The ballot results are in! (Came just before 2pm). Re: Trade dispute: failure to resolve issues regarding job security. I am delighted to let you know, a resounding majority of you voted Yes! (72.21% said yes to IA consisting of strike action, 84.12% said Yes to Action short of a Strike action).
We have informed the Vice -Chancellor.
Thank you for your resounding endorsement. Thank you for caring about the huge job losses of APM colleagues in Phase 1 and what may follow for academics and APM in Phase 2.
More information to follow on how,, what modes we take, and the VC’s reactions soon.
I just had to let you know! Enjoy the rest of this very hot summer’s day.
As part of our fight to protect jobs at the University of Nottingham, we will be sending regular emails outlining various aspects of our campaign. Today, we put the example of management’s decision to close the Language Centre’s popular evening class programme into context as part of the wider job losses across UoN. Remember, we face the loss of many hundreds of valued APM colleagues leaving soon via the Future Nottingham Phase 1 VR programme conducted under the threat of Compulsory Redundancies (3900+ ‘at risk’ letters) but with little clarity of the real case for job losses. In this context, the Language Centre losses come hard on the heels of the suspension of American and Canadian Studies – both harbingers of the wider destruction expected to come in Phase 2. Further details about our campaign can be found on our webpages, via the redundancy campaign tab.
The closing of the Language Centre evening programme – A sign of things to come
Out of the blue in May, UoN management announced that it was no longer going to engage colleagues on casual contracts at the University’s Language Centre. This goes hand in hand with closing the Centre’s popular evening language classes programme; popular with UoN staff and students and popular with people from across Nottinghamshire.
Over twenty UoN colleagues on casual contracts will lose their jobs as a result of this decision. Some of them have worked for the university for several years, in some cases even more than a decade. Enthusiastically committed to their work and students, they have been employed on scandalously precarious contracts. Now they are seen as disposable and simply dumped. HR has not even contacted these colleagues individually to inform them about the decision.
The financial justification for the closure of the evening programme has been completely baffling. The Director and Deputy Director of the Language Centre were initially told by the FPVC, Jeremy Gregory, that the evening programme was returning revenue to the university. While it would cost the School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies £147k to host the programme – a sum in itself highly questionable and certainly not the result of employees on casual contracts being paid high salaries – it would bring in £167k and thus generate a surplus of £20k for UoN.
Nevertheless, in an email of 16 June, the VC wrote to the branch that ‘When you take into account the central charges of around £200,000 towards the wider costs of running the university, which all schools and faculties pay, then this activity is actually running at a deficit of £180,000 a year, which is not a sustainable position.’ How is it possible that an evening class programme, which already costs the hosting School £147k incurs another charge of £200k for central charges? Charges for what precisely?
UCU questioned these figures. If the central charges are £200k, does this imply that closing the evening programme would directly result in savings of £200,000? How would these savings materialise in concrete terms? Will there be cuts in related admin positions? Will buildings be closed earlier in the evening to save on heating, electricity, building attendants?
In a further clarification, the VC asserted that, and here we quote at length as the statement is significant–and telling:
‘In terms of methodology, the £200k central cost allocation for evening classes is a percentage share of the overall CLAS allocation based on student FTE. It is a proportionate allocation of the costs that all revenue generating activity needs to cover, and is not a variable activity-based calculation, nor is it intended to be. The expectation is not that the full £200k will disappear entirely if the programme is closed, but there will be variable costs associated with evening classes that are estates or centrally linked (e.g. utility usage) but we have no way of specifically identifying them to get to an activity-based cost allocation’.
The final line, in bold, – is a damning admission of how financial figures are manufactured. This is not about savings. This is about justifying the closing of programmes and related redundancies. What’s more, this manufacturing of figures, and related closure, will likely end up costing the University as a whole.
To clarify, pointing to a notional £200,000 allocation of central costs—yet without identifying which of those costs would actually be saved–severely undermines the credibility of the savings claim. If the central costs remain largely unchanged regardless of whether the programme runs, then attributing them to a specific income-generating activity creates a misleading financial narrative. There is also a wider structural concern. If central costs are fixed and not reduced, then closing programmes simply redistributes those costs across fewer remaining units, making them appear increasingly unviable in turn. This is precisely the kind of downward financial spiral that many in the sector have warned against, where internal cost allocation mechanisms create the illusion of unsustainability and prompt further unjustified cuts.
In other words, the closure of the Language Centre evening programme is like shutting down a lemonade stand because you’ve averaged the rent of an entire shopping mall across all shops—even though the stand operates rent-free on the pavement. Closing it eliminates a profitable stream of income without cutting any real costs. Unless central charges are meaningfully reduced, programme closures of this kind simply shrink the income base while preserving structural expenditure. This not only risks reputational damage and weakened community ties—it actively undermines financial sustainability.
All told, the closure of Language Centre programmes clearly reveals three worrying points. First, management has no problems with treating colleagues poorly. Second, financial figures are made up by management as they go along, always massaged in a way to justify programme closures and redundancies. Third, this approach will make UoN’s financial situation worse.
If the Language Centre evening programme can be closed like this, the closure of any other UoN unit can be justified in similar ways. As we have maintained all along, Nobody is safe! And neither are UoN’s finances.
But we are not powerless, thanks to everyone who voted in the ballot, sending a powerful message to management that we are ready to take action if needed. Collectively we can avoid compulsory redundancies!
We are currently putting the final touches to a UCU counterproposal that will be submitted to University management as part of the phase one consultation on Friday 4 July.
As part of this process, we want to ensure that no key points are missed. If you have any important thoughts or suggestions regarding the proposed restructuring of any of the affected business units—particularly Research & Knowledge Exchange (RKE), Libraries, External Relations, CARO, Governance & Assurance, Estates & Facilities, Finance, HR, DTS, the Academic Registrars’ Office, or PPSC—we would very much welcome your input.
Please email this redundancy working group (rwguonucu@gmail.com) directly as soon as possible this week with any contributions or reflections you would like considered as part of the counterproposal.
Many thanks for your continued engagement and support.
Nick (branch secretary) on behalf of the branch committee
This Thursday, 26th June is the last safe posting date for our current ballot. Make sure you vote, vote YES, and tell your Departmental Rep when you have. Our opposition to the chaos created by management is only as strong as our mandate. Encourage members in your department to vote.
Read on for the following topics:
Open meetings on Future Nottingham and developing a counter proposal
The struggle for the language centre continues
Know your rights
Workload campaign update
Open meetings on Future Nottingham
UoN UCU at Trans Pride
Branch Committee meeting summary
Protect University jobs here and across the country
Local and national campaigning
Joining link and further information
Open meetings on Future Nottingham and developing a counter proposal
Thank you to the approximately 1,500 people who have attended one of our open meetings discussing Future Nottingham from a trade union perspective in the last month.
Most recently, open meetings took place in the Faculties of Medicine and Health Sciences, Social Sciences, and Engineering. With earlier meetings held in Arts, Sciences, and two non-faculty events for all staff. Thanks also to our colleagues in Unison and Unite for making these a successful inter-union project.
The frustration of staff with Future Nottingham has been evident at these meetings; as has the solidarity and care for colleagues and students that so many staff make central to their working lives. Comments, questions and suggestions for possible elements of a counter-proposal were raised and discussed.
Following these meetings, the branch secretary Nick Clare has emailed members to ask for your thoughts on the University’s proposals for restructuring numerous business units. See email re:‘Finalising the Phase 1 counterproposal.’
Please email the redundancy working group (REDACTED) directly as soon as possible this week with any contributions or reflections you would like considered as part of UoN UCU’s counterproposal.
The struggle for the language centre continues
On Wednesday 18th June approximately 200 staff, students, and members of the community attended an enthusiastic and impassioned rally to say NO to the catastrophic cuts to the Language Centre. During the rally UCU members and Language Centre staff presented the open letter with over 1,100 signatories to University management. We will continue to fight against this unnecessary and shortsighted decision. Click here for ways to stand in solidarity with your colleagues.
Michaela Collord spoke to BBC on behalf of the branch and the anti-casualisation network, joined by staff at the Language Centre affected by these cuts. Listen here from 1:40.
Know your rights
We are aware that some members have been told that they ‘can’t complain about students’. We are lucky that the majority of our students are a delight to work with. However, there are rare times when unfortunately we may be on the receiving end of disrespectful, harassing and bullying behaviours from students. In these instances, please refer to the university’s Student conduct – The University of Nottingham, which allows for disrespectful behaviours to be challenged in a formal way. Additionally, on some courses this can be addressed through Fitness To Practice processes.
Workload campaign update
Two members of the Workload Campaign are now on the university’s JNCC (Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee) Workload and Work-Related Stress Task and Finish group, which has its first meeting on Monday 7th July. We are aiming to achieve the following within the Task and Finish Group:
An ongoing commitment to limiting workloads to a 100% maximum across the university
Establishing working groups within each Business Unit to monitor for potential ‘shrinkflation’ of workload within Workload Models, and ensure Workload Models are reviewed annually in transparent and co-created ways.
Ensuring that all Business Units have Workload Models (e.g. Engineering and other schools don’t currently have one) for EDI and equity purposes.
Ensuring that there are transparent workload adjustments for carers and disabled colleagues.
Ensuring all Business Units have completed Business Unit Stress Risk Assessments, together with their union reps, for transparency and equality purposes.
Ensuring the ongoing review and updating of all Business Unit Stress Risk Assessments for employer accountability.
We would love to get your feedback on the Organisational Stress Risk Assessment. Please read through the document (noting that we were NOT involved in its draft), and email REDACTED with any comments and suggestions of how it needs to be revised so that it fully reflects our experiences and needs. We will take your ideas and suggestions to the first meeting. Thanks so much for your input.
Your Branch Committee met on Wednesday 18th June and discussed:
An update on our current ballot and ‘get the vote out’ work,
The campaign to support casualised staff at the Language Centre,
Planning for Faculty Open Meetings Meetings on Future Nottingham in Engineering, Medicine and Health Sciences, and Social Sciences.
The branch’s ongoing affiliation to and support for Nottingham Citizens,
The dispute between UCU head office and staff represented by Unite (see open letter below).
The Branch Committee meets weekly. If you would like Committee to discuss a particular topic please email the details to: uonucubranch@gmail.com
During the ballot period the Departmental Reps are also meeting weekly to discuss progress and challenges in their areas.
Protect University jobs here and across the country
Our dispute is about workers at the University of Nottingham being threatened with redundancies, our Alternate Financial Strategy 2.0 lays out how decisions by management have led to this. We can also see the threat of redundancy is commonplace for many workers in Universities across the UK. Our strength here as a Union is in our collective solidarity within our branch and in extending it to other UCU branches and HE workers.
Please find details and petitions/letters to sign to support staff at UoN and across the country using the links below:
As the dispute continues, the branch committee has agreed to share with members and ask them to sign this open letter, which calls on UCU Trustees and elected members of the National Executive Committee to examine the handling of this dispute.
Call on Nottinghamshire County Council to divest from apartheid Nottingham Palestine Solidarity Campaign is leading a movement to demand Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) divests its Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) from companies and organisations complicit in the genocide in Palestine. Currently the LGPS holds £170 million in shares in genocide-complicit companies. In line with the branch’s BDS motion and solidarity with Palestine motion the branch has given official support to the campaign.
We encourage all members resident in Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County to sign the petition here.
A People’s History of the Farmers’ Movement in India, 2020-21 In 2020 a monumental uprising of India’s agrarian base unfolded in response to contentious farm laws. The Farmers’ Movement was a year-long protest that ended in December 2021 with the passage of the Farm Laws Repeal Bill by the Indian Parliament. The Movement is a testament to the power of collective resistance that offers a roadmap for future struggles.
In this talk, Professor Singh will discuss the Farmers’ Movement, looking at the socio-political dynamics, cultural nuances and wider solidarity that the protest generated across India and amongst the Indian diaspora.
This talk is supported by the Department of History’s ‘Rupture, Revolution, and Crisis’ theme and will take place tomorrow, Wednesday25th June, 2-3.30pm, Lenton Grove, A18.
60 Years of the Tricontinental Conference: Context, Impact, Legacy, and Future Parvathi Kumaraswami, an academic at the University is crowdfunding for travel grants for scholars, artists and activists from the Global South to attend the above January 2026 conference at the University of Havana. This will celebrate the original event and prioritize contributions from the Global South and stimulate important debates about the original event and its relevance to anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, and decolonisation.
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 08000 562 561.
Yours sincerely,
L Scott Blankenship and Will Paterson-Bassett, Branch Communications Officers, on behalf of UoN UCU Branch Committee
As part of our fight to protect jobs at the University of Nottingham, we will be sending regular emails outlining various aspects of our campaign. Today, we focus on current discussions between UCU and UoN management over Future Nottingham. Remember, further details about our campaign can be found on our webpages, via the redundancy campaign tab.
Chaos reigns supreme
Over recent weeks and months, members of the UCU committee have been in regular meetings with management over Future Nottingham cuts and restructuring including high-level general meetings as well as more focused meetings on different Chapters of current APM restructuring and redundancies.
Management argues that it is committed to sharing information, which in turn would allow UCU to work on alternative proposals. In practice, however, information is often incomplete, incorrect or simply not provided. This reflects the generally chaotic situation with redundancies at the moment. Numerous colleagues are being told that they are at risk of redundancy, then they are told that they are safe, before being put yet again into another redundancy pool.
Despite insufficient information, the committee is working hard on developing an alternative proposal to management’s Future Nottingham. We are clear, we will not accept compulsory redundancies.
Several developments have become clear in our meetings with management. First, despite the current chaos around redundancy pools, management pushes on regardless with restructuring. This also includes first discussions and a timeline about future redundancies of academics and technicians in the Autumn. As we have always maintained, nobody is safe!
Second, the big elephant in the room is management’s future savings target. Their objective is to generate a surplus of 5 per cent, i.e. £40m in 2025/2026. Historically, however, UoN surplus was somewhere in the area between 3 and 4 per cent in normal years. Increasing this to 5 per cent already puts undue pressure on finances in times of general uncertainty. Moreover, does this indicate that management simply continues with its faulty financial strategy? As we argued in our Alternative Financial Strategy 2.0, imposing cuts on essential activities to generate large surpluses for infrastructure investment has resulted in regular financial crises in the past. When is management going to learn the lessons from past mistakes?
To be clear, the UCU committee will continue to resist restructuring and job cuts in our meetings with management. What has become, however, abundantly clear is that words alone will not be enough to make management see sense. Only sustained and hard-hitting industrial action will ultimately ensure a better future for staff, students and UoN as a whole. Make sure that you vote in the current ballot!
