Welcome back, we hope you have had a restful festive season to gain some strength. And strength we will need for the tasks ahead. In this email, we want to update you on our first dispute resolution meeting with management on 9 January as well as provide further information re management’s request to provide information on ASOS and the pause to promotions.
Report from first dispute meeting
Following your overwhelming support for launching a new dispute, we have now held the first dispute meeting with the University. We expect to receive more information this week regarding the timetable for the restructure. As soon as we have this, we will share it with members.
Alongside this, we are continuing our work on preparing the indicative ballot to start on 19 January as part of the new dispute. Further information on this will follow shortly. While there is benefit in a newly framed dispute, it is also evident from our first resolution meeting that the continued threat of industrial action will be necessary to move matters forward. So far, management has rejected all our demands outright.
Reporting of ASOS
We are aware that the University of Nottingham intranet contains a form for staff to report any Action Short of a Strike (ASOS) they have participated in. We are currently seeking further clarification, as it is not yet clear exactly how the University intends to treat ASOS or what actions they will take.
If you are considering confirming participation in ASOS to the University, we strongly advise that before completing the form you:
• Ask your manager what they believe the potential impact of your actions will be, and what deductions (if any) may be made.
• Speak to your local union representative for advice.
As we are sure you have seen, the University has taken the decision to pause the promotion process in order to ‘consult’ with the Unions about whether it should run this year while they develop their restructuring plans. We were not told of this in advance of the pause, and we made it clear that we opposed the move. We have since had two meetings to discuss it and have two more to come before the end of the consultation period on the 10th of February.
Thanks to all of you impacted by this who have submitted your feedback on the proposal, seeing it all anonymised today was very powerful and showed not just how much anger and disappointment there is, but also how united people are in their feelings. We are exploring collective ways to push back against this beyond the formal meetings, so please be in touch with your rep or the branch if you are keen to contribute.
Email originally sent to members on Thursday 18th December 2025
Dear Members
A last email from 2025 from me, and what a year it has been! Your anger, your strength, and the fight back demonstrated the solidarity we have, the love we have for the Institute we believe in, the work we do tirelessly to deliver teaching, student learning, pastoral care and administration. The work we do to advance global research and knowledge, outreach activities, all make our University the place it is. Yet again we delivered all this, despite the adversities and the appalling lack of judgement from people who do not understand this or what a university is about, that it is people who make the university.
Phase 1 saw us losing amazing APM colleagues, a direct result of fiscal decisions on vanity projects and surpluses wanted by UEB. We did manage to challenge the processes, the pooling and bumping, the Industrial action we called and participated in, which averted compulsory redundancies, legally appropriate conversations and at least decent VR payments. A loss nevertheless. Now, the Phase 2, Strategic Change has begun, where yet again the price of everything and the value of nothing is being displayed. The choice of suspending 42 courses on flawed SSR rationale, start of performance conversations using inaccurate metrics, and now pausing of promotions that people richly deserve, is infuriating. But the fight back continues. You saw the numerous press releases, BBC and ITN coverage, MP letters, the published SSR document that challenges the metrics and emphasises the danger of loss of QS rankings, and the financial counterproposal (AFS2). Please also find a link here to the UCU Close Closures counter proposal, written by an amazing group of colleagues in record time so it can go to JNCC in January. https://uonucu.org/counter-proposal-to-course-suspensions/
The fight continues. Last week 97% of members at the members meeting approved the latest motion on balloting for further industrial action in 2026 if our demands are not met. The letter, re on this, has been sent to the VC, and talks on resolving this will occur in January. It should be within 15 days of receiving official notification. However, not being the ‘Bah Humbug” brigade, we stated we can talk in January.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our Reps, our Caseworkers, our branch committee, for the amazing work they have done, supporting members, writing counter-proposals, sitting on dispute negotiation meetings, consultation/discussion meetings on the various policies University wants to take, and producing alternate excellent counter-proposals in record time, to try and avert this disaster to our university and colleagues livelihoods. I would like to thank all our members for showing support, being there at the picket lines, rallies, your speeches, the ” singers in the courtyards and lawns!”, all showing the solidarity we have and the fight back. (Please see below some images, that we leave behind for history).
Please do have a lovely festive break, enjoy the company of your nearest and dearest. Come back in January 2026, ready for the push back and the climb down we expect from UEB. We will call a meeting in January to get your approval on some key new things we plan to do.
This report was shared with council and UEB members in response to the University’s use of Student–Staff Ratio (SSR) as the central tool for “rightsizing” in Phase 2 of Future Nottingham.
The analysis reflects input from specialist data staff within the University and includes dedicated mathematical modelling conducted by academic experts. We want to highlight several findings of immediate relevance to Council’s oversight of institutional risk.
1. SSR is not an appropriate rightsizing metric.
It is a crude headcount ratio that does not reflect real teaching capacity, discipline-specific demands, accreditation requirements, or research commitments. Applying a blanket SSR target of 18–22 would severely damage laboratory-based and research-intensive subjects and move several Schools outside the norms of any research-intensive comparator group.
2. Our modelling shows severe impacts on international rankings.
Using two independent approaches, we find that raising SSR to around 20 would drop Nottingham by roughly 25 places in the QS World Rankings, taking the University from 97th to around 122nd, even under the most conservative assumptions.
A sector-wide shift does not protect Nottingham: even if all UK institutions moved to SSR 20, Nottingham still falls to around 120th—a mitigation of only two places.
These results already assume minimal negative effects and include modelling of peer stabilisation favoured by QS. More realistic models, which account for reduced research time and consequent decline in citations and reputation, show substantially worse outcomes over time.
3. National rankings are similarly affected.
We project a fall from 51st in the Guardian league table to roughly 74–119, depending on SSR level and the extent of knock-on effects on teaching satisfaction, continuation and career outcomes.
4. Raising tariffs cannot offset these declines.
To maintain our current Guardian position while increasing SSR, average entry tariff would need to rise to around 200–210 points—higher than those of the most selective universities in the UK. This is not achievable in Nottingham’s recruitment market.
Using SSR as the primary instrument for rightsizing is worrying. The risks to the University’s research profile, student experience, domestic competitiveness and—in particular—international reputation and recruitment are extremely high. We strongly recommend that SSR not be used as a sizing tool without a full, institutionally led modelling exercise of the reputational and financial consequences.
Of course, we are happy to discuss this further and to share the data files and scripts used in the modelling.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah to those celebrating this month, and we hope this winter break gives all our members some time to rest and recuperate after this tumultuous semester. This will be the final newsletter before the University closes for the break.
Don’t forget to attend our final members’ meeting of the calendar year on this Friday, 12th December at 12 pm. Per Lopa’s email this morning (subject line Motion for this Friday 101225 meeting) we will be discussing and voting on the motion to move towards a new industrial action mandate, the text of which is in Lopa’s email. Join using this zoom link.
Read on for the following topics:
Protected and Performance Conversations
Academic Profile Tool
Claiming strike pay
Postgraduate demonstrator underpayment
Branch Committee meeting summary
Departmental Reps meeting summary
Feedback needed: Proposed changes to promotion process
HSE investigation outcome
Local and national campaigning
Joining link and further information
Protected and Performance Conversations
We have become aware that members may be being invited to “Protected” or “Performance” Conversations. While related, these two measures are distinct.
Performance Conversations are likely to be the first stage of the capability procedure. Whilst there is no right to be accompanied at this informal stage, members can ask to bring a workplace colleague; it would be unusual for the University to deny a reasonable request. We suspect performance management will soon become widespread in the University – the union will actively scrutinise the process to ensure it is fair, proportionate and in line with agreed University policies. If you have any concerns about the process, please do speak to your Departmental Rep in the first instance.
Academic Profile Tool
Last week saw the launch of a new Academic Profile Tool (APT), announced rather subtly on the staff newsletter. Members have already raised concerns, via Department Reps, about the variability and reliability of what this tool purports to show.
Some of the concerns about research metrics in the APT may come under the responsible use of metrics policy. Where that is the case, these should be reported to the libraries research support team and your School Director of RKE.
Claiming strike pay
Many members will now be in a position to claim for up to 8 days of support from the national UCU Fighting Fund against salary deductions in 2025. To do so, follow the process on MyUCU. To then claim additional support from our local funds, follow the steps in our members email of 31st October. Thank you to every member, well wisher and supporter who donated to these local funds. This is a powerful act of material solidarity. If you wish to donate to the local hardship fund, the details are on the last link.
Postgraduate demonstrator underpayment
The branch has been made aware that postgraduate lab demonstrators have been underpaid by between 20 and 30% in last month’s payroll, and have not received holiday pay (effectively an additional 12% deduction), or even their payslip. This was initially explained to the relevant employees in an email on 27th November, as being the result of an administrative error.
The branch has been informed that this is the result of a communication error between Unitemps timesheets and Unicore. The payments were made as an emergency measure, with national insurance and tax (according to University’s approximations) deducted. Affected employees were assured that the problem would be rectified at the next pay day, 22nd December.
This situation is of course unacceptable, and has likely caused undue stress, hardship and confusion during the most expensive time of the year. If you have been affected by this, please let your Departmental Rep know so we can keep track of this issue. You also have the right to request an emergency payment by replying to the email that informed you of the pay problem in the first place. If you choose to do this, we advise you to cc your Departmental Rep.
Branch Committee meeting summary
Your Branch Committee met today Wednesday 10th December and discussed
Wording of new industrial action mandate,
Counterproposals to FN2,
Engagement with Heads of School,
The sudden emergence, and implications of the Academic Profile Tool dashboard.
The Branch Committee meets weekly. If you would like Committee to discuss a particular topic please email the details to: uonucubranch@gmail.com
Departmental Reps meeting summary
Your Departmental Reps met on Tuesday 9th December and discussed;
Wording of the new mandate,
Supporting members in protected/performance conversations.
The Departmental Reps meeting occurs approximately monthly to provide space for Reps to feed back comments and concerns from members in their areas.
Feedback needed: Proposed changes to promotion process
Thank you again for your feedback on HR’s proposed Framework and Criteria for Academic and Technical Specialist Promotions. You can see HR’s responses here.
There is one more document for consultation, this time on proposed changes to the promotion process. Please have a look and send any comments to Mel Bhend at REDACTED by Tuesday 16th December. Your feedback will then be collated and sent back to HR.
HSE investigation outcome
On Monday 1st December, the HM Principal Inspector of H&S wrote to Jane Norman about their assessment of the University’s management of work-related stress. They concluded that the control measures and management arrangements were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances and that no further action would be taken.
This is of course disappointing news, given all the data and evidence that the workload group had collected which proves the contrary.
Nevertheless, the inspector also notes that the university’s response
Does not specify which management standards present the highest risk for work-related stress,
Relies on staff surveys rather than targeted measures to assess the effectiveness of controls,
Places emphasis on preventative actions that do not constitute primary controls.
The workload group will ensure that these concerns are addressed, and continues to gather evidence on mismanagement of work-related stress.
Local and national campaigning
A Wide Net of Solidarity: Antiracism and Anti-Imperialism from the Americas to the Globe The Cuba Research Forum is hosting a seminar given by Anne Garland Mahler (University of Virginia) on the history of the Anti-imperialist League of the Americas (LADLA). LADLA, founded in 1925, brought together trade unions, agrarian organizations, and artist groups across fourteen chapters in the Americas. This seminar explores how these exchanges influenced debates in radical circles in the Americas, specifically on the subjects of Black and Indigenous labor, immigrant rights, and racial policing.
The seminar will be presented online at 5:00 pm on Tuesday 27th January. Meeting link here.
Call on Nottinghamshire County Council to divest from apartheid We encourage all members to sign Nottingham Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s petition demanding that Nottinghamshire County Council divests from from companies and organisations complicit in the genocide in Palestine
Report anti-trans discrimination Have you been questioned, stopped or challenged using a single-sex space? Fill in this form to help TransActual advocate on this issue at a national level.
Need to talk to your Departmental Rep? Find the full list of UoN UCU reps here. If you are interested in becoming a departmental rep, get in touch!
Struggling with your mental health or wellbeing? UCU members get free access to confidential support service educationsupport.org.uk who can be called 24/7 on 0800 562 561.
Yours sincerely,
L Scott Blankenship and Will Paterson-Bassett, Branch Communications Officers, on behalf of UoN UCU Branch Committee
Email sent to memberon Wednesday 10th December 2025
Dear members,
Please find attached the motion on Moving towards a new industrial action mandate, to be voted on at Friday’s members meeting. The most important part is the last four bullet points, in which we specify the terms of the new mandate. As we argued when we accepted management’s offer in November, this was also because of the limits within the terms of our previous mandate for industrial action around no compulsory redundancies until 31 December 2026.
The proposed new mandate significantly strengthens our position in that it 1) extends the mandate to 31 December 2027 (first bullet point); 2) allows us to respond to recent developments around new staff-student ratios and a reduction in research time and the related threat of job cuts (second bullet point); 3) targets specifically the suspension and threatened closure of programmes including the related job cuts (third bullet point); and 4) points out that management has already broken the November agreement (fourth bullet point).
This motion was discussed with your UCU reps and revised in line with their suggestions. For immediate questions, please contact your reps. Otherwise, we are looking forward to listening to your thoughts on Friday at the members meeting.
