Month: May 2025

Posted on

Update and invite to member’s meeting Monday 2nd June 1-2pm

Email sent to members Tuesday 27th May 2025

Dear members,

I hope you were able to have some much needed time off over the bank holiday? We are just writing with some key updates to events happening both here and nationally, so apologies for the amount of information but we have tried to keep it as clear as we can!

Member’s meeting – Monday 2nd June, 1-2pm

We have called this meeting to provide you all with more updates on our dispute with the University. After the excellent response to the indicative ballot, UCU has now formally sent our ballot information to the VC Jane Norman and the full ballot will open for a month from the 30th of May. As ever it is crucial we have a strong turnout in this ballot, in order to respond to both Phase 1 and Phase 2, and so you will be hearing from our wonderful reps as they help get the vote out.

This meeting is a chance to hear from the committee about all the meetings we have been having with management, ask questions about the dispute and ballot, and provide feedback on potential industrial action plans as we move into summer, next academic year, and even Phase 2. The meeting link can be found below:

UCU UoN is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: UCU UoN’s Member Meeting

Time: Jun 2, 2025 13:00 London

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87172097595?pwd=uAFTwas32QouWEmBibmEJtFQCVzaz1.1

Meeting ID: 871 7209 7595

Passcode: 918987

Phase 1 update

Lopa, Andreas, and Andrew recently sent you a detailed update on Phase 1 of Future Nottingham. Since then the deadline for VR applications has been extended to the 9th of June and we have continued to meet with University management and have submitted and discussed a range of questions and queries about the process. These questions reflect the fact that we have still not received proper and meaningful information about Phase 1 and therefore we still dispute that we are in a proper period of collective consultation which would enable us to give counter-proposals.  

As you can see from the many comments on the staff sharepoint, there is a strong response from staff that communication from the University has been unclear and confusing, and that the way pooling and redundancies have been handled has been rushed. This has been disastrous for staff wellbeing, and is why it is so important we have a strong turnout in the upcoming ballot. 

You received emails from our APM officer Andrew Armstrong on Friday 23rd about area-specific member meetings for APM staff so please do come along to these, and we will be continuing to roll out faculty-wide, all staff meetings over the coming weeks to help provide all UoN staff with as much clarity as we possibly can. We are also working with our sister unions so that all staff can push back together.

Phase 2 information

While officially we are being told that Phase 2 is yet to start, as we flagged with the situation in American and Canadian Studies, academic restructuring decisions are already being taken without proper stakeholder consultation. An increased focus on ‘performance management’ through unprecedented use of protected conversations and potential changes to the ADC process is also underway. 

Recently the short-sighted decision to shut down the important (and surplus-generating) evening classes and some inter-faculty programmes at the language centre, with the potential cost of over 20 jobs, shows exactly why we need a strong turnout in the ballot. We must hold the University to account in both Phases 1 and 2. 

As soon as we have any more concrete information on Phase 2 we will of course share it with you, especially as we know that Faculty level discussions have begun.

National picture updates

Finally, just some wider information on the national picture following the UCU congress at the weekend. Our fantastic delegates (Lisa, Gertjan, and Alan) will provide a fuller report in time, but the key thing to note is that the ‘Trade Dispute’ motion that we overwhelmingly supported as a branch was passed at congress. This Times Higher article gives a bit more detail on what this could mean, but we feel this is a positive step for exploring other avenues at a national level – something crucial given the derisory 1.4% pay offer from UCEA.

In solidarity,


Nick (Branch secretary) 

Posted on

2025 Immigration White Paper: Information for members

On Monday 12 May 2025, the government published an immigration white paper outlining intended changes to the immigration system. As the summary of the proposals demonstrates, these proposals will further marginalize migrants in the UK. Not only will the proposed measures make it more difficult to come and stay in the UK, as well as financially costly (current costs can be viewed here), they also exude a yet further hardening of the anti-immigrant rhetoric the Labour government has adopted wholesale from its Conservative predecessor. The prime minister’s speech to announce the white paper has been widely condemned by trade unions (UCU’s statement) and migrant rights organisations.

As a branch committee we reject the distressing rhetoric and these retrograde measures. We know this is a troubling time for our migrant members and those whose loved ones are migrants. We join you in fervently hoping that many of these proposals will not be turned into law or policy. We will not stand by, nor will UCU at large.

UCU stands firmly in support of migrant members and for a fair and humane immigration system. Migrant members are formally recognised as one of the equality groups the union represents. An annual conference for migrant members is held, which elects a Migrant Members Standing Committee (MMSC) to advise the National Executive Committee [requires myUCU login]. UCU’s Stop the Cuts campaign demands ‘an end to hostile environment policies that make the UK an unwelcoming place for international students’, while UCU’s political campaigning also calls for better treatment of migrant staff. In negotiations with employers over pay and conditions, UCU has pushed to include reimbursement of immigration costs and ensuring pay levels meet government imposed thresholds for visa eligibility in the joint trade union claim. 

The University of Nottingham provides a comparatively generous immigration expenses reimbursement scheme. Our branch’s strong opposition to proposals to weaken the scheme a year ago has ensured it stayed that way. The university’s ambition to be a global university, in our view, means it should do all it can to remove the excessive financial burdens migrant staff and their families face when moving to the UK.

In support of individual members, the MMSC and equality team at UCU head office continuously monitor changes to immigration law and policy. Briefing materials and webinars to help members navigate changes are regularly provided. UCU is supported by qualified immigration lawyers from Bindmans LLP. Members can also request individual legal support on matters of immigration law related to their employment. Before reaching out for legal support or to head office officials, contact the branch for casework support. 
At this time, it is important to stress that however concerning the government’s announcements are, their proposals are not yet in force. The existing rules will continue to apply for now. If you find that the university appears to proceed as if new rules are already in force, for instance if you are needing to renew your visa or become eligible for ILR, please get in touch with the branch immediately so we can get you casework support.

Posted on

e-ballot results and updates

Dear Members

We now have the results from our indicative e-ballot, which closed on Friday. Thank you to all those who have voted: the overwhelming result on a massive turn out is that a clear majority are willing to take action in support of protecting jobs and livelihoods of people at our university.  So heart-warming, thank you, wonderful people. These results mean we can now seek authorisation from our national union to actually ballot.  It is vital you vote in that ballot if it is authorised, again in numbers that the university cannot possibly ignore!  The ballot will again have the 2 Qs on type of action: Strikes and Action Short of a Strike, starting from late July of this academic year (covering Phase 1 of FN) and autumn term of next academic year (when Phase 2 kicks in and CR of Phase 1 is finalised). The ballot paper, on defending jobs at UoN, will detail the types of ASOS which we may call upon you to take, these were identified from the many conversations members had with reps and committee. 

A few further updates and recaps for you: 

As you know, in March, UCU members voted to declare a dispute with the University because the VC refused to rule out compulsory redundancies. During a brief dispute resolution period with us,  VC/UEB would not step back from the planned redundancies. 

Phase 1 update: On 8 April, 2025, management announced Phase 1 of Future Nottingham, involving 258 FTE redundancies of APM staff,  equivalent to 387 roles. These are, in the first instance potentially voluntary, but if need be also includes compulsory redundancies. Voluntary redundancy is being pushed for, at all levels of APM, in professional services and in schools, although the bigger changes (centralisation)  and compulsory redundancies will tip into Phase 2. Beyond not understanding why sending VR letters to all APM staff would cause them to be hugely and unnecessarily saddened (!), roles considered for CR are being published in departments group meetings leading to people in those roles being known more widely as being targeted (unacceptable). Structural changes are not being properly disclosed to the TU negotiating teams (for UCU they are: P, VP, APM Officer & Regional BA ) and some extensive restructuring such as External Relations and CARO, have not been shared properly with Unions or staff.  The risk level of the changes is not being provided nor is why these exact roles are being considered for CR. We are, therefore, strongly contesting their understanding of when the official consultation period has started, it has not! 

Additionally, management have directly said services those people provide to the University will suffer, or others (APM or Academics) may have to pick up (ahm! Workload!! 100% is 100%!).

Phase 2 Update: Plans are already being drawn up and presume will be concluded by the month of May, re which degrees, which research is deemed financially unviable, without understanding what will be lost re knowledge advance and education.  It is highly likely that similar levels of redundancies for academics and technicians will be imposed, again based on top-down analyses rather than involvement of the stakeholders who deliver all the teaching and research. The implications to our UK and global rankings are huge.

We remain of the firm opinion that these cuts are neither necessary nor are they solely externally enforced, considering local financial mismanagement around vanity projects such as Castle Meadow Campus.

We will continue having the regular weekly meetings with management about their plans of implementing redundancies and challenging their vision of a shrinking U of Nottingham. In these meetings, it has also become clear that sustained industrial action is needed to sway management’s strategy.

Unison are also seeking mandate to go into Industrial Dispute, so we may have both unions on strike together. We also plan to hold a very visible 3 union rally soon, to show total solidarity, we will inform on dates. 

In solidarity

Lopa (P), Andrew (APM officer), Andreas (V-P)

On behalf of UoNUCU Branch Committee

Posted on

Joint union transgender solidarity statement

UCU and UNISON at the University of Nottingham are deeply concerned at the widespread, harmful implications of last month’s Supreme Court ruling and subsequent EHRC guidance. At a time of growing transphobic harassment and discrimination across the UK, this ruling is the latest frightening setback for trans rights and freedoms. 

This decision has the direct effect of further removing transgender and non-binary people from public life, and has come about through lobbying by groups aligning themselves with the far-right such as the LGB Alliance and For Women Scotland, bankrolled by a small number of billionaires. Transphobic rhetoric and policy in the UK is being used to create a moral panic in order to distract us from government failures, including a failure to prosecute sexual violence. Our branches remain steadfast in our commitment to defending and promoting trans rights, both at this University and beyond.

That the Supreme Court made this judgement without hearing from a single transgender person is a matter of fact, as is its allowing of interventions and evidence from other, so-called “gender-critical”, groups. A Court is, or should be, bound to hear evidence from all sides in a dispute in order to reach an unbiased and sound judgement.

Trans women have existed in a wide range of societies  for centuries, and science has recognised this. There is no evidence  to support any claim that trans and non-binary people pose a threat to the safety of cis women. The Equalities Act 2010, together with the Gender Recognition Act 2004, have given a legal position for the UK which has operated well through their combined framework for the last 15 years, extending rights to trans and non-trans women and men alike. The ruling itself does not remove the right to the same protections from discrimination as others, as enshrined in the Equalities Act 2010.

We stand in solidarity with trans, non-binary and intersex workers and students and their families at this time, and we will continue to fight for a future when all minorities can live together as one, with respect and dignity.

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

Posted on

Motions passed at AGM 30th April 2025

The following motions were passed at the recent AGM;

Motion 1: New progressive pay structure for highest earners to protect jobs at UoN

Motion 2: No 120 percent workload at UoN!

Motion 3: Support a Trade Dispute with the Secretary of Education over funding

In addition, the nominees for next years committee were confirmed

Finally the branch approved one amendment to motion SFC7 scheduled for debate at Congress. The amendment is as follows;

“Insert following resolve i.

ii. Working with relevant specialist committees, review all officer role job descriptions and the use of language throughout the model branch rules to ensure they reflects current equality strands and language. For example, insert ‘migrant members’ in the enumeration of equality groups in bullet iv) under 8.6 Equality Officer.

And renumber accordingly.”