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