Month: April 2026

Email sent to members on Tuesday 28th April 2026.

As part of our campaign to defend jobs and working conditions at the University of Nottingham, we will be sending regular emails, authored by different UCU members, examining key elements of management’s restructuring plans. Today we share the email and report we sent to members of university council – the main governing body of the university – who will decide on the futures of over 600 academics on May 5th and 6th. We urged them to rethink the university’s reckless plans and to consider a much more careful approach to university savings, presented in the 50-page report attached. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

Dear Council Members,

I’m writing to share the attached UCU report on Future Nottingham Phase 2.

I would strongly urge you, particularly our external members, to read this in full before endorsing the University Executive Board’s plans.

UEB’s current strategy is being presented as risk reduction. In reality, it is a high-risk approach that relies on cutting deeply into the University’s core academic capacity while assuming that student demand, research income, and reputation will somehow hold up. The evidence in this report suggests that is not a safe assumption.

What is being proposed is very fast, very large-scale change. The likely consequences are not abstract:

• student–staff ratios pushed well beyond Russell Group norms, with clear implications for rankings and recruitment (and no evidence to support UEB’s claim that such extreme SSRs will be replicated across the sector, despite a union request)
• reduced research capacity, with direct consequences for grant income and long-term reputation (the strategy speaks of “academic growth” but sets out no credible plan for achieving it, while actively cutting the capacity required to deliver it)
• loss of staff that is unlikely to be “controlled”, particularly among those most able to leave
• a real risk of a self-reinforcing cycle, where cuts reduce income, leading to further cuts and ongoing institutional decline

Put bluntly, there is a credible scenario here where the strategy meant to stabilise the University instead pushes it into decline. Our report sets out an alternative that still delivers substantial savings but does so in a much more controlled way. In particular, it shows how savings can be made through natural attrition and workforce rebalancing, delivering on the order of:

• ~£6–7m per year
• ~£20m over three years
• ~£34m over five years

These figures are grounded in observed staff turnover and avoid the costs and disruption associated with large-scale redundancies. Crucially, in contrast to UEB’s proposal, they do not depend on weakening the University’s core teaching and research capacity.

There are also serious concerns about governance which, frankly, should give Council pause.

The report documents repeated instances where:

• key decisions have been pushed through without proper process
• the information provided to Council has lacked the detail needed to test the proposals properly
• Heads of School have not endorsed plans that are being presented as if they have
• Equality Impact Assessments are incomplete or absent

More broadly, there is a growing disconnect between what is being reported upwards and what is being experienced across the University. Many school leaders are deeply concerned about the direction of travel. That is not being reflected clearly in the narrative reaching Council.

You should also be aware of the wider context. All three campus unions have passed votes of no confidence in the University’s leadership. UCU has now balloted for industrial action and secured strong support, with over 86% in favour of action. We also secured the highest turnout across the sector this year, reflecting widespread and escalating concern across the institution.

Council’s role here is critical. These are not routine decisions, and the consequences are not easily reversible. Endorsing a plan of this scale without properly stress-testing its assumptions, and without seriously considering alternatives, carries its own risks. Our ask is straightforward:

• please read the report in full
• ask for clear evidence, at school level, that the proposed cuts are deliverable without damaging core functions
• question whether the financial projections properly account for the risks set out above
• and give proper consideration to the alternative approach

There is still time to take a more measured path. There may not be a second chance to undo the damage if we get this wrong.

Yours sincerely,

UoN UCU Branch Committee

Email sent to members on Monday 27th April. Links updated.

You may have seen an article in Nottingham post that was published late on Friday. Please find link below. This was about proposed job losses indicated in a draft FN2 business case that had been shown to Senate and was going to Council for approval to consult with staff and Trade Unions. We were told that this document would come to us, UCU,  after the Council meeting. Unfortunately, however, as reported by the Post it confirms our worst fears and makes clear that our moving towards industrial action is absolutely necessary.

Council will take a decision on 6 May on the draft Business Case. We sent Council our counterproposal of how to confront the current financial situation, see attached.  Hopefully, Council will see sense and reject that management draft Business Case. 

Link to article

Full solidarity,

Email sent to members on Monday 20th April 2026. Zoom link from original email removed.

Dear members,

We have now been informed about the outcome in our ballot on industrial action. See the full details below underneath this message. As you can see, this is a resounding endorsement of industrial strike action and action short of strike, should management continue with its disastrous plans involving widespread programme suspensions/closures, high staff-student ratios and the related several hundred of job cuts across the institution. It is also an improvement on our last ballot, so thanks to all of you who voted and our amazing reps for all their hard work!

You are not alone. This is the highest participation rate in any formal ballot in HE during 2026. Almost 1000 staff members stand ready to take action collectively. For a discussion of potential types of action, please come to tomorrow’s members meeting from 12 noon to 1 p.m.

In solidarity,

— 

Ballot result:

Turnout: 64.49% (848 votes)

Are you prepared to take industrial action consisting of strike action?: 75.77% yes, 24.23% no

Are you prepared to take industrial action consisting of action short of a strike action?: 86.64% yes, 13.36% no

Email sent to members on Monday 20th April 2026.

As part of our campaign to defend jobs and working conditions at the University of Nottingham, we will be sending regular emails, authored by different UCU members, examining key elements of management’s restructuring plans. Today we look at the implications of missing Equality Impact Assessments for staff. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

When Equality Becomes an Afterthought: EIA Failures and What They Mean for Us All

Across the sector, we are seeing rapid institutional change: course closures, workload intensification, restructuring, and cuts to resources. At the University of Nottingham, Future Nottingham is steamrolling a number of cuts and proposed cuts: 48 courses; high staff student ratios; the Hopper Bus service; journal access; office cleaning, to name just a few.  But alongside the pace and scale of change, something critical is being quietly sidelined: equality.

Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) are not optional extras. They are a legal requirement under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), designed to ensure that institutions actively consider how decisions affect people with protected characteristics. In theory, EIAs should be a safeguard against discrimination. In practice, they are increasingly absent, incomplete, or superficial.

Our local tracking of EIA compliance reveals a deeply concerning pattern:

• Major structural changes – including increases in student-staff ratios, reductions in research time, and cuts to services – are being presented in the Business Case to Council on 6 May with no completed EIAs.
• Where EIAs do exist (for example, course suspensions – the only one UCU has seen to date), they are partial and limited, focusing narrowly on students while ignoring impacts on staff.
• In some cases, decisions (journal access; office cleaning) have already been made and implemented months before any EIA is completed, raising serious questions about whether equality considerations are being meaningfully applied at all.

This is not a technical oversight. It is a systemic failure.

Why EIAs Matter

EIAs are meant to ensure that institutions have ‘due regard’ to three core aims:

1. Eliminating discrimination
2. Advancing equality of opportunity
3. Fostering good relations

When EIAs are missing or inadequate, these duties are not being met. And the consequences are not abstract.

• Increasing student-staff ratios disproportionately affects staff with disabilities, caring responsibilities, and those already managing high workloads.
• Reductions in research time may deepen existing inequalities in promotion and progression, particularly for women and minoritised staff.
• Cuts to services (like libraries, transport, and cleaning) can have uneven impacts across different groups, including disabled staff and students.

Without proper EIAs, these impacts remain invisible – and therefore unchallenged.

The Problem of ‘Tick-Box’ Equality

Even where EIAs are produced, there is a growing concern that they function as a tick-box exercise rather than a meaningful process.

A basic or retrospective EIA – especially one that only considers a subset of those affected – does not meet the standard of ‘due regard.’ Equality must be considered before decisions are made, not after they are implemented.

What we are seeing instead is a hollowing out of equality processes:

• EIAs completed late (or not at all)
• Narrow framing of who counts (students but not staff)
• Lack of evidence or engagement with unions and affected groups

This undermines both the spirit and the letter of the law.

What Can Be Done?

There are several routes for challenging EIA failures:

1. Internal challenge

Members can:

• Request EIAs and supporting evidence
• Raise concerns through formal structures (e.g. committees, grievances)
• Push for transparency around decision-making (ask to see meeting notes, where the EIA was discussed)

2. External escalation

Where internal processes fail, issues can be escalated to bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which has powers to investigate and enforce compliance.

3. Legal routes

In some cases, decisions made without proper equality consideration can be challenged through judicial review. Importantly, such challenges must be made promptly.

A Collective Responsibility

EIA failures are not just procedural issues – they are about whose voices are heard, whose experiences are recognised, and whose wellbeing is prioritised.

For UCU members, this is a collective concern. Equality is not a separate agenda from workload, job security, or working conditions – it is embedded within them. When equality processes fail, it is often the most vulnerable colleagues who bear the brunt.

We need to:

• Keep documenting and evidencing these failures (contact us/your local rep and let us know)
• Continue raising them through union structures
• Build collective pressure for transparency and accountability

Because equality should not be an afterthought. It should be at the heart of every decision our institution make.

If you have concerns about EIAs in your area, please get in touch with your UCU rep. Together, we can ensure that equality is not sidelined through Future Nottingham.

                              On behalf of the UCU branch committe