HEC Report from Friday 4th April 2025

By UCU Commons NEC members

Headlines:

• JNCHES: moves towards joint lobbying of the government over the sector’s financial crisis
• Motion condemning the OfS investigation of the University of Sussex passed

Greylisting of Brunel University

There was a proposal for UCU to apply the sanction of ‘greylisting’ (also known as ‘academic boycott’) to Brunel University over its decision to make mass redundancies, which was subsequently declared and in effect from the 15th April. We were disappointed to see that some HEC members attacked those who were asking questions about the potential greylisting. As Bijan Parsia pointed out, the process is for branches to request based on their local understanding and for HEC to decide taking local and national information into account. Thus taking the decision as meaningful and asking questions is right and to be expected.

Committee Secretary’s report

The committee secretary provided an update on the most recent JNCHES meeting, and invited input from negotiators in the room who were at that meeting. With the proviso that in this process, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, here is a brief set of updates from the meeting:

• There was a general emphasis on the importance of a holistic response to the funding crisis.
• There is little space for a pay award this year due to financial difficulty in the sector.
• There have been moves towards joint working with employers to lobby the government for a sustainable funding model. Though UCU is doing its own lobbying, unions cannot do this alone and UCEA has an important role as a body that speaks for the sector.
• The employer side welcomed proposals from the joint unions on making the case for better funding, especially citing the sector’s contribution to the economy.
• Redundancies will be a discussion point in the meeting of 16th April.
• The union side raised the possibility of reviving the working groups on the casualisation, pay gaps, and workload. Employers are willing to do this, but warned that resourcing of this work would be difficult.
• Joint work on contract types (casualisation) will start with the conclusion of the 25-26 pay round.
• Employers are willing to explore the possibility of aligning the bottom of the HE pay spine (which is comparatively low) with that of other sectors (e.g. NHS and local government), this is subject to UCEA consulting their members

Updates on branches moving to industrial action

The recent uptick of branches moving to ballot for IA, and getting authorisations to proceed with IA, shows no signs of slowing. There are ballots ongoing, mostly over job cuts and threats of job cuts, at universities including Kent and Liverpool. A ballot has been recently authorised at the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Bradford has just submitted an authorisation request. IA is in the offing at USIC (University of Sheffield International College), University of Sheffield, Durham and Cardiff, while there has been significant IA at Dundee, where another two senior leadership team members have resigned and the university is scrabbling around for cash to honour redundancy payments. Having already taken strike action, the branch at Newcastle University has voted for a fresh IA authorisation, including a local MAB and a reballot.

Other branches going to ballot include UEA, Birmingham City University and Bournemouth, though the latter two are in response to attacks on campus unions by local management in addition to job cuts and the threats thereof.

In Wales, where calls for the devolved administration to inject extra funding to prop up the sector have seen some success and are ongoing, there is an issue about what happens to the extra funding. Employers cannot be allowed to simply use the money to implement restructures (which cost jobs), and there must be rules about how the money is used and penalties in the event of its misuse.

In the questions, Bijan Parsia usefully highlighted that we need to know more about how many employers are in genuine financial crises (of which there are undoubtedly some, if not many) and how many are using this crisis to their advantage. There was also a question about whether UCEA has provided any guidelines to rein in members’ capital expenditure at a time of job cuts, since at least two universities making cuts are planning to open overseas campuses. GB/The official confirmed that UCU would press UCEA to put out best practice guidance on this.

Updates from devolved nations:

The meeting then heard updates from the representatives for the devolved nations, and here there was an emphasis on the importance of making the case for HE as a societal good. The Wales rep provided a shocking update on Welsh HE: the only university in Wales not at least floating the possibility of compulsory redundancies is now Wrexham. The Welsh HE sector is shrinking, with massive implications for HE participation in Wales. There is some potential for future good regulation of the sector in Wales, what with the new tertiary education commission having just come into force. In Northern Ireland, the picture is similarly gloomy. QUB is making 270 job cuts yet planning to build a new satellite campus in Gujarat, which is clearly unjustifiable. The devolved budget for HE, which in NI comes from Stormont, the seat of the NI administration, has not yet been released, so the detail of the financial situation there cannot currently be known. Unfortunately, signals suggest it is not looking good. The UCU Scotland update mainly concerned the dire situation at Dundee, and how the government (presumably Westminster) must urgently come up with some money to address the general situation. UCU Scotland Congress 2025 was cancelled due to Unite strike action. UCU Scotland’s green network, composed of reps from different branches, has produced a report on green issues in Scotland, which is available on the UCU Scotland blog.

Debate on amendments to HESC 2025 motions

The next part of the meeting involved debate on amendments to motions submitted for the 2025 HE Sector Conference. The first two - one on casualisation and one on pensions - passed with little disagreement, though we might question why the same people who talk about the importance of tackling casualisation also voted for the ballot that killed off the working groups for this negotiating year.

However, an amendment to HE37 proved more contentious. HE37 calls to “seek policies to prohibit staff from entering intimate relationships with students for whom they have current or potential teaching, learning, or pastoral responsibilities”. There are several objections that might be levelled at the original motion. In our view, the most problematic elements were its call for UCU to work with employers on this issue, and some wording around ‘potential’ teaching and learning relationships, since many staff cannot reasonably know in advance which students they might be teaching.

This amendment was debated for a long time (about 45 minutes). Jo Edge proposed to take the amendment in parts in order to remove the parts that the Congress Business Committee (CBC) might deem make it a wrecking amendment. But the HEC chair appeared to ignore this in favour of a procedural motion from the mover for the amendment to be withdrawn, which was questionable. To explain a little: both moving to take something in parts, and moving to withdraw it, are procedural motions. But since the procedural motion to take the amendment in parts was moved first, it should have been acted on first. The amendment was withdrawn after the meeting voted in favour of this.

At UCU Commons, we do not hold ‘official’ collective positions on most issues (save for our core values), but most of us would likely agree that the issue of staff-student relationships is too complicated to be addressed in a 150-word motion. The question of bans is extremely complex, and we have concerns about how this conversation is often framed. We think it is important to stress that reluctance or hesitation to support a ban does not equate to supporting or condoning abuse or predatory behaviour.

Other HEC motions submitted:

Motion on Office for Students (OfS) investigation of University of Sussex

This was proposed and seconded by UCU Commons members Tilly Fitzmaurice and Jo Edge.

Fitzmaurice argued that the OfS investigation, and unprecedented fine of over half a million pounds, amounts to political scapegoating by a government regulator. The movers also went directly to the branch at Sussex for advice when writing the motion, and thanked them for their input. It is striking here that for the government, universities are ‘autonomous organisations’ only when it suits them (for example, for declining to provide extra funding to stave off cuts, bankruptcies, closures or mergers), but not when a university is under a politically motivated attack. While the OfS investigation was instigated by the resignation of Kathleen Stock from her position at the University of Sussex as well as the protests against transphobia at the university, which created a supposed ‘chilling effect’ on free speech, the key point concerns the dangers that would follow any broader application of this ruling. It could be used against any EDI initiative, any protest, or any kind of political activity.

Jackie Grant, a member of the Sussex branch who was observing this HEC in her capacity as a negotiator, expressed her thanks to the motion writers, and stated the sentiment of the motion to be in line with those of Sussex members. Bijan Parsia spoke in support of the motion, citing parallels with what is currently going on in the US and calling for the meeting to vote in favour.

The motion writers accepted as friendly an amendment from Grant Buttars, which included a resolve to issue guidance and a point of contact for branches facing similar situations. The motion was taken in parts at Jo Edge’s request, so that Resolves 1 could be removed (on the instruction of the Sussex UCU branch, who were rightly wary of offering what could be read as unconditional support to the university). The meeting voted for this to be removed, and happily the motion passed, as amended, with 26 votes in favour, 2 against and no abstentions. See below for the motion text.

We are extremely glad that HEC is generally united, both on the dangers of transphobia and other equality issues being reduced to ‘free speech’ issues, and on the political dangers of this kind of investigation from the OfS. Of course, this is not to mention the unprecedented size of the fine, especially at a time of financial crisis in the sector. We believe it is vital to be clear-eyed about the political targeting of a university by a government regulator.

The second and final motion was proposed by UCU Left, and called for the declaration of a dispute on pay before HE sector conference in May, and for steps to be taken to shorten the ballot lead-in period in the event that HESC votes for a ballot. The proposer urged the meeting to vote for the motion on the grounds that if HESC votes for industrial action, there will be nothing to delay this action starting in Semester 1 of the 2025/2026 academic year. UCU Commons members voted against this, but it carried nonetheless due to the current UCU Left/Rank & File majority on HEC. This is very unfortunate, as we are currently in negotiations and we have to see those through before reaching the resolution stage. The crucial takeaway point here is that this motion undermines the position of HESC. The same people who usually view Congress as sacrosanct voted to put the wheels in motion (for a ballot for IA) now, regardless of what the HE Sector Conference decides in a few weeks’ time. We consider this a hypocritical move that will be to our detriment.

Pensions update

The meeting concluded with a brief update from two pensions officials. As well as some positive moves on proposals for changing the USS valuation method, the meeting received a sobering update about ongoing attacks on Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS), including the fact that some employers are trying to incentivise members not to sign up for TPS, and the importance of raising awareness of this among the TPS membership.

**

Appendix: Motions carried

Office for Students Investigation into the University of Sussex

Proposed by Matilda Fitzmaurice, seconded by Jo Edge

HEC notes:

1. The unprecedented fine of £585,000 imposed by the OfS on the University of Sussex
2. The OfS’s recent refocus on sector finances
3. The investigation’s failure to speak to anyone currently working at the University
4. Sussex’s VC describing the investigation as ‘political scapegoating’

HEC believes:

1. A broader application of this ruling could do serious damage
2. Reducing transphobia to a ‘free speech issue’ is unacceptable
3. The OfS regulator constitutes political scapegoating by a government regulator

HEC resolves:

1. To offer our unconditional support to the University of Sussex’s legal action against this ruling
2. To recommend the GS write an open letter to the OfS and the Secretary of State, setting out the Union’s position on the ruling, for publication on the UCU website
3. To provide ongoing support to Sussex UCU branch as needed
4. Engage the equalities standing committees to understand the repercussions for different equality groups

Drafting amendment 1 (Matilda Fitzmaurice)

In resolves 2, remove ‘instruct’ and amend resolves 2 to read:

“To recommend the GS write an open letter to the OfS and the Secretary of State, setting out the Union’s position on the ruling, for publication on the UCU website

Amendment 2 (Jo Edge)

Resolves 1:

Replace ‘To offer our unconditional support to the University of Sussex’s legal action against this ruling’ with ‘To consider appropriate ways to support the UoS legal action’

Amendment 3 proposed (Grant Buttars)

Reword resolves 3 to read: ‘Contact Sussex UCU to determine what support they need in relation to this matter and provide support as required going forward’

Add new resolves 5: “Issue clear guidance and a point of contact for branches facing similar situations (interpreted broadly) to ensure they are best-equipped and supported to respond quickly and effectively’.

**

Facilitating implementing HESC motions on balloting and IA

Proposed by Marion Hersh, seconded by Christina Paine

HEC notes:

1. HESC motions calling for an IA ballot with action starting if possible in November/first term.
2. The suggested very extended lead-in period before action can take place.

HEC believes that, while not prejudging the outcome of voting at HESC, it has a responsibility to facilitate the implementation of HESC motions.

HEC agrees to:

1. Declare a dispute on pay before sector conference and carry out any other steps that will shorten the timeline to action if HESC votes for a ballot.
2. Call a BDM and HEC within 2-3 weeks of HESC to discuss motions proposing industrial action.
3. Step up the political campaign for full funding.