You will recall that at the branch Extraordinary General Meeting on 24th September our members mandated the branch officers to put 5 demands to management and, if they were not agreed, to explore a formal dispute registering a failure to agree. We put the demands to management in writing, who responded on 1st October stating that timetabled f2f teaching would continue as planned and that the Person Centred Questionnaire/Rick Assessment (PCQ/RA) process was adequate and an opt out was not necessary. Management also stated they were unable to halt PTHP redundancies, that RIA 40% reduction had been consulted upon and that the workload model for 20/21 (a COVID-19 specific agreement) has been agreed. As this did not meet the demands made, the democratic mandate from the motion was to initiate a dispute, which we did.
In line with our recognition agreement, we were invited to a formal meeting to try to resolve the dispute. That meeting happened this morning and we wish to report proceedings here. The structure of the meeting was circulated yesterday and as part of the meeting, we presented the items in dispute and our case around them. We had 40 minutes to do so and we used a number of slides (attached) to state the grounds of our dispute and communicate the concerns of members from the EGM. We articulated the strength of feeling that was clear from our EGM, that the PCQ/RA process was not being followed consistently and was therefore inadequate, noted than an opt-out process was needed and re-iterated that our members have indicated that teaching should be online by default.
Following that, management had the opportunity to ask questions (15 mins for EB, 15 mins for IVC and COO as chairs of the meeting) followed by 40 minutes to present their case in response. The management response focused heavily on justifications for face to face teaching, with some 35 minutes of their response being taken on presenting the case that the university has discharged their legal duties and precautions have been taken to make the workplace as safe as possible, that moving to online only would be detrimental to student experience and that moving to online only may jeopardise the University’s financial security as it may lead to increased student complaints or contravening OfS, charity commission or bond requirements. In response to the demand for an opt-out, management described the PCQ/RA process and maintained that this was adequate. Management spent little time responding to issues on Workload, PTHP redundancies or RIA cuts, however they did acknowledge that the Special COVID 20/21 workload model came out later than originally intended and it is only being implemented now that they would consider a specific issue with PTHP redundancy in one faculty but would not halt the process entirely and that they were willing to review the RIA cut in December.
We had opportunity to ask questions and raised concerns that this response did not address the two fundamental concerns in the motion, firstly that staff are given an opt-out and secondly that online should become the default mode of teaching except where staff locally determine that f2f teaching is necessary in order to meet the learning outcomes of a particular module (instead management focused on a hypothetical online-only scenario), and made the point that module leaders are the best placed to decide what must be delivered face to face and what can be moved online.
Management have made an initial offer to resolve the dispute as follows:
We are willing to offer the following as a means to resolving the dispute and reaching agreement with UCU:
A) A review of workload tariffs when we return to business as usual.
B) A review of the RIA in December 2020.
C) Investing in actively supporting staff development. Staff development will be encouraged particularly around learning and teaching. BAL for example will fund 100 members of staff to obtain the Certified Business and Management Educator (CMBE) Qualification this year. We will also continue to support staff doing masters and doctoral programmes.
D) Further investment in mental health support to staff, particularly to support those suffering anxieties in the context of Covid19.
The purpose of this initial dispute meeting was for the two sides to put their views forward, rather than make decisions. The next stage is for the chair of the meeting (IVC Andy Collop) to consider the arguments he has heard at the meeting and deliver a formal response and arrange a follow up meeting. Management have stated that this will be scheduled for week commencing 2nd November. We will report back at the earliest opportunity on outcomes from that meeting and potential next steps.
In the meantime (and very importantly), management did state in the meeting that HR’s door is open to the union if there are cases where people feel that the PCQ/RA process has deemed them suitable to carry out f2f teaching, but they disagree with the application/decision of that process. If this applies to you, please do get in touch with us as a matter of urgency and we will take your case to the appropriate managers and HR. We have already done this on behalf of a number of members and where necessary changes have been made.
Best Regards,
Branch Negotiating Committee.
DMU UCU 