Category: Uncategorized

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

Email sent to members on Wednesday 15th April 2026.

Dear all,

Your elected delegates for 2026 Congress and HE Sector Conference have started their preparations. Several key documents have been published that give us a sense of the issues to be debated and decided. We highlight below what we believe are the most impactful and/or contentious motions and rule change proposals. We also provide a guide on how you can approach your own appraisal of what is on the provisional agenda and let your elected delegates know your thoughts. Note that there is still the opportunity to nominate yourself as our fourth delegate. Should you wish to join our delegation, this will need to be voted on at our 21 April 2026 branch meeting. 

The following decisions are, in our view, bound to have a substantial impact on the union (membership) and/or contentious. Where the branch has taken a position on an issue, for example the situation in Palestine or the Unite UCU dispute which were the topic of motions passed in previous general meetings, those positions are taken to apply to any motions on those issues. 

Motion/rule change titles are shown in bold & accompanied by the unique code so you can easily search for them here. You can provide your input to the branch delegates, and views more generally on what is on the agenda at Congress and the HE Sector Conference, via this Google form. 

1. Several proposals relate to the way UCU should pursue industrial strategy. 

a.                  Noting that the 50% for threshold on turnout is due to be overturned (August 2026) by the Employment Rights Act 2025 , and that 50% participation in voting does not always equate to 50% of members taking action, HE1 could demand a lot in UCU resourcing (both locally and nationally) for a potential summer 2026 ballot. August is also due to see unions being able to move from the necessity of Civica for postal balloting.

b.                  UoNUCU supported last year’s motion HE14 Composite: Trade union dispute with Secretary of State for Education over funding,. HE2 seeks to move UCU from working behind the scenes on the practical implications of this to opening a live dispute.

c.                  HE6 looks to address pay disparity for the most senior HE staff, including expanding the published pay spines.

2. A series of Strategy and Finance Committee motions will be debated in private session (no non-member observers). SFC1-3 seek re-approval of auditors, the accounts and budget. SFC4 presents the union’s own preferred levels of subscriptions followed by SFC5-7 which look to change subscription bands and levels. Continuing previous motions, SFC8 looks to address the issues of access to UCU national Fighting Fund and rates members can claim. Member input from those with experience of interrogating accounts would be appreciated.

3. Unions have never been inward looking and international solidarity often intersects with issues around academic freedom. SFC27 Academic freedom and freedom of speech require industrial strength specifically identifies pressure from Zionists but not any other groups.

4. A proposal to apply similar freedom of information practices as public bodies to the union (R10 Rule Change: Transparency). As Gertjan Lucas noted last year when this was initially tabled, this proposal does not specify if the transparency duties to be applied to UCU are specific to information provision to members, nor whether they apply to national bodies, or all bodies of the union. The new duties this proposal creates may be resource intensive while also creating considerable discussion on the scope of any routine publication of information.

There are a couple of other motions we wish to highlight due to their importance and/or implications for the functioning of the union but would expect members to be supportive of.

1. There are several proposals around respect and representation of academic related and professional services (ARPS, which corresponds to University of Nottingham’s use of APM). These include updating model branch officer roles (R14), respect across sectors of ARPS members in UCU (SFC13), and the need for clear career progression (HE15).

2. EQ17 Reparative justice and the rise of anti-Black racism calls on UCU to be directly involved in campaigns for reparative justice and act against anti-black racism (note: UCU allows members to self-define for all equality groups).

Solidarity,

Email sent to members on 13th 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 what redundancy means for academic staff. Feel free to share this post with non-UCU members in your area.

The Academic Dream

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a footballer. Then, around age twelve, I realised I was crap at football. So instead, I decided I wanted to be an academic. Sad and nerdy, I know — but that was my dream.

It wasn’t easy. Academic jobs are bloody hard to come by. I had to finish top of my degree, survive a PhD that was one of the toughest things I ever did, then spend years bouncing around postdoc positions, moving countries every couple of years, unable to settle down. And my partner had to do the same. I was pushing thirty with no security, while my friends were buying houses and starting families.

All of it for the dream of one day getting a permanent academic post. When I finally did, my partner just cried.

Because she knew what it meant. We could finally settle down, just like everyone else.

I love my job. I love teaching, doing research, and being part of a community that creates knowledge. But if I lose this job — I’m screwed. Academic jobs are rare. You don’t just walk into another one. For most of us, redundancy means the end of the dream. The end of a career we’ve spent decades building.

A lucky few might find another post, but not in Nottingham. Probably not even in the UK. Those who do will see their families once a month, if that.

This is what redundancy means for academics. It’s not just losing a job — it’s losing your identity, your community, your way of life.

That’s why I’m asking everyone to fight for my job, my life — and I promise to fight for yours.

Why We Take Action

To strike or take part in a MAB is one of the most generous things you can do.

I love teaching my subject because it’s a brilliant subject. At least that’s how I see it. And I hate telling my students I won’t be in class or that I won’t be marking their exams. I don’t want to lose salary. But I’m putting that aside because I’m fighting for something bigger — for the soul of this university.

I’m striking so that no one’s academic dream is crushed by managerial ideology. I’m striking for our students — not just those here now, but those who’ll come here in five or ten years’ time. They deserve to be taught by staff who feel safe, secure, and valued — not by ghosts in shiny new buildings.

Because that’s the vision of our senior management: more buildings, fewer people.

“The University is Skint” — Really?

I’ve heard some colleagues say, “Why are you bothering? There’s a national funding crisis. The university’s skint. There’s nothing we can do.”

Bollocks.

Even though we threw tens of millions down the toilet with the failed castle meadow campus vanity project we remain one of the richest universities in the country. Yes, there are problems with how higher education is funded — of course there are — but make no mistake: redundancies are a choice.

The Vice-Chancellor admitted this. Our leaders are chasing after a crazy 9% surplus. The VC herself said that the sector operates between 3% and 6%.

So when UCU calls for reducing the surplus target to 3% or 4%, that’s not radical. That’s common sense. It’s about £16 million a year that could be used to keep staff in work and give students the support they need.

But she won’t do it.

Why? Because like so many Vice-Chancellors, she dreams of shiny new buildings — paid for with lost livelihoods. Buildings in which students will be taught by ghosts — ghosts of the staff whose passion and dedication were thrown away on a bonfire of redundancies.

And for what? For a neoliberal fantasy? For a gong and a place in the House of Lords?

People Before Buildings

At a number of town halls, the VC has spoken about “excellence.” Someone asked her how she defined it. Her answer, and I paraphrase: “I know it when I see it.”

I mean, wow.

Is this the kind of critical thinking steering our university into the abyss?

Shame.

I want an employer who puts people before buildings. An employer who will negotiate meaningfully with trade unions instead of just paying lip service. An employer who puts the education of students before managerial ideology. An employer who protects the livelihoods of the people who make this university what it is.

We need to stand together — for our colleagues, for our students, and for the future of the University of Nottingham.

Save our jobs. Save our university!

                                                 On behalf of the UCU Branch Committee