The branch has already noticed significant inconsistencies, omissions, and areas lacking clarity in the redundancy pooling published by the University. The branch has raised a substantial number of concerns with HR, including:
- Discrepancies between the consultation documents, the Section 188 notice and the HR1 submission. The consultation documentation states that 858 roles are at risk, yet these figures do not tally with the statutory documentation.
- A lack of transparency around how Student-Staff Ratio (SSR) reductions have been calculated across different grades and subject areas.
- Insufficient explanation regarding how decisions have been made about which grades undertake particular teaching responsibilities.
- Concerns about what risk assessments have been undertaken when determining role reductions.
- Questions regarding how statutory protections for colleagues on maternity leave, shared parental leave, and related protections have been considered within pooling and matching processes.
- Concerns over the exclusion of some fixed-term staff from pools, particularly given previous cases involving inappropriate or unlawful use of fixed-term contracts.
- Lack of clarity regarding training for selection panels and safeguards against bias in decision-making.
- Questions about how processes will account for colleagues with short service, part-time contracts, or disabilities.
- Serious concerns regarding the use of promotions criteria as selection criteria for redundancy decisions.
- Concerns that some departments are proposing SSRs above 22, with little evidence of pedagogical or operational risk assessment.
- Questions around how new vacancies have been matched and graded.
- Lack of clarity regarding pay protection arrangements for staff redeployed into suitable alternative roles.
- Confusion surrounding proposed “retention payments” and how decisions regarding these would be made.
- Questions regarding the impact of the tutoring service on academic staffing and SSR calculations.
- Concerns about whether Council had access to the full supporting information when approving the draft business case.
- Repeated unanswered requests for access to budgets, forecasts, and management accounts.
- Instances where consultation documents show more staff in pools than actual headcount, and other cases where there appear to be fewer staff in pools than expected, with no explanation provided.
- Serious concerns about inappropriate pooling arrangements in the Faculty of Arts, where staff from diverse disciplines and grades have been grouped together.
- A lack of detail about how programme “teach-outs” will be managed and resourced.
This process will only be properly scrutinised if members collectively raise concerns and insist on accurate and transparent information. Please raise any concerns or discrepancies directly with HR at BR-hrfn2support@nottingham.ac.uk and cc your Departmental Rep.
Last Updated on May 20, 2026 by L Scott Blankenship
