What is happening?

Since the summer of 2024, the University has already made significant reductions in its workforce through the introduction of MARS, a voluntary redundancy scheme that saw 293  staff leave their positions. Indeed, as reported in the FT, the University of Nottingham spent almost £14m on severance  in 2023-24, far more than any other University in the Russell Group. 

While voluntary redundancy might have been seen as a softer option, its impact has been deeply felt across the University. The exodus of staff has exacerbated the already unsustainable workload, leaving remaining staff with the responsibility of covering additional tasks, leading to increased stress and risk of burnout.

In the first months of 2025, the branch became aware of a large number of ‘protected conversations’ taking place across the University. A protected conversation is an off-the-record discussion about the termination of employment, often involving the offer of a settlement agreement. While these conversations are not unusual, the sheer volume of them taking place is unprecedented. 

It’s clear that this current round of protected conversations is being used as a backdoor redundancy scheme. Many staff have been offered ‘voluntary’ severance packages, often based on flawed or incomplete performance data. What is presented as a choice is, in reality, an ultimatum: accept the severance offer now, or face possible dismissal later. This process seems indifferent to whether staff are excellent teachers, have made significant contributions to their department, or have consistently supported students. The University appears to be weaponising  grant capture, using it as the main  justification to reduce staff numbers. This raises the obvious question: how many grants have senior leaders, including the University Executive Board (UEB), successfully secured in recent years?

We have also learned that schools and departments across the University have been instructed to identify a 20% reduction in activities. Given that schools have already made significant savings over the past year through MARS and other cost-cutting measures, the prospect of an additional 20% cut in activities can only mean one thing: further significant staff reductions. Some schools have been warned that failing to comply with these savings targets could even lead to the closure of entire departments.

We are already seeing courses being closed or suspended to meet the University’s aggressive cost-cutting targets. Many of these closures are illogical and damaging. For instance, one course generating around £500,000 annually in income is being shut down, despite the fact that its modules will still be offered in other programs. This decision is not about rational financial management but is driven by an arbitrary target set by senior leaders. It’s a clear example of how the pressure from the Vice Chancellor and other senior figures is leading to poor decision-making that undermines the University’s long-term interests. It is also causing considerable stress amongst staff at a time when the University has been reported to the Health and Safety Executive for failing to provide adequate stress risk assessments

Make no mistake, these 20% cuts will inevitably result in the loss of many jobs, whether through voluntary redundancy schemes, protected conversations, or compulsory redundancies down the line. For those who survive, the University will become a much more challenging place to work. Already overworked staff will be expected to take on even more responsibilities, as the workload of departed colleagues is redistributed. APM staff will be overloaded, with even less capacity to provide essential support to staff and students. Academic staff will be  left with no time for  students  and even less for research. Where will we rank as an institution when this is all over?

The University has undertaken a “capability mapping” exercise of all of its APM staff to assess skills and competencies.  On April 9, they announced  extensive redundancies across a vital part of the University workforce. Specifically, they said that 258 FTE would be cut with 3,795 APM and 105 O&F staff in the redundancy pool. Given the prevalence of part-time contracts, this is likely to result in more than 258 job losses and constitutes a significant percentage of total APM staff. 

APM staff are the backbone of the institution, managing complex administrative duties, providing essential student support, and ensuring the smooth functioning of academic departments. Recent years have seen APM functions increasingly centralised, resulting in a depletion of vital resources at the school level and a decline in efficiency.

The generic nature of the capability mapping done by management at high levels with a top down view is likely to lead to further cuts in resources, increased centralisation, and the loss of jobs for dedicated staff who are essential to supporting the University’s frontline activities.

The knock on effect of the changes to APM will be widespread changes to how the University operates across academic and central APM departments. For any remaining staff the question will be where does the workload that redundant staff used to do go? During Project Transform it was added to academic workloads and the remaining now overworked central services.

Neither UoNUCU nor  the staff directly affected by this, have  been party to any proposals so the changes may well be significant in how the University operates. UoNUCU’s position is that compulsory redundancies are a last resort and other options should clearly be considered before those are put on the table, but it seems that may be the first option presented instead and go straight to legally mandated consultation.

Many of us are starting to see worrying changes to courses and degree programmes in Schools and Departments  right across the University.  The implication is obvious: management are laying the ground work for phase 2 of Future Nottingham, with the stated aim of addressing “academic size and shape”. Colleagues in the Department of American and Canadian Studies (in the School of Cultures, Languages, and Area Studies, and Faculty of Arts) are unfortunate enough to have had an early glimpse of what this might look like, with the University already putting their roles and jobs at risk. This is their story.

In October 2024 all five UG programmes in American and Canadian Studies were suspended for one year by the Faculty PVC, citing declining recruitment rates, and meaning no UG students will be recruited for September 2025 entry. In March 2025 these suspensions were extended for an additional year. This looks like closure of the department in all but name, with 9 academic staff potentially at risk of redundancy. However, for the moment staff have been told they are not at risk of redundancy, and that the fate of the department will be decided by Future Nottingham. While other programmes may be being suspended or closed due to low recruitment, no other unit in the university is currently being targeted for the suspension of all programmes in this way.

ACS has queried why they are being singled out in this way, and what the specific UG recruitment thresholds are being used to determine the suspension (or closure) of degree programmes, with no direct response to these points. ACS staff have also made a proposal for rebranding selected degree programmes (which have not fallen below the stated thresholds for programme viability) for future recruitment, as well as for the deployment of valuable existing research and teaching elsewhere in the university, to be considered as part of Future Nottingham. However, there is a larger concern that wider management decisions taken under Future Nottingham will ignore the case for meaningful consultation with staff, and proposals to use existing resources in new ways to meet problems in recruitment and staffing, simply to make job cuts. 

The specific loss of specialist teaching and research on The United States and Canada would itself undermine the University’s claims to offer cutting edge knowledge and expertise about urgent contemporary global issues. And the more general managerial approach should be more widely known across the university, so that we can identify where similar moves to cut programmes and units are being made, and develop informed collective responses.

Core unanswered questions: 

1. What criteria are being used to select degree programmes for suspension or closure? 
2. Are they being consistently applied across the university?
3. Are these routes to staff contract changes, redeployment, and/or redundancies? 
4. What consultation will take place to involve staff if any of these are proposed?

The UCU Rep for ACS is Robin Vandome, who can be contacted for further information or queries.