UCU Commons HEC report, 27 September 2024
By UCU Commons NEC members
Headlines:
– HEC to consult members on pay and pay-related offers, with recommendation;
– HEC rejects call to research high levels of member disengagement;
– A special HEC to be convened to discuss strategy before Christmas.
HEC met for the first time after the summer recess on 27 September, after a consultative Branch Delegate Meeting (BDM) earlier that week. Most UCU Commons HEC reps attended this BDM, to get a sense of member feeling on UCEA’s offer on pay, and the Terms of Reference (ToRs) for pay-related issues: casualisation, workload, pay spine review and equality pay gaps.
That this year’s pay offer of 2.5% is derisory is not in dispute, but the ToRs have promise as a basis for further work; and so rejecting pay might risk these. However, an email from Raj Jethwa, CEO of UCEA, to Shahenda Suliman, UCU’s head of HE, circulated to HEC and branch officers shortly before the BDM, indicated that UCEA would continue to work on these ToRs with UCU and sister unions if the pay offer was rejected *without a ballot for industrial action*. This offered a potential way forward, especially since taking industrial action will become easier with the new government’s Employment Rights Bill, which will allow, among other things, the use of electronic balloting. Sadly, this message from UCEA came too late to inform the BDM questions.
Delegates from about 60% of branches attended the BDM. We heard from a variety of institutions; small and large; pre- and post-92; from all regions and nations. A common theme was disillusionment, lack of engagement, and non-quorate or barely quorate meetings informing BDM decisions. The full BDM results are on the UCU website, the link to which was circulated in the Friday email to all members.
Awaiting the BDM results, UCU Commons members did not submit any motions to HEC on the topic of the pay or ToR offers by the regular deadline. Bijan Parsia did submit a motion about the importance of research before taking industrial action, however, which was timetabled to be heard as one of the last motions. After hearing from delegates at the BDM, UCU Commons HEC rep Mark Pendleton submitted this emergency motion, which was circulated to HEC as a late paper on September 26th (henceforth Late motion 1, LM1):
HEC notes:
– Widespread member disengagement across branches, as reported in the BDM
– Significant variation in material conditions at different employers, including many jobs and conditions under threat
– Resulting concern that, while the offer is unacceptable, we may not be in a position UK-wide to improve it
HEC believes that:
– we need an effective strategy to involve members, increase our density and boost confidence if we are to reverse the long term trends of pay degradation and worsening conditions
– if we are to ballot formally for industrial action, we need a clearer picture than the limited responses that branches were able to achieve prior to the BDM
HEC resolves to:
– immediately conduct a consultative ballot over the pay offer, with no recommendation, and only move to a formal ballot if this indicates adequate member support
– consult urgently on developing a member-led strategy for rebuilding member confidence in taking action.
This, we hoped, was a motion the majority of HEC could coalesce around, thus providing a positive way forward for members.
HEC began with a tribute to Agnes Flues, a HEC member who died very suddenly in early August. After this, it became obvious that some members of UCU Left were intent on wasting time, presumably so that motions were timed out and decisions not made. Given the devastation caused by the lack of HEC decisions on our industrial strategy in summer 2022 and again in summer 2023, the lack of a decision is something we should not be keen to repeat. Fortunately, to her credit (despite a packed agenda and several attempts at derailment), chair Maria Chondrogianni kept the meeting to time.
What follows is an analysis of the key agreements reached at HEC rather than a blow-by-blow account of the meeting, in which we heard reports from both the Head of HE Shahenda Suliman, and pensions officials. A vote to accept the recommendations of Suliman’s report means that there will be a special, strategy-focused HEC before Christmas, which UCU Commons welcome as an opportunity to build consensus among a divided committee.
At 11.31am we were emailed an emergency motion by Lucy Burke, seconded by Chondrogianni, which was similar in content to LM1 (henceforth Late motion 2, LM2):
HEC notes
1. UCEA’s final offer (27/8/24) for the 24/5 pay round
2. HEC’s rejection of the pay element of the offer on 10/6/24
3. The outcome of the BDM on 24/9/24
Resolves:
1. To reject the pay element of the offer
2. To accept the ToRs on the pay related elements on the pay spine, workload, casualisation, and equality to enable talks to proceed
3. To immediately launch a campaign for a fully funded sector and fully funded pay raise including sustained lobbying of government
4. To hold a consultative ballot of members on all elements of the offer, lasting no longer than 3 weeks with HEC’s recommendation
5. To convene a special HEC to consider the results of the consultative ballot and plan next steps
The key differences between LM2 and LM1 are 1. The inclusion of a recommendation; and 2. Whether or not to research the reasons for member disengagement. It is unclear why this was submitted as a motion in itself, rather than simply an amendment to LM1, which the mover was sent the day before as a HEC member. A motion received half an hour into the meeting is not optimal for accessibility.
However, these differences were not difficult to resolve. The priority being the creation of a motion that most of HEC could support, Pendleton indicated that LM1 should be taken in parts with ‘without recommendation’ taken separately. If both motions were to pass, it would mean that members would be consulted but also that we would research reasons for member disengagement, which does not have one simple answer.
LM1 and LM2 plus a motion from Marion Hersh for an immediate rearrangement of the sector conference cancelled due to Unite UCU strike action at Congress in May (henceforth Motion 7, M7) were taken in one debate. Unfortunately, Pendleton was subjected to bad faith debate from UCU Left members, who argued LM1 was incompatible with LM2, even amended, and that it was designed to shut down further campaigning. This is completely untrue. What is in fact clear from this is that UCU Left and some others do not want to consult members on the causes of disengagement. This is concerning, but not surprising. UCU Commons members believe that to build an effective campaign for pay restoration and improved conditions, we need stronger member engagement. This means meeting members where they are actually at.
UCU Commons member Caroline Proctor moved to take LM1 and LM2 in parts, with mention of the recommendation taken separately in each. The upshot of various votes and consequentials was that LM2 was left unamended, but LM1 amended – so any consultation would be done with recommendations as per LM2, but the motions were now compatible and therefore both could pass. LM1, as amended, fell with 15 votes for, 17 against and 1 abstention. LM2 passed with 29 for and 4 against.
As for M7, HEC were told earlier in the meeting by the Head of HE that it was not within staff capacity for the cancelled HESC to be held before Christmas and objections to this end were put forward by members of UCU Commons in the debate. Vivek Thuppil urged HEC members to reject the motion on the basis that Congress had passed a motion that the cancelled HESC should be rescheduled after dispute had been resolved. As the dispute has not yet reached a resolution, Thuppil argued that passing this motion would amount to rescheduling work lost to industrial action, and that if any of our employers asked this of our members, we would be understandably furious. Thuppil urged HEC to reject this motion and uphold one of the basic principles of trade unionism.
In their right of reply Hersh stated that passing M7 was important in order to send a message to the General Secretary (she is, of course, very aware of the ongoing dispute). M7 passed 20-12, but will not lead to a rearranged sector conference before Christmas for the reasons stated.
Two motions submitted by David Harvie and Becca Harrison were then debated. M3 was on boycotting REF, TEF and such as a form of leverage, which was remitted to a future HEC meeting so more work could be done on this due to, among other concerns, potential impact on ARPS colleagues; and M4, on redundancies, which passed.
There was no time to debate any further motions, including Parsia’s, which will hopefully be retabled for a future HEC.
Despite deep disappointment over HEC’s refusal to do the work on (and perhaps hear the reasons for) member disengagement, UCU Commons welcomes the consultation of members on the offers presented, and appetite for industrial action. It is frustrating to hear bad faith arguments, the imputation of motives we do not have, and time wasting in meetings, but given the makeup of HEC this year, this is a victory for working together to reach a decision for the benefit of our HE members. Additionally, UCEA’s indication that rejecting pay would in itself not damage the work being done on the ToRs is welcome.
The survey on the future of our disputes will be emailed out by Civica in the near future and members should check their inboxes for the link.