Transcript What has gone wrong? Why are compulsory redundancies back

Defend Jobs, Defend Education
Compulsory redundancies - back on the agenda
Analysis by Malcolm Povey for UCU EGM 27th
January 2011
We face three ballots
Employment law has forced the union to
run three separate ballots
 We understand this is confusing for
members
 We face one single attack by government
on our pay, conditions of service and jobs.
 That means that we must run separate
trades disputes over pensions and jobs.

Decision of the UCU General
Meeting of November 9th 2010

“The LA notes proposals carried in Senate to restructure the Centre for
Joint Honours (CJH).The paper contains no proposals for how the higher
level administrative functions of the Centre are to be carried out.The
obvious conclusion is that the work will simply be dumped on already
overstretched staff in the Schools, while our members will be displaced
from their jobs. The LA has twice requested further information from
University management in the ESRG about this but the proposal to
restructure was taken to Senate regardless of our concerns. The LA does
not believe that there is a diminishing need for these jobs, for the most
part Joint Honours programmes will continue to be delivered; current and
prospective students will still need to be looked after.The LA calls on
university management to redeploy our members into the relevant
Schools. The LA resolves should this not happen that our members will
not pick up the work of our colleagues in the CJH. Should the university
management move to make our members redundant in CJH or any
other part of the University, the LA will ballot for industrial action.”
November Section 188 Letter
The Notice of Redundancy was issued before
the offer of MIS/PRT terms, contrary to our
agrement.
We are back to where we were last year.
What the local dispute is about
This dispute is about the university breaching the agreement we made with
them in March 2010 and placing more jobs at risk.
 The university have failed to put the School Constitutions in place which
were intended to ensure collegiality and academic freedom through the
review process.
 The university has introduced ‘Academic Activity Profiles’ which we view
as a way of pre-selecting people for redundancy without consulting the
union.
 The university has introduced a total of 17 reviews when we had been
informed that there would be seven. The ESRG process is a sham and the
consultation is meaningless without the School Constitutions. The
university has not implemented the agreed redeployment procedure for
displaced members in FBS.
 The university has refused to go to Acas arbitration.
FUNDAMENTALLY THE DISPUTE IS ABOUT DEFENDING JOBS AND
EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS AT LEEDS UNIVERSITY.

What does the UCU want on behalf
of its members?





Placement of all staff displaced during
restructuring into posts at least of the same
grade
Agreement and implementation of the School
Constitutions which we agreed last March with
the university and which are essential for proper
consultation, collegiality and academic freedom
Abandonment of ‘Academic Activity Profiles’
Removal from the review process of Physics,
Chemistry, English, Student Services, School of
Modern Languages and Cultures and Humanities
Agreement regarding fixed-term contract staff.
Is a negotiated solution possible?
 You
can be assured that UCU will be
engaging seriously with the university
to reach a negotiated solution. Our
priority is to protect members’ jobs
without having to take industrial
action if possible.
 We will take up the VCs offer of high
level talks without pre-conditions.
Forms of industrial action
authorised by ballot

In the event of a vote in favour of
industrial action (strike action and/or
action short of a strike), options relating
to the timing and type of industrial action
(continuous or discontinuous) to be used
will be discussed by a General Meeting to
which all UCU members will be invited.
Calendar
Ballot opens 2nd Feb
 Ballot closes 2nd March
 Rallies and Meetings

◦ Demonstration, Manchester – This Saturday,
coach leaves Parkinson Steps at 9am
◦ TUC National Demonstration – 26th March
◦ Stop the racist EDL in Luton – 5th Feb
◦ A People’s Convention – 12th Feb
VOTE YES to defend pensions
Material detriment to existing members through
higher contributions and a later retirement age
 Closing access to final salary pension benefits for
new entrants and those with career breaks or
breaks in service, placing in jeopardy the longterm viability of the scheme as an attractive
option for higher education staff
 Ending the rights of members over 55 (and in
some cases over 50) to receive a full pension if
dismissed on grounds of redundancy.

Major detriment





A lecturer already in the scheme on point 37 could expect to lose
£122,000 over their retirement. A new entrant on the same point could
lose £355,000 over their retirement.
The EPF has insisted on this package despite there being no evidence from
the scheme that it needs it.
The statutory consultation talked of savings of 3.8%, but this does not
include the savings to the scheme from increasing the Normal Pension Age
in line with state pensions or the move to CPI (3.3%), or the future savings
from the introduction of CARE (at least another 4%).
Further, evidence (provided but ignored) demonstrated that the changes to
the scheme proposed by UCU, backed up by respected actuarial advice,
were more than adequate to ensure the scheme remained viable. There
has been an overwhelming rejection of the employers’ proposals by
scheme members in two online ballots. So far, the EPF has shown no
willingness to come back to the table to seek a negotiated settlement.
Your employer has also refused to put in place measures to compensate
members for any detriment suffered as a result of implementing their
proposals, such as amending their contracts to provide
National Trade Dispute re Job
Protection and Pay
Together let's fight the cuts
 For the second year running, the
university employers’ organisation has:

◦ refused to negotiate a nationally agreed
approach to improve job security and defend
provision – tearing up University Employment
Statutes
◦ failed to address equality matters
◦ offered a real-terms pay cut.
University staff face the worst job
cuts for a generation
Thousands of jobs have already gone in our
sector. 40,000 more staff are at risk from
government plans to make further cuts. As part
of the national claim, we asked for talks aimed at
agreeing national proposals to improve job
security. For two years now, the employers have
consistently refused to engage with us on this
issue.
 Fair treatment

◦ The joint union claim also asked for action to
improve the conditions of the lowest paid and most
vulnerable staff, tackle the abuse of casual contracts
and close the gender pay gap. The employers have
refused to take any real action.