Blog

Posted on

Memories of a local MAB!

Email sent to members on Monday 11th May 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 back at our victory in the local Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) in 2022. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

Memories of a local MAB

It was spring half term. As usual, we were in Cornwall, at the Valley Caravan Park in Polzeath. We go there every year. If you haven’t been you should. It’s a surfers’ paradise.

On this occasion I left my young family playing on the beach and headed back to the caravan. I had a crunch meeting with management. We were a few weeks into a Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) and management was desperate to draw it to a close.

Representing UCU was me, Lopa and the legendary Agnes. Lopa played good cop, I played bad. Agnes was just Agnes. She never stood for any crap but at the same time, she had an uncanny ability to win over management. We miss her.

Representing the other side was the then registrar, the CFO and the head of HR. All of them have since left – some under a cloud following the fiasco that was the purchase of castle meadow campus.

This was the MAB of 2022. A local affair where everyone in the call had agency. As representatives of the local UCU branch, we had the power to return to our members and call off the action. As the representatives of university management, the trio on the other side had the power to deliver on our demands.

This changed everything. Although one member of the managerial team entered the meeting all bullish and macho, dismissing our requests as impossible, he was soon sidelined by the other two, more serious operators.  They were ready to deal. They saw that the MAB was causing chaos – that the students were up in arms – and they knew they could do something about it. They could talk to UCU – to me, Lopa, and Agnes – and see what they could do to bring it to an end.

We had the upper hand right from the start. We had the power given to us by you, the members who were taking action.  In the end, it was no surprise that we secured a resounding victory. Management agreed to a package of measures across the board: full transparency on gender and ethnicity pay gaps alongside a jointly developed action plan to reduce them; steps to tackle casualisation, including restricting the use of temp agencies and rolling out the Graduate Teaching Assistant model; a pay uplift for colleagues at the top of grades 4–6; agreed principles on pensions to ensure that any future improvements would benefit members rather than reduce employer contributions; and joint work to bring workloads down to manageable levels through more realistic modelling and  proper review of staff–student ratios. Most, if not all, of these measures have held up over the last four years.

When we finally put this deal to members, I was on a day trip to Padstow, sharing details about the pension deal with members via zoom from the harbour, surrounded by day trippers eating cream teas or fish and chips. My kids waited patiently with nets in the water, hoping to catch a crab. The members voted overwhelmingly for the deal we had secured. UCU Nottingham had won.

This was all possible because it was a parochial affair, just as it is now.  The coming MAB will hurt management and they will know that they are responsible for stopping it. They won’t be able to hide behind national negotiators. This is their problem – no one else’s. And if they want to fix it, they know what they need to do.

Commit to no compulsory redundancies.

Protect staff.

Protect the future of the university

            On behalf of the UoN UCU branch committee

Posted on

Statement in support of TUFF mobilisation 16th May

The Branch Committee of University of Nottingham UCU is extremely disturbed and concerned at the far-right rally called in central London on 16th May by Tommy Robinson, even more so as  the last rally of this type attracted between 100,000 and 150,000. Far-right mobilisation has increased across the United Kingdom over the past two years, including in Nottingham. Recently a coalition of grass-roots organisations managed to force the far-right out of Nottingham city centre on Sunday 26th April. However, the far-right are mobilising in Market Square under the banner of Flagmen of Derby, this Sunday 10th May from 11am.

We note that a group of rank-and-file trade unionists organised under the banner of Trade Unions Fighting the Far Right network (TUFF), have called for a mobilisation against Tommy Robinson on the 16th of May. We believe that the far-right cannot be allowed to march through London, or any city unopposed. 

Therefore, we back the TUFF call for a trade union counter presence to Tommy Robinson, and encourage members to attend, and we hope to send members of our branch committee. If members do plan to attend, please contact the branch so that we can coordinate. 

Posted on

Future Nottingham – Put the Clocks forward not back!

Email sent to members on Tuesday 5th May 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 present a range of views on management’s strategy by students, staff and members of the wider public. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

Put The Clocks Forward not back … Future Nottingham is management’s pipe dream. Students and staff feel we need an effective counterproposal with real expressive consultation.The university needs to consult with all of its staff and stakeholders to find the right solution: don’t ignore the people who care about your future!

Last week, I went to University Park campus and the Medical School. I spoke to fifty people: members of the public, home and overseas graduates, postgraduates. Post doctoral, pre university Nottingham College students, our lovely professional and academic staff. I asked them if they’d heard about the university management plan and the university staff’s counterproposal to save the university’s financial security. It was clear that everyone had heard about the cuts, the redundancies past, present and possibly future, but it was obvious that no-one felt the university had really taken the time to engage with staff about alternatives. No-one thought that this essential democratic process had been seriously undertaken.

Members of the public – husband and wife going into lakeside cafe: ‘yes, we’ve heard, we’re shocked. Music particularly, especially when the government is putting so much into the curriculum and music.’

Teacher: ‘I teach in a primary school, moving the university to a much more enriching curriculum is vital. I’ll read the staff’s counterproposal.’

Catering staff: ‘I have friends who work here and they’re still recovering after the terrible attacks on the students and the caretaker, nothing like that had ever happened before, yes I’ll read the counterproposal.’


Medical student: ‘we need openness and use the knowledge of staff. I have real fears about the data that’s being used to make decisions, it feels unsafe.’ 


Music, Post Doctoral researcher: ‘It’s the isolation of not knowing whether you matter, whether your aspirations matter.’


Undergraduate music student: ‘I want to make a career in music. I’d heard that the government is investing in music and felt hopeful. I’ll read the staff’s counterproposal.’


Academic: ‘I honestly would never have thought about union membership, but I really feel now I have to join. We have to help the senior management to properly assess our counterproposal. They really think they have the data, but they don’t.’


Academic: ‘Our working life and right to be here is challenged (most recent harm is the new convoluted gateway into journal access) it feels as if we’re all being made migrant here, constant changing of the rules of engagement. I ask who and what is a university for?’

Professional Services: ‘Future Nottingham is also future health of Nottingham, the UK and the wider world how they all join up; to me it’s the loss of the public service and accountability to the people we have always felt we serve, the wider public health impact through lowering productivities, quality of service what year on year on cuts do to motivation, purpose and the meaning of a life. We need proper consultation on the counterproposal that we spent time preparing.’

Academic: ‘I think it’s because of the hit and run nature of cuts in previous years: none of the previous cuts, changes, charges against a questionable compound annual growth rate have been demonstrated as a real purpose. We sit in a place that although historically it has coherence, purpose and underlying support from the widest possible communities it’s as if it’s all the kind of hippy mess that the vice chancellor poked at when she implied the silliness of thinking you had a fairly low paid job for life in the realpolitik of financialisation. But we’re not contractors, we’re not consultants: no-one has even had the time to work on an appropriate educational user interface for Unicore that makes us feel as if we’re working in a university.’

Management’s Future Nottingham Phase 2 plans clearly have no support—from staff, students, or the wider public.


There is always an alternative. Read the UCU’s counterproposal, its report to Council!

Come to the rally tomorrow, Wednesday 6 May, at 10.30 a.m., South side of Trent Building. Let’s make sure that Council hears our voices!

Posted on

AGM reminder today 12 – 1.30, and notice of industrial action served to the University

Email sent to members on Friday 1st May 2026. Zoom link removed for security.

Dear members,

Happy international workers day! This is just a final reminder that we have our AGM at 12 noon today (agenda and link below), and we hope to see many of you there.

Added to this, we wanted to let you know that the UCU regional officer has this morning served the University of Nottingham notice of our upcoming industrial action. This action will include a marking and assessment boycott and strike action on the 22nd of May, as well as wider action short of strike. We will be discussing this all in detail in the second half of the AGM.

Solidarity as always, but on this day in particular

AGM agenda – 12-1.30

  1. Welcome and introduction (Lopa Leach – President)
  2. Branch Committee membership 2026/27 (Nick Clare – Secretary)
  3. President’s report on 2025/26 (Lopa Leach – President)
  4. Treasurer’s report on 2025/26 (Tony Padilla – Treasurer)
  5. Discussion of our dispute
  6. Any Other Business
Posted on

Appeal to Council – Do not approve FN!

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