resolves:

1. To call on University of London to appoint worker and student representatives to the board of trustees;
2. To call on University of London to work with Unions and students in order to determine what this representation looks like – we propose:
   1. Representatives from each recognised trade union,
   2. elected worker representatives,
   3. elected student representatives;
3. To lobby the OfS and other regulatory bodies, and consider other options if these reasonable requests are not met.

Dear All,

Please look out for an invite to an all members meeting on Tuesday the 2nd of November. More details will be provided in the email.

We’ll primarily be discussing the current ballot for USS dignity and the Four Fights.

The unions have been notified change management in UoL Worldwide is starting. Members in UoLW may have heard a presentation by Craig a little earlier this morning confirming this. 

Phase 1 of this involves approximately 20 staff in UoL Worldwide and puts a few jobs at risk of redundancy. Formal consultation has started for those members of staff affected.

Craig suggested that phase 2 will last three to six months, could involve JD changes for the majority of the rest of the staff base, but is not designed to reduce headcount – he confirmed that everyone in scope will have a job in the new structure. We are clarifying the formal consultation timelines covering phase 2.  Unions received documentation in advance in line with the change management policy, and we have given some initial feedback.

If you are included in a change management proposal, what are my rights and what support is available from the union? 

1.  The University must follow its change management policy. Read through it, it’s useful for colleagues to know what it says. 
    
2. ‘Informal heads up’. If your post is at risk of redundancy, management will generally give you an informal heads up shortly before the consultation period begins. This avoids a situation where you find out that your job is at risk during a public meeting. 
    
3. Kick off meeting. This is where management formally announces the proposals. Union reps will be present. Supporting paperwork must be provided to you at this stage. Efforts must be made to engage with colleagues who are on maternity leave, sick leave, on furlough, and so on. We expect that these meetings will give colleagues a meaningful chance to ask questions. For example, use of video/audio rather than instant message. Kick off meetings need to be a two-way dialogue. 
    
4. We can call a group meeting of members, or staff in a team/department more broadly, to facilitate a conversation between colleagues about proposed changes. Such meetings can be open, i.e. not just for union members. This helps us plan what questions to ask at group meetings and what points to make to HR/management. Taking part in a group meeting can also help you prepare for any one-to-one meeting you’ll need to attend. Contact us if you want this. 
5. We can also request follow-up staff meetings with management. Sometimes colleagues will have lots of significant questions very shortly after the kick off of a process. And so requesting a meeting at which management are required to answer important questions of a collective nature can provide some clarity early on. Contact us if you want this. 
    
6. Anyone included within scope of change management is also entitled to individual consultation. If your job is identified as at risk of redundancy, the University will invite you to a one-to-one meeting and you can be accompanied by a rep; if your job is not at risk of redundancy but is proposed to change (e.g. move team, substantially altered JD), you can request a one-to-one meeting at which you’re accompanied by a rep. If you fall into the second group, we would strongly encourage you to take up your right to a one-to-one meeting in order to seek influence over the proposals. In both cases, if your first one-to-one doesn’t give you the answers or information you are looking for in order to give an informed view about the proposals, request a second one. Use your right to individual consultation fully and ask your union rep for help. 

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU ALL!

In 2020, branch membership increased by 11%, staff on levels 6 and below enjoyed their first year of 30 days annual leave (negotiated + fought for by unions), cleaners and security staff became university staff (negotiated + fought for by unions) and we worked very hard to resist redundancies through change management and secured some minor wins (e.g. improved VR terms) in relation to this. 

It’s been a gruelling year for UoL staff, not least as COVID has forced us to adapt the way we work in ways we could never have imagined. Our new VC has established a new and very ambitious strategy.

At least four major change management programmes were instigated, and the way they were handled by university management leaves a lot to be desired.

We’ve had a number of very well-attended branch meetings. On Wednesday we passed a motion that resolves:

• to call for an immediate commitment from the University of London Senior Management that there will be no compulsory redundancies resulting from restructuring.
• to review the situation, and report back to members in the new year after the results of the new VR scheme have been made available.
• to lodge a dispute and prepare for industrial action if the employer does not rule out compulsory redundancies.
• to demand the University of London extends the VR deadline beyond the 5th of January so that colleagues have more time and information to consider their futures.

At our ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING on 28th January, members can shape the composition of the branch committee for the new year. This is an important milestone in what will be a trying 2021. A union branch is only as strong as the members who step forward and help us do the work that brings about change.

If you want to get more involved in UCU Senate House, there’s no better time than 2021.

We are going to go into 2021 fighting the same fights we were fighting in 2020. So rest up and enjoy your time off. But we’d ask you to consider a question before we return: “What one thing can I do next year to make my union stronger?”.

We look forward to hearing your answers!

UCU Senate House Branch Committee

Today the recognised unions attended the second of two Extraordinary Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee (JNCC) meetings, the method through which Management and the Unions reach agreements on staff-facing changes. These were called at the JNCC meeting held in July, where the changes to incremental freezes and a more detrimental Voluntary Redundancy scheme were not agreed to because Management have failed to produce the information requested by the Unions, in order to enable members to make informed decisions.

What is clear is the following:

1. There is a lack of parity of detriment to staff pay in the face of COVID-19
   • The seven or so members of VCEG (max 7 members staff on salaries over £100K) have taken voluntary salary cut of 10%
   • Staff on L10 and not in VCEG (including a minimum of 9 members of staff on £100+K) are not receiving their cost of living increase, in line with that negotiated by JNCHES, so estimated to be a max of 1%. (However, National Pay increase is set at 0%)
   • Everyone else, circa 1,000 staff, on Spine points 16 – 54 have had a cut in salary imposed, without any formal agreement being reached. The pause to incremental increases plus lack on National Pay Increase (agreed each year by JNCHES) is roughly 4.6% per person.
   • The majority of the highest paid members of staff are therefore suffering the least financial detriment.
2. A new voluntary redundancy (VR) scheme is being introduced for those within the scope of any change management plan:
   • For some staff, the level of VR payment will effectively be the statutory minimum, without the cap on the total amount to be paid.
   • Statutory minimum is the least an employer can pay, without it being illegal.
   • This is approximately a 75% reduction to VR terms previously used by University of London, meaning that for each £1 a member of staff would have previously received, they will now only get 25p.
   • This is far below that being offered by other members of the Federation, including those facing immediate significant financial difficulties. In today’s meeting, we presented evidence showing that current VR terms at UoL are around 33% less generous than those at LSE, half as generous as those at Queen Mary, 3.5 to 4 times less generous than those at Goldsmiths, and 4 to 5 times less generous than those at SOAS. These are all schemes that have been active since COVID hit.
   • The Recognised Unions have not agreed to what UoL is currently offering but we are being told they cannot afford more, as paying out too much now will mean they may have to make greater staff cuts in the future.
   • No specific evidence to support the University’s position has been presented, no benchmarking data, and no comment on why UoL terms are less favourable than institutions whose financial position is arguably worse than ours.
3. There are likely to be redundancies in the future:
   • This has been stated publicly in the Town Halls.
   • The Recognised Unions have received no information to confirm the overall scope of any intended redundancies.
   • The Recognised Unions have received no information to confirm that any area is outside of the scope of these redundancies.

Whether intentional or coincidental, there is a slow erosion of the rights and working conditions of those at the lower spine points, whilst those at the highest continue to only feel a pinch they consent to.

We need YOU to tell us what you want!
What is fair? Should the majority of those earning the most have their pay cut than those earning the least? Should a VR scheme that is barely above the lowest legally permitted go through as the sector faces the most financially unstable time in recent history? Or, would it perhaps be fair for the University tell staff what the plans for future redundancies are, so that Recognised Unions can engage in meaningful negotiations, to protect the most jobs?

If you’ve answer ‘yes’ to any of the above, we need you to join our next members meeting and tell us.

Please also use the anonymous ‘Ask a question’ function at Monday’s Town Hall to ask anything you want.

The University is failing to uphold the spirit of Recognition Agreement with its Recognised Unions and therefore leaving no option but to inform members of what is going on, so we can have the necessary conversations publicly.

It is your future, tell us what you want us to fight for.

Pay freeze consultation

Since we last wrote to you on 17 July, the same day as our most recent letter to VCEG,

• the university closed its consultation on the pay freeze,
• we met with Chris Cobb and HR on Tue 21 July to raise comments and concerns, and
• we received a written response to our representations shortly before the

During our meeting with Chris Cobb and HR, it was acknowledged that the pay freeze represents a change to our T&Cs. This was the first time we had heard acknowledgement from the University that this was the case; this was repeated by the VC at Monday’s Town Hall.

Typically, a change to our T&Cs requires our consent. The consultation exercise may have been an attempt by the University to seek to evidence that staff were agreeing to this change. However, in our representations to the University, we were clear that our engagement should not be interpreted as agreement. We accept that COVID-19 is impacting University budgets in new and significant ways, but we would also argue that the University made no meaningful attempt to negotiate with us on this matter. There’s a clear difference between consultation and negotiation.

We requested sight of the Equality Impact Assessment. This has not been provided; instead, equalities statistics have been given, the validity of which we have concerns about as outlined in our latest letter to VCEG (currently being prepared).

Also, very few of the specific and reasonable questions we’ve been asking on your behalf were answered. On Monday, we received just a page and a half of answers to ‘frequently asked’ questions.

Voluntary redundancy proposal

On Friday, HR shared details of a proposed VR formula applicable for the coming months. For upcoming restructures, they have proposed:

Actual (gross) weekly pay x length of service x 1.5
(with length of service is rounded up/down to the nearest full-year)

We are doing some additional research to compare this proposal with what equivalent universities are offering, but our initial view is that this falls significantly short of what is being offered elsewhere at the moment through similar schemes.

It’s important we know what you think about this offer in order to inform our position over the coming days and weeks, so please do get in touch.

UCU Senate House Committee

We’ve been hearing from many of you in the last few days about statements made by University of London Senior Leadership.

We share in your immense frustration at the lack of detail and lack of engagement with us in making these statements. Unions did not see the detail of that proposal until the evening before and so we have had no opportunity to provide feedback until now.

We will of course be scrutinising the detail of this proposal and ask for your immediate feedback to help us understand what our membership think.

We would strongly encourage you to submit any feedback on the proposal, whether general or in light of your personal circumstance, via UCU (and anonymously) here: https://forms.gle/kxNyfmGqwUxr7KSg7.

We find ourselves in challenging times and there is strength and protection in raising our issues collectively through the mechanisms of the union.