Special HEC Meeting Report, 12th December

By UCU Commons HEC members

Headlines

• HEC were warned that an HEC vote for an industrial action ballot could jeopardise the progress in negotiating improvements to casualisation, workloads, and inequalities in the sector (i.e. the key non-pay elements of our claim).
• In spite of this warning, HEC voted for an ‘immediate’ UK-wide industrial action ballot by 18 votes to 16.
• HEC voted down a UCU Commons motion calling for research into member disengagement by 21 votes to 12.

Introduction

This meeting was a result of the consultative ballot that HEC voted for at the meeting of 27th September. The consultative ballot, which opened on 12th November and closed on 3rd December, asked members three questions and the results were as follows:

• Whether they wished to accept or reject the pay element of the offer (reject 68.03%, accept 31.97%)
• Whether they wished to accept or reject the Terms of Reference (ToRs) on the pay-related elements (casualisation/contract types, workload, pay inequalities and pay spine) (accept 85.82%, reject 14.18%)
• Whether they were willing to participate in industrial action (IA) (yes 53.15%, no 46.85%)
• The turnout was 26.99%.

As a special meeting of the HEC, its scope was restricted to discussion of the consultative ballot results and the Committee Secretary’s report, with no other items allowed onto the agenda. HEC meetings are usually held in a hybrid format, but as a special meeting this one was held online only.

This report will be in two parts: with the first part focused on discussion of the Committee Secretary’s Report, and the second part on the motions debated and voted on at the meeting.

Part 1: Committee Secretary’s Report and discussion

UCU’s Head of Higher Education is the official who acts as Committee Secretary to the HEC; she provided a brief report. The Committee Secretary’s report to HEC usually outlines the work of her team, the context of a decision and provides recommendations as to how to proceed based on the Secretary’s knowledge of the sector context and direct involvement in negotiations. Unfortunately, this time no recommendations were included. That led to a free-for-all discussion which centred on the question of whether the consultative ballot results demonstrated sufficient member support to proceed to a formal legal ballot, even if that put at risk making progress on sector-wide standards (terms of reference, ToRs) around casualisation, workloads and pay inequality. UCU Commons members argued that this risk was too high, that a ballot for a pay increase was the wrong priority for the sector now, and that there was insufficient evidence that a ballot would even succeed. Throwing all available staff and activist resources into a pay ballot felt, for us, like the wrong way to go. Unfortunately, a slim majority of HEC did not agree with us.

In her report, the Committee Secretary reported back on the Negotiators’ Q&A held on the 12th November, intended to allow members an opportunity to speak directly to the HE negotiators and ask questions about the offer and the negotiations. However, many of the questions from members could not be answered by the negotiators in their capacity as negotiators, and would be better taken by HEC members, but the latter had not been invited to the Q&A. This resulted in some discussion in the meeting about how to facilitate better engagement between HEC and the membership at large, as members would appreciate being able to talk directly to HEC members. HEC members hold a range of views and it is difficult for the Head of HE to adequately represent these in Branch Delegate Meetings. One HEC member suggested reviving the UCU Activists email list, which was shut down a couple of years ago due to it essentially becoming a space where no meaningful dialogue or engagement could take place, while also asking about the estimated timescales for work on this and how HEC might support it. UCU Commons member and Disabled Members’ rep Bijan Parsia asked about the possibility of making the existing webform mechanism more user-friendly and less cumbersome, so members have an easier route to contacting their HEC representatives. Parsia also asked about how to facilitate HEC engagement with branches without relying on pre-existing personal connections, and argued that centralised channels for member engagement (such as an activists’ list) only reach those who are already engaged and in the know. The Committee Secretary accepted all of these suggestions and said she would look into the possibility of organised visits to branches by HEC members.

The Committee Secretary’s report also included an update on work on the pay-related elements. Implementing the pay-related elements involves the creation of four negotiation groups, on which UCU will be represented along with the four other HE unions (Unite, UNISON, GMB and EIS) and the employers’ representatives. UCU has specifically requested that these groups run in parallel rather than consecutively, as the work from one group will feed into the other. There have been delays in getting the groups off the ground, but UCU has proposed that these groups finish their work by 31st March 2025, to tie in with the first New JNCHES meeting in the 2025/2026 academic year.

UCU’s Head of Campaigns also provided an update on her team’s work, which has been focused on promoting the consultative ballot to members and intensive support to branches with their local ballot campaigns. This has resulted in some branches successfully reaching the 50% turnout threshold (e.g. University of Hull). There have also been several UCU Live events and lots of news coverage highlighting UCU’s calls for action to defend the sector. Finally, since the consultative ballot has now been delivered, the team’s focus has shifted to how to further build a HE campaign to address the many problems in the sector going into 2025.

UCU Commons HEC members in this meeting had noticed that the Committee Secretary had not provided any recommendations along with her report. This was unusual, as such recommendations are also based on assessments of staff capacity. UCU Commons members were also wondering what implications calling a ballot might have for the future of the ToRs on the pay-related elements, which, after all, the membership had voted overwhelmingly to accept (even if only on a 27% turnout). Recalling email correspondence from UCEA on the 20th September, in which the UCEA Chief Executive had stated that if no industrial action ballot was pursued at this stage, they would progress the pay-related elements of the offer, UCU Commons members wondered whether this meant that a vote for an IA ballot would definitely jeopardise the ToRs, and Matilda Fitzmaurice, representative of casualised members, asked this question specifically on the casualisation aspect of the ToRs. The Committee Secretary replied that in her interpretation, if unions decided to go to ballot, UCEA would not negotiate any further on the ToRs. UNISON’s decision to go to ballot may have already endangered the ToRs, but as UCU Commons Migrant Members’ representative Vivek Thuppil emphasised, the ToRs are far more important for our members than for those of UNISON, for whom the pay-related elements are not a major concern. The ToRs have mainly come from specific UCU asks, and UCU members will be by far the most affected if talks on these are halted. Moreover, scuppering the ToRs now could mean that our ability to get these back onto the negotiating table in the future would be diminished. Taking these two points together, we decided it would be grossly irresponsible - especially to the more vulnerable categories of members, such as casualised members - were HEC to take any action that meant jeopardising the future of the ToRs.

Part 2: Motions

In the absence of recommendations from the Committee Secretary, the only way a decision could be made on how to proceed was from motions submitted from HEC members. There were a total of seven such motions. At the beginning of the debate, HEC members were warned about a consequential: namely, that if Motion 1, which proposed an immediate ballot for industrial action, were to pass, it would automatically invalidate others that proposed more measured approaches.

Motion 1 (see Appendix) was proposed by Sean Wallis, a member of UCU Left. In his proposing speech, Wallis stated that the role of HEC is to provide a lead for the rest of the membership, and that we need to divide the enemy and have the maximum impact at Westminster. He argued that members need to be on the streets to demonstrate our strength of feeling over both pay and redundancies, and that taking industrial action over pay has to be at the core of a broader political campaign to defend Higher Education, since pay is the one thing all members can strike over. Most strikingly, Wallis seemed to say that we could start with industrial action, and then somehow work back from there to a strategy.

Motion 1 attracted lots of speeches in favour from members of UCU Left and those aligned with the ‘Rank and File Revolution’ (R&F) grouping*. First among these was a “friendly” amendment from another member of UCU Left. This basically reiterated the argument for organising a national demonstration to defend HE, preferably in February as for some reason this would be the best time to have it. Another speaker in favour of the motion insisted that we learn from the junior doctors. While we are all for learning from our fellow trade unionists, this felt like a strange comparison. Unlike doctors, university workers are not directly on the government payroll, and the general public has a different view of doctors compared to university workers. Arguments in favour of directly copying actions in other workplaces need to take into account relative union density and other aspects of worker power in different sectors. Other speeches in favour talked down the significance of the 27% turnout in the consultative ballot and argued that if we do not take action, employers will be emboldened to continue cutting jobs. No explanation was offered for this argument. No members aligned with R&F spoke against the motion, or expressed any reservations.

*Note: ‘Rank and File’, or ‘Rank and File Revolution’ is what we feel to be the most appropriate term for a network of members that isn’t openly organised and as such gives no name to itself.

UCU Commons and other members of HEC argued passionately against Motion 1. One member argued that the union has no clear mandate for IA given the consultative ballot only attracted 27% turnout. We are highly likely to lose a ballot for IA, at a significant cost to the union, both in financial and political terms. Even if we cross the threshold to take action, the numbers of members on picket lines will be small, so the action is unlikely to be persuasive. Moreover, asking for more pay may feel to many members as if we are at least insensitive to the realities of mass redundancies in some branches, as certain employers have even deferred their implementation of the current offer. Given these circumstances, the idea that our employers are going to offer anything further is wishful thinking. However, since we have achieved a strong majority in favour of accepting the ToRs on the pay-related elements, we should bank this and work on organising and building up from there. Other members cited the fact that jeopardising the ToRs would let casualised members down, as they have most to gain from reaching agreement on the pay-related elements. Striking against our employers now, when what we need is government intervention and financial support, is pointless. We need to focus on building a campaign for proper, stable funding of the sector, not asking for a pay rise for whoever is left working in it.

In his Right of Reply, Wallis did not address the substantial concerns raised by many HEC members. Ultimately the amendment carried (20 for, 10 against, 4 abstentions). Despite the best efforts of UCU Commons and other members, Motion 1 as amended also carried (18 for, 16 against, no abstentions).

Motion 2 (moved by another member of UCU Left) proposed a package of support measures for branches fighting redundancies, chief among which was the shortening of ballot authorisation timelines as well as the removal of the requirement for a consultative ballot. The motion also called for the organisation of national demonstrations in all four nations of the UK, as well as for protests to be held outside MP surgeries in constituencies with threatened universities. We have not included this motion in the Appendix of this report, since the number of amendments make it unwieldy and it is inconsequential compared to Motion 1. The results of the votes on Motion 2 were as follows:

Amendment 2a1: 14 for, 20 against, no abstentions

Amendment 2a2: 24 for, 7 against, 1 abstention

Amendment 2a3, after a vote to take it in parts fell: 9 for, 22 against, 2 abstentions

Amendment 2a4: 10 for, 13 against, 7 abstentions.

Motion 2 as amended by 2a2: 21 for, 11 against, 1 abstention.

Motion 3 (see appendix) was the final motion taken in this meeting, and it reiterated an earlier call by UCU Commons to research the underlying causes of member disengagement. The motion was moved by UCU Commons member Matilda Fitzmaurice and seconded by Dyfrig Jones, who unfortunately had to leave the meeting and could not speak to the motion. In her speech moving the motion, Fitzmaurice countered the idea of taking industrial action first and then working backwards to a strategy, and insisted on the need to boost members’ confidence before any ballot was held, thus framing the motion as a possible mitigation for Motion 1. Evidence from the consultative ballot (27% turnout) and the large number of JNCHES branches not represented at several recent branch delegate meetings and national policy-setting conferences shows that UCU has a real problem right now with member disengagement, and the explanations offered for this disengagement are often highly simplistic. Therefore, this motion called for research into this disengagement, and consultation on a member-led strategy to boost engagement. Fitzmaurice also positioned this research as a form of organising, which should always include taking care, listening, showing humility and compassion. A UCU Commons member spoke in favour of this motion, highlighting how research and pastoral care are a huge part of our jobs, and that complex issues never have one single explanation. This member also questioned why this had previously been voted down, asking whether this is because there are answers from the membership that we may not want to hear.

We have written many times about the toxicity of many NEC and subcommittee meetings, so none of us were surprised by the hostile reaction this motion received. One member who spoke against the motion disliked the motion’s framing on the grounds that it was biased towards the expectation of a certain result, and expressed this in such a patronising way - by implying that Fitzmaurice does not possess the capacity to design effective research despite her qualifications and experience - that UCU Commons member and Disabled Members’ representative Bijan Parsia requested the member retract her statement (which she did not). Other speeches against the motion claimed they did not oppose it in principle but had small issues with it, which could have been submitted as amendments. The failure to do so seemed to be a deliberate strategy to make sure that minor issues could not be addressed so that the motion would fall. It should be stressed that not all responses were negative or hostile: two members raised questions about staff capacity and whether the proposed research could be undertaken by members autonomously, which the mover took as constructive suggestions. Ultimately, Motion 3 fell (12 for, 21 against, no abstentions).

Close of meeting

Appendix

Motion 1: Building industrial action ballot alongside a political campaign to defend HE

Proposed by Sean Wallis

HEC notes the consultative ballot rejecting the pay offer and in favour of IA.

HE resolves to:

1. Immediately organise an IA ballot for a ‘fully funded pay rise’ of 5.5% (2023-2024 claim) linked to a political campaign for a fully-funded sector calling for emergency measures to save jobs, courses and the sector.
2. Run the IA ballot, HEC meetings etc. on a timeline permitting members to take UK-wide term-time strike action before the Easter break in most universities.
3. Send out detailed briefing notes and organise regional GTVO workshops.
4. Call a conference to defend HE in early February promoting and debating UCU’s proposals. Organise regional lobbies and a mass lobby of Parliament with the post-16 demonstration.
5. Consult members during the ballot on types of action through regional/devolved nations meetings and a branch delegate meeting during the ballot. Hold HEC in final week of ballot to plan action in anticipation of the result. (150 words)

Motion 3: Research on member disengagement

Proposed by Matilda Fitzmaurice, seconded by Dyfrig Jones

HEC notes:

1. The result of consultative ballot of members, especially the 27% turnout
2. The narrow majority willing to engage in industrial action
3. High levels of member disengagement across branches, as reported in the BDM

HEC believes that:

1. Local restructures, redundancies, and budget cuts are taking member attention and energy away from national negotiations
2. BDM results only provide limited insight into member disengagement
3. We need to boost members’ confidence if we are to initiate a formal industrial action ballot

HEC resolves:

1. To undertake research on the underlying causes of member disengagement
2. To consult on a member-led strategy for tackling member disengagement (106 words).