Members at the meeting point on Saturday
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
3 Card Trick
The joint unions at UEL (UNITE, UNISON, UCU) are deeply angered both by the process and the implementation of the University’s Voluntary Severance Scheme. We wish to place on record our views that the management have both failed to fulfil their statutory obligations and acted in a despicable way in their treatment of many staff who have made applications under the scheme. We have yet to be given full details of the outcome of the applications process but even our partial knowledge justifies this position.
The statutory position
The Voluntary Severance Scheme was introduced with minimal consultation with the campus unions: we were informed on a Wednesday that the scheme would be introduced and we were given 24 hours to make comments or offer minor amendments. There was no opportunity to discuss more widely the objectives of the scheme, what problems were being addressed or whether there were other ways of addressing these problems. We regard this as a failure by the University to fulfil its statutory duty to consult when considering a potential redundancy involving 20 or more employees. The University attempts to hide behind the voluntary nature of the scheme but it is clear that the Vice Chancellor has been badly advised: the aim of the scheme is to lose significant numbers of jobs and the voluntary element does not obviate the University’s duty to consult.
Implementation
The decision to introduce this scheme before details of the proposed academic restructuring were published seems now clearly designed to increase the uncertainty about which staff might be well placed to apply for the scheme. This link between restructuring and severance is clearly understood by the University which has not to date replied to applicants from the Security Service because they are waiting for a (long-delayed) restructuring review.
From the feedback we have received so far it is clear that a number of colleagues who applied for Option 3 (severance with a year’s salary) have instead been offered Option 2 (statutory redundancy). We regard this as a complete breach of faith and a practice which would be condemned if undertaken in the commercial sphere. We think that the University’s behaviour is utterly despicable, representing a gross insult to many long serving and loyal members of staff. What sort of message is implied when the VC argues in his letter that this scheme is “more attractive than our normal terms” and the offer when it comes is less attractive than our normal terms? Is this not behaviour of a completely egregious, callous and cynical nature?
If, for whatever reason, the University has decided that it cannot accept various applications for severance, then it should just have said ‘no’. If your application for Option 3 is refused this implies that you are either too useful or too expensive to let go. To then offer unsolicited the possibility of statutory redundancy confirms that you aren’t really wanted but it is simply too expensive to get rid of you, which is hardly a great morale booster. Surely a competent HR department worthy of the name could have anticipated the way in which such an offer would be accepted?
The choice of which applicants to accept and which to reject was taken in a completely opaque and secretive manner. Some applicants have been accepted even when their Dean/Director has not approved the application and the reverse is true for several others. When we are provided with more information we can make a more accurate assessment but at this stage it looks possible that the selection may embody elements of age discrimination.
We would argue that the offer under Option 2 (statutory redundancy) is not good for the individuals concerned, nor is it good for the University. Despite the inevitable negative feelings towards UEL that this offer will undoubtedly produce colleagues should resist the impulse to walk away. The offer is no better than would be available if compulsory redundancies occur and we feel that we have been deceived by an offer that, for some staff, translates into an invitation to leave UEL on terms they would never have contemplated.
Management frequently fall back on the argument that they have a right to manage. We would remind them that they have a duty to manage, an obligation that they have completely failed to fulfil by their double dealing in this case.
The joint unions will be calling site meetings for all staff next week to air our concerns about this issue and we invite the Vice-Chancellor to attend those meetings, so that he can explain why this process has been handled in this way
The statutory position
The Voluntary Severance Scheme was introduced with minimal consultation with the campus unions: we were informed on a Wednesday that the scheme would be introduced and we were given 24 hours to make comments or offer minor amendments. There was no opportunity to discuss more widely the objectives of the scheme, what problems were being addressed or whether there were other ways of addressing these problems. We regard this as a failure by the University to fulfil its statutory duty to consult when considering a potential redundancy involving 20 or more employees. The University attempts to hide behind the voluntary nature of the scheme but it is clear that the Vice Chancellor has been badly advised: the aim of the scheme is to lose significant numbers of jobs and the voluntary element does not obviate the University’s duty to consult.
Implementation
The decision to introduce this scheme before details of the proposed academic restructuring were published seems now clearly designed to increase the uncertainty about which staff might be well placed to apply for the scheme. This link between restructuring and severance is clearly understood by the University which has not to date replied to applicants from the Security Service because they are waiting for a (long-delayed) restructuring review.
From the feedback we have received so far it is clear that a number of colleagues who applied for Option 3 (severance with a year’s salary) have instead been offered Option 2 (statutory redundancy). We regard this as a complete breach of faith and a practice which would be condemned if undertaken in the commercial sphere. We think that the University’s behaviour is utterly despicable, representing a gross insult to many long serving and loyal members of staff. What sort of message is implied when the VC argues in his letter that this scheme is “more attractive than our normal terms” and the offer when it comes is less attractive than our normal terms? Is this not behaviour of a completely egregious, callous and cynical nature?
If, for whatever reason, the University has decided that it cannot accept various applications for severance, then it should just have said ‘no’. If your application for Option 3 is refused this implies that you are either too useful or too expensive to let go. To then offer unsolicited the possibility of statutory redundancy confirms that you aren’t really wanted but it is simply too expensive to get rid of you, which is hardly a great morale booster. Surely a competent HR department worthy of the name could have anticipated the way in which such an offer would be accepted?
The choice of which applicants to accept and which to reject was taken in a completely opaque and secretive manner. Some applicants have been accepted even when their Dean/Director has not approved the application and the reverse is true for several others. When we are provided with more information we can make a more accurate assessment but at this stage it looks possible that the selection may embody elements of age discrimination.
We would argue that the offer under Option 2 (statutory redundancy) is not good for the individuals concerned, nor is it good for the University. Despite the inevitable negative feelings towards UEL that this offer will undoubtedly produce colleagues should resist the impulse to walk away. The offer is no better than would be available if compulsory redundancies occur and we feel that we have been deceived by an offer that, for some staff, translates into an invitation to leave UEL on terms they would never have contemplated.
Management frequently fall back on the argument that they have a right to manage. We would remind them that they have a duty to manage, an obligation that they have completely failed to fulfil by their double dealing in this case.
The joint unions will be calling site meetings for all staff next week to air our concerns about this issue and we invite the Vice-Chancellor to attend those meetings, so that he can explain why this process has been handled in this way
Friday, March 18, 2011
UCU Strike Action
As part of the 2010 pay Campaign UCU members have successfully balloted for strike action.
This will take place on Thursday 24th March. Currently at UEL we have not been informed of their plans but we expect to meet them next week however national advice is as follows:
Unite staff working in Higher Education may be aware that UCU members have voted for industrial action and other action short of strike. The other academic union in Scotland, EIS, has decided to ballot staff but EIS members are currently not taking dispute action.
Unite supports UCU members in dispute but for legal reasons the union is constrained in what Unite members can and cannot do.
Unite advice to Higher Education members are that they are not in dispute and members should continue to attend their place of work and work normally.
On the question of picket lines, the advice is that members should not join the picket lines, as this could give the perception that Unite members are involved in the dispute or their presence could be used towards numbers of pickets thereby exceeding the statutory limits on pickets and directly or indirectly implicating Unite union members in the industrial action.
Members are free of course to engage in discussions with UCU members who are picketing or speak or not to speak to pickets but are advised not to take part in any action themselves. Members wishing to discuss matters with pickets are requested to do this away from any picket lines to avoid any implication in the action.
Unite representatives should not meet with university management on local issues but to postpone these to alternative dates whilst the UCU action is in place.
Consideration on not attending local events will depend on the nature of the events and whether such action would be perceived as engaging in a dispute or action connected to a dispute. Unite preferred option is that events should moved by mutual agreement with the support of all unions and management. If this is not possible in most circumstances the advice to Unite representatives will be to continue to work normally.
Remember UNITE now…
Cuts kill Universities
This will take place on Thursday 24th March. Currently at UEL we have not been informed of their plans but we expect to meet them next week however national advice is as follows:
Unite staff working in Higher Education may be aware that UCU members have voted for industrial action and other action short of strike. The other academic union in Scotland, EIS, has decided to ballot staff but EIS members are currently not taking dispute action.
Unite supports UCU members in dispute but for legal reasons the union is constrained in what Unite members can and cannot do.
Unite advice to Higher Education members are that they are not in dispute and members should continue to attend their place of work and work normally.
On the question of picket lines, the advice is that members should not join the picket lines, as this could give the perception that Unite members are involved in the dispute or their presence could be used towards numbers of pickets thereby exceeding the statutory limits on pickets and directly or indirectly implicating Unite union members in the industrial action.
Members are free of course to engage in discussions with UCU members who are picketing or speak or not to speak to pickets but are advised not to take part in any action themselves. Members wishing to discuss matters with pickets are requested to do this away from any picket lines to avoid any implication in the action.
Unite representatives should not meet with university management on local issues but to postpone these to alternative dates whilst the UCU action is in place.
Consideration on not attending local events will depend on the nature of the events and whether such action would be perceived as engaging in a dispute or action connected to a dispute. Unite preferred option is that events should moved by mutual agreement with the support of all unions and management. If this is not possible in most circumstances the advice to Unite representatives will be to continue to work normally.
Remember UNITE now…
Cuts kill Universities
March for the Alternative
TUC national demonstration against the cuts will take place in London on Saturday 26 March 2011. Unions are now at the heart of a powerful, progressive coalition against the cuts, bringing together service users, charities and community groups. The union movement and the country face the sternest test in a generation. Not only is the economy on its knees, not only is the law tilted against us, but we have a government in power that is making spending cuts of a speed, scale and savagery never before seen. This national demonstration forms part of the campaign against these cuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)