Year: 2026

Posted on

After the Graduation Celebration!

Email sent to members on Tuesday 28th July 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 discuss in ‘Animal Farm’ style current graduation-celebrations. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

After the Graduation Celebration

The banners had been folded away. The speeches were over. The Farm had once again declared itself stronger than ever.

The animals returned to work.

The Boxers were thanked for their decades of loyal service. Each received a certificate praising their resilience, dedication and invaluable contribution. Shortly afterwards, they were informed that changing circumstances regrettably meant their experience was no longer required. They were wished every success elsewhere. The pigs assured everyone this was, of course, an investment in the Farm’s future.

The Snowballs fared differently.

There was no public punishment. That would have looked untidy. Instead, they simply ceased to appear where decisions were made. Their names slipped quietly from committees. Their suggestions became impractical. Their concerns became negativity. Their insistence that two and two still made four was judged insufficiently aligned with the Farm’s strategic direction.

When the younger animals asked who had first warned that the granaries were empty, they were told that nobody of consequence had done so.

When they asked who had questioned the figures, they were informed that malicious rumours had briefly circulated, but responsible leadership had prevented confusion.

When they asked why the old horses looked so tired, the pigs explained that change was always difficult for those who struggled to embrace opportunity.

The remaining animals learned quickly.

Working harder had not saved Boxer.

Being right had not saved Snowball.

The lesson was obvious.

Keep your head down.

Repeat the slogans.

And if anyone asks who predicted all this, look puzzled and say you cannot quite remember.

Posted on

Vote of No Confidence in University of Nottingham Council

The following motion was overwhelmingly passed at our members’ meeting on Tuesday 21st July, with 93% voting in favour. This is a joint motion tabled by the UCU, Unite, and UNISON branches at the University of Nottingham.

The University of Nottingham UCU/Unite/Unison branches note that Council has materially failed to discharge its duties as set out in Section 6 (The Council) and Section 7 (Powers of the Council) of the University Statutes, and Ordinance X (Powers of Council), in relation to its decision to support the Future Nottingham Phase 2 (FN2) restructuring of the University.  Specifically, Council displayed:

1. Failure to Discharge Responsibility for the Conduct and Activities of the University:
Under Statute Section 7, 1, Council “shall be responsible for the conduct and activities of the University.” The Council’s decision to approve FN2 draft business case without first securing the complete data necessary to assess its impact on student recruitment, teaching quality, and research output constitutes a failure to exercise responsible stewardship over the University’s core activities. Proceeding without an evidence base capable of demonstrating that no significant harm would result is inconsistent with this foundational duty.

2. Disregard for Senate and Failure to Exercise Oversight Powers Appropriately:
Ordinance X empowers Council “to review amend refer back control or disallow any act of the Senate required under these Statutes to be reported to the Council and to give directions thereon to the Senate”. This provision presupposes engagement with Senate’s considered position. Senate, as the University’s principal academic body, did not support the restructuring. Rather than treating Senate’s non-support as a material concern warranting further scrutiny, Council overrode it. This approach inverts the purpose of Council’s oversight function, which exists to safeguard institutional integrity, not to circumvent academic judgement.

3. Failure to Require Adequate Reporting on Teaching and Research:
Ordinance X expressly provides that Council shall “receive and consider reports on teaching and the welfare and development of students” and shall “promote and make provision for research within the University and require reports from time to time on such research.” Council approved FN2 despite the absence of complete data addressing its potential impact on teaching, student welfare, and research. This represents a failure to exercise the Council’s own reporting and oversight powers before taking a consequential decision.

4. Exposure of the University to Significant Reputational Damage:
Statute Section 7, 1 places overall responsibility for the University’s conduct and activities on Council. Council is empowered (Ordinance X) to govern, manage and regulate “all affairs whatsoever of the University.” A major restructuring that risks negative impact on student recruitment, teaching quality, and research output carries the direct potential for reputational harm to the University’s standing, rankings, and long-term sustainability. By proceeding without the data required to exclude such risks, Council has acted in a manner that exposes the institution to foreseeable and avoidable damage.

All three Campus Unions branches note:

      • The appointment of Michael Queen as our new Chair of Council and call on the University to do everything in its power to support the new Chair, ensure he fulfils his duties independently, impartially, without compromise and in full compliance with the Nolan Principles, especially given his prior relationship with PA Consultancy.

All three Campus Union branches believe:

      • That Council has ratified the draft Business Case without due diligence to university processes and against the overwhelming vote of Senate
      • That Council has ratified the draft Business Case without access to the necessary data needed to make such an important decision (see list above)
      • That Council is not fulfilling its governance duties with due diligence and in robust and transparent ways

As a result of Council’s actions, the combined unions can no longer sustain any confidence in the university Council and call on all those who supported the Future Nottingham 2 business case to resign in order that they can be replaced by individuals who genuinely have the best interests of the university at heart and can perform their duties competently.

Posted on

Update on today’s meeting

Dear members, 

Thank you again for coming to the meeting, showing your enormous strength, perseverance and dogged support to change FN2 and the trajectory this management is taking our beloved university  to. The debate on each item was excellent. The message was loud and clear. We will write later again on the key points  agreed on .

There was one point that is time sensitive, thus I have been asked to write on this today. A clear majority was in favour to support a boycott of graduations starting tomorrow.  Hence, we herewith asks all members not to attend any graduations, labelled by management as celebrations. Considering job cuts and course closures, proposed by our management, there is nothing to celebrate at this point in time!

Two other key points, the Vote of No Confidence in Council, members asked for an important amendment to it, which was done and final approval of the amended Vote of No Confidence in Council, we will resend the latest version. What was brilliant was that members voted  (>90%)  on strategic strike actions next term.  We will of course  hold a meeting, nearer to next term, to discuss days etc. 

Look out for an email from us next week, on the outcomes of our consultations.  Two this week and a final one next week! Do keep an eye out on all the media publicity and interest from National newspapers.  Links will be in our newsletter. They directly resulted from all your actions and external reach.

Solidarity and thank you,

Posted on

Reminder: Member meeting 2pm today

Email sent to members on Tuesday 21st July 2026. Zoom link removed and attachment included as embedded link.

Dear members,

Just a quick email to remind you of our member meeting at 2pm today (link below) and to provide you with a bit of an agenda. As we have quite a lot to cover, and a number of items that need voting on, we are going to be stricter than usual with timekeeping and really ask people to: keep contributions concise, consider if they have already spoken and thus let others speak, and make it clear if they are speaking for/against so we can balance contributions.

In solidarity,

Nick (on behalf of the branch committee) 

Agenda

2pm – Welcome and dispute update

2.10 – Vote of no confidence (discussion and vote – document attached)

2.25 – Sustained strike action in the Autumn Semester (discussion and vote)

2.45 – Other forms of action: future marking boycotts, ASOS etc (discussion and vote)

Meeting Link

Posted on

Targeting Open Days?

Email sent to members on Monday 20th July 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 discuss targeting Open Days as a potential form of action to put pressure on management. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

Targeting Open Days?

To date, we have excluded targeting Open Days as a potential form of action even though we know from the past that it is a potentially powerful tool to put pressure on management. As many colleagues have pointed out, by highlighting negative aspects about our university at Open Days, we are likely to scare off future students, who may decide to go elsewhere. The financial situation of Nottingham University would deteriorate further, putting pressure on the institution to make yet more redundancies.

Nevertheless, is it ethically correct to recruit students to our university, when we know how much damage Future Nottingham does to teaching here? Management intends to teach the same number of students if not more with seven hundred fewer staff. Seminar sizes will increase drastically, pastoral and academic support for students will deteriorate. The streamlining of programmes and courses implies less choice, the intended closure of Modern Languages and the Language Centre will prevent students from combining their degrees with the learning of a language. Do we not have a moral duty to point out to applicants that they will have better opportunities elsewhere than at our university?

We have always been clear that our industrial action is not only about defending our jobs and working conditions. We are also defending students’ learning conditions. If management continues to steamroller its destructive restructuring, do we not have to think again about targeting Open Days?

                On behalf of the Branch Committee