Dear members,
As you know, we have used the questions you raised at our last branch meeting to demand clarification from senior management regarding their plans to address the “projected £20M shortfall” referred to in the presentation they recently forced heads of department to disseminate on their behalf. Please see below for a summary of the responses we have received so far.
The University’s Response to the Current Financial Difficulties
When asked what the university planned to do to address the £20m shortfall, UCU were reminded of Caroline Harries’ 27th October 2024 update. Harries’s plans included a “review of our course portfolio”, “PEER (a purpose, efficiency and effectiveness review)”, an “analysis of spend against sector benchmarks”, and a “local financial review, looking at budgets across the University and how these align to our resource allocation methodology (RAM)”. Importantly, SLT cannot rule out the future use of voluntary or compulsory redundancies, and voluntary exits to address the projected £20M shortfall.
The Recent Use of Voluntary Exits and/or Severances
We asked specific questions about when voluntary exits occur, the equalities impacts associated with those that have occurred thus far and how much they have contributed to savings.
“Voluntary exits”, we are told, “are triggered either by an approach from an employee or by the managers with advice from HR.” Potential selection criteria includes unsuccessful “informal performance management”, disputes ending in lack of “trust and confidence”, and staff who wish to “avoid a formal dismissal process” caused by “ill health”.
SLT say that they are demonstrating their “due regard” for potential equality impacts by undertaking Equalities Impact Assessments under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, before enacting any compulsory, or voluntary, redundancies, severances or exits. They also say that they will undertake such Equalities Impact Assessments if they decide to develop any future compulsory (or voluntary) redundancy schemes. Since 1st August 2022, “43 protected conversations have taken place to consider voluntary exit” and there has been a “95% uptake”. “Since 2022/23 7% of staff leaving with voluntary exits were from ethnic minority; 22% were disabled.” “7 involved in formal disciplinary or performance management procedures”. SLT argued that exits, severances or redundancies have only had a “minimal” impact on the work of other staff in the department, school or faculty. They argued that “all but five employees were replaced”.
The data shared above bear out the claim that SLT are undertaking Equalities Impact Assessments in connection with Voluntary Exits and/or Severances. But more clarity is required. It is unclear when we are told that “all but five employees were replaced” if this is 5 of the total 43 exits, severances or redundancies since 1st August 2022 or 5 of the “7 involved in formal disciplinary or performance management procedures”. It is also unclear how much of the projected £20M shortfall has been addressed, so far, by way of exits and/or redundancies.
We also need further clarity on the use of “protected conversations” and the point at which unions can represent staff in these conversations. When “a recognised dispute” occurs, SLT explain, the conversation will function under “S111a of the employment rights act 1996”.This is not an NDA but contains a similar structure (go here to find out more), so we need assurances that “protected conversations” are not used to circumvent the collective action of Unions. There is a lack of clarity about when UCU caseworkers can attend a “protected conversation”. Unions, it seems, may not be “invited” to the “initial protected conversations” as they represent “an option”. This is explained as follows:
Staff have a right to representation at all formal meetings regarding problems or concerns they may have at work. Predominantly initial protected conversations are informal and provide the employee with an option (or the employer to consider a proposal from the employee) so trade unions are not invited to these, however if subsequently formal processes begin place [sic] trade unions or solicitors (often TU solicitors) are involved.
The communication we’ve had on the recent use of voluntary exits and/or severances is welcome but – if the future use of voluntary or compulsory redundancies, and voluntary exits to address the projected £20M shortfall cannot be ruled out – we need further written assurances that the SLT will ensure that the collective bargaining of trade unions – which is undertaken to support vulnerable staff working in an uncertain sector – is not undermined.
Management Strategies and Evaluation of Courses
SLT were asked a number of questions about who was consulted on a range of processes and strategies that were released in the last 5 years or so, including the Academic Domains Framework, the Town House Strategy, course reviewing and workload management.
In some of the responses, there is a lack of transparent and open sharing of information. Academic Domains Frameworks, for instance, were apparently developed in 2018-2019 “with reference to, and in alignment with, HE national agreements and guidance, existing academic job descriptions at Kingston, and the JNCHES Academic Role Profiles”. Yet, when revisions to this framework were introduced in 2023, UCU was not consulted on them, and the fact that we did not support the initial 2018-2019 introduction of the Academic Domains Framework does not appear to have been taken into consideration. Similarly, although SLT suggests that consultants and consultant firms were not used “to develop the Town House Strategy”, they acknowledge that they were used for “communication” of this strategy. The names and duties of these consultants and consultancy firms have not been provided.
SLT offer a vague description of the difference between “portfolio management” (or “course review”) and “PEER (Purpose, Efficiency and Effectiveness Review)”. The former is considered part of a “business-as-usual” “annual process”: it includes KCEP processes, analyses of “current and projected demand” and sometimes an “analysis of Departments falling below average RAM (Resource Allocation Model) contribution”. The latter (PEER) is centred on “improving our processes and practices” by looking at, for instance, “course structures”, course “design” and course “delivery”. We are not told or given examples, however, of how this Resource Allocation Model (which Caroline Harries names Resource Allocation Methodology) will function. Nor does there appear to be an acknowledgement that these processes could result in potential job cuts.
Although SLT have agreed to undertake Equalities Impact Assessments under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 before any reviews of course provision, they cannot “commit to involving academics and students, as those who will be most directly affected by their outcomes, in future uses of the P.E.E.R. system to review course provisions”. They responded by saying 1) where portfolio reviews impact staffing levels these will “be part of the formal consultation process” and 2) course design and delivery should be aligned with “the University Academic Framework [as] reviewed and approved though Education Committee in November 2024”. These processes either seem to place trade unions, staff and students into an ineffectual consultation of fait accompli decisions or to enforce changes to course design and delivery that ignore the experiences of the staff and students who are their direct providers or consumers.
There are places where the voices of staff, including Faculty Deans and UCU Representatives, are being involved in attempts to improve the way that Work Allocation Models function for academic staff. The presence of this review is laudable but the discrepancies and inconsistencies it reveals suggest a prolonged ignorance to how our contracts and duties are managed — and this will be affecting staff throughout the university, academic or otherwise. SLT were unable to explain when the Workload Allocation Model was last reviewed and, when asked to “commit to a moratorium on redundancies, exits and severances (voluntary or otherwise) until the [current] Workload Working Group has completed its tasks”, they argued that “other factors that influence our work to determine financial sustainability […] will not be paus[ed] […] as we move to a more harmonized approach”.
All of these processes demonstrate how a prolonged ignorance to the challenges and changes occurring in the sector have, rather than being managed as they occur, been ignored. HR and SLT should have already known, for instance, that the WAM used for academic staff is often ineffective, and surely the reviewing of a process that ensures our ability to complete our duties without a given week is something that HR should be doing constantly, to ensure that our weekly duties align with our contracts and that these duties are accurately nurtured and/or appraised. At present, it feels like staff (and indeed students) are being expected to pay for management’s historic failures and careless spending.
Future Skills and Academic Integrity
We asked a number of questions about how Future Skills was developed, how it represents value for money, and if it incorporates the knowledge and expertise of academic staff.
Future Skills, we are told, was developed in consultation with SDLTs and the SDGS team. SLT gave a generic answer to the question of development cost, explaining it is “difficult to quantify the development costs of new modules across different schools and faculties”. They also state that “The university has not outsourced the teaching of level 6 Future skills”.
Yet there are a number of problems with these statements. Who is in ‘the SDGS team’ and what are their duties? Is extra work allocated to module leaders for the development of Future Skills modules given they require more collaborative activities and management than many other types of module? The development of Future Skills relied on a grant and a seconded Town House Fellow, but values attached to these activities are not provided. No clarity is provided on what Gradcore, a third-party supplier used for managing assessment centres, costs the university. There are also internal inconsistencies in the Gradcore system. If they “do not teach or formally assess”, why does their contract cover “the hiring of [“industry-trained”] assessors”? (Which “industry” has “trained” these assessors?) The fact that “a one year transitional period in courses such as Nursing, Architecture and Engineering” has been approved due to the restraints caused by PSRB schemes at Level 6 suggests a clear oversight in the overall development of Future Skills.
These oversights and failures to provide information, like those in the previous section, all represent a failure to engage with and pay attention to the voices of academic staff, many of whom have been running courses, and nurturing their modules, for 5 years or more. Importantly, they also represent a careless and disingenuous use of the University’s funds.
Miscellaneous questions
Some other responses related to data requested and a clarification of relaxation and recreation spaces for staff and PGRs.
Data proving that the trailing process is of benefit to students will be provided.
SLT offered the staff-student ratios from the past two years (2022/3, 17.1; 2023/4, 18.1) but argued that previous years could not be included as the way the data are calculated has changed.
SLT have explained that no replacement for the Picton Room is planned. (They did not mention the Knights Park Staff Space.) Baby feeding and baby changing rooms will be created in the place of the Picton Room. We are told that ‘[a]lternative spaces exist such as the 5th floor Town House which are available for all to use for relaxation and recreation’.
SLT have no plans to provide subsidised food, but we are reminded of the existence of “the new benefits platform and smart spending app that enable staff to benefit from 5% off at Sainsbury’s next to Penrhyn Road and 4% off most other supermarkets and discounts up to 10% at many restaurants and food take away places”.
SLT does not have the data to explain the savings made by using a contractor rather than direct labour to supply food services at the university. The value of using contractors is that “the caterers take responsibility for catering operations and associated risks, delivering against an agreed set of 30 Key Performance Indicators” thereby “free[ing] the university to focus on core business”.
There is a lot to take in here. Many of the responses we’ve received pose further questions, all of which we have gathered and are formulating responses to. (A full version of SLT and HR’s response can be found here.) It is, however, clear that the University is failing to meaningfully consult with us. Our Recognition Agreement defines negotiation as ‘the process of discussion between the University and one or more Trades Unions with the purpose of reaching agreement and avoiding disputes’ and consultation as ‘an opportunity to influence decisions and their application’, not simply ‘the mere passage of information’. At present, we only seem to have received ‘information’.
