For members’ reference, we reproduce below the information included in the virtual ‘enclosure’ that accompanies the Branch’s Online Consultation on entering local disputes about (1) the University’s imposition of ‘Modernising the Governance’ changes and (2) the University’s refusal to hear MAB Grievances. Members are presented with this information after clicking the voting link and before reaching the voting page. We also include the questions that have been put to members.

Members will already have received emails advising them how to vote using UCU’s secure online consultation platform, including our email to members of 20/12/2023, which includes information on what to do if you have not received your individual voting link. If there are any problems, please get in touch with the branch office.

Voting closes at 4pm on Wednesday 17th January 2024.

Enclosure: Consultation on Southampton UCU Local Disputes

Overview

Southampton UCU Branch Executive Committee is consulting with UCU members about two issues of importance:

1. The imposition by the University of Southampton of changes to the Charter, Ordinances, and many of its Employment Procedures, in a project known as ‘Modernising the Governance’.
2. The failure of the University of Southampton to consider grievances submitted by staff on issues arising from the Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB).

We are asking Southampton UCU members whether the Branch should enter a formal local dispute with the University of Southampton in relation to either of the above issues, and what action they would support if the Branch were to enter such a dispute(s).

This online consultation comprises four questions. In Question 1, the Southampton UCU Branch Executive Committee seeks members’ permission to enter a formal dispute with the University of Southampton, over the changes that it imposed on members following its ‘Modernising the Governance’ project, and in Question 2 we ask members to indicate what action they would like the Branch and its members to take if a dispute is entered over this matter. Similarly, in Question 3, the Southampton UCU Branch Executive Committee seeks members’ permission to enter a formal dispute with the University of Southampton over its refusal to hear grievances filed by our members about issues arising from the Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB), and in Question 4 we ask members to indicate what action they would like the Branch and its members to take if a dispute is entered over this matter. Further context for these proposed disputes is provided below.

The outcome of Questions 1 and 3 will be announced as soon as is practicable following the close of the online consultation at 4pm on Wednesday 17th January 2024. For strategic reasons, we do not plan to publicly announce the results of Questions 2 and 4. Any dispute(s) entered as a result of this consultation will be managed by the Southampton UCU branch. If members vote to enter a dispute on either matter, the Branch Executive Committee will immediately call a meeting to discuss the result, and throughout any dispute(s) we will regularly consult and be instructed by our members.

Note that this vote is not a ballot for industrial action (strike, action short of strike, etc.), but an online consultation about entering formal dispute(s). We are not yet at the point where we believe it is necessary to hold a ballot for industrial action and hope that any dispute(s) authorised by our members can be resolved without this being necessary.

Modernising the Governance

During the academic years 2021-22 and 2022-23, the University of Southampton undertook a major project, which it called ‘Modernising the Governance’. This project involved removing the University’s Statutes and re-writing its Charter, Ordinances, and many of its Employment Procedures (for example, its Grievance, Disciplinary, Capability and Redundancy Procedures). As provided for by our recognition agreement with the University, Southampton UCU were consulted on these changes, and during intensive and detailed discussions our negotiators secured some improvements to the proposals on behalf of members. Ultimately, however, in an eBallot held during May 2023, and on the advice of our negotiators, 87% of Southampton UCU members who voted decided to reject the University’s ‘Modernising the Governance’ changes.

On 14 June 2023, a Branch AGM passed a motion reiterating members’ rejection of the changes and calling on the Branch Executive Committee to ballot members on entering a formal dispute. In a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor on 4 July 2023, the Branch President set out a proposal for further negotiations, but this was rejected by the University. The University then imposed the ‘Modernising the Governance’ changes on staff on 1 August 2023. Branch representatives again raised members’ rejection of these changes at a Joint Negotiating Committee meeting with senior managers on 12 October 2023, but were advised that the University’s position remains unchanged.

Detailed guidance setting out why our negotiators advised members to reject the proposals in the May 2023 ballot can be found at https://southampton.web.ucu.org.uk/2023/05/09/2723/. We continue to have the following principal concerns about the ‘Modernising the Governance’ changes:

1. Academic Freedom. With the loss of the Statutes, all reference to international standards of academic freedom has been removed from the University’s governance documents. This coincides with a rise in members’ concerns about the suppression of academic freedom for political, financial and recruitment reasons.
2. Loss of Independent Oversight in Employment Procedures. Oversight by independent Council members has been almost entirely removed from the Employment Procedures, and they now allow for decisions to be made by less senior staff than in the previous set of procedures. The imposition of these changes appears to have coincided with an increase in casework, unrelated to the MAB, relating to overbearing management.
3. Procedure Timescales. The University has refused to commit itself to time limits in its Employment Procedures. We are deeply concerned by the length of time that it often takes to get outcomes for members with their employment-related issues, particularly given the impact that the delays and resulting uncertainty can have on their wellbeing. Conversely, we are also now seeing rushed disciplinary investigations or meetings called at short notice, for which members subject to these procedures have insufficient time to get UCU support.

Having exhausted all other options and given the University every opportunity to re-enter negotiations, we now have no choice but to ask all members to vote to enter a dispute over the imposition of the ‘Modernising the Governance’ changes. It is a matter of grave concern to the Branch Executive Committee that staff at the University of Southampton do not enjoy the protection of union-agreed procedures (including Disciplinary, Grievance, Capability and Redundancy Procedures), and, further, that the University has diluted Academic Freedom protections at a time when academics are increasingly under attack from the UK Government and sections of the UK media.

Recommendation: The Executive Committee advises members to vote ‘Yes’ to Question 1 to authorise the Branch to enter a formal dispute with the University in relation to the ‘Modernising the Governance’ changes. Question 2 is consultative.

Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) Grievances

As part of the ‘UCU Rising’ pay and conditions dispute and following a properly constituted national ballot of UCU members for industrial action, UCU members were asked to participate in a Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) from 20 April to 6 September 2023. The University of Southampton decided to impose 50% pay deductions from UCU members participating in the MAB, even though the time allocated to staff for marking is considerably less than 50% of their workload. In some cases, the period for which deductions were applied was not a fair representation of the period for which staff were participating in the MAB, and we are aware of considerable disparity across the University. Members were subsequently advised by UCU to submit grievances in relation to their deductions, but the University of Southampton took the extraordinary and unprecedented decision not to hear these grievances.

The Branch Executive is extremely concerned by this development: we consider that the University has acted contrary to its own procedures, contrary to the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, and contrary to principles of natural justice.

On 19 September 2023, at a well-attended Emergency General Meeting, the membership of the Branch overwhelmingly passed a motion declaring that it had ‘no confidence in the University’s ability to apply its grievance procedure in a fair, reasonable and unbiased manner.’ Branch representatives raised our concerns with senior managers at our Joint Negotiating Committee on 12 October 2023, and wrote in detail to the University about the matter on 18 October 2023 (this letter can be found towards the end of the following blog post: https://southampton.web.ucu.org.uk/2023/10/18/correspondence-with-university-regarding-mab-related-grievances/). We received a reply from the University on 30 November 2023, which largely failed to address directly the questions we raised, and we replied on 14 December 2023 (this correspondence can be found in the following blog post: https://southampton.web.ucu.org.uk/2023/12/14/further-correspondence-with-university-regarding-mab-related-grievances/). As you will see from these exchanges, our principal objection is that we believe the University, by choosing not to hear members grievances, is failing to meet its legal obligations to employees, as set out in the ACAS Code of Practice. It is thereby setting a very dangerous precedent that damages the rights and protections of all employees.

Having exhausted all other options and given the University every opportunity to reconsider its position, we now have no choice but to ask all members to vote to enter a dispute over this matter, to send a clear message to the University that members expect all grievances, including those relating to decisions taken by the senior managers, to be handled in a fair, reasonable and unbiased manner, and in accordance with ACAS guidelines. It is vital that the University takes urgent steps to restore members’ confidence in its employment procedures and their application.

Recommendation: The Executive Committee advises members to vote ‘Yes’ to Question 3 to authorise the Branch to enter a formal dispute with the University in relation to its refusal to hear Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) grievances. Question 4 is consultative.

Consultation Questions

(1) Do you support the Branch entering a formal dispute with the University of Southampton over changes imposed following the ‘Modernising the Governance’ project? [Choose one option]

• Yes
• No
• Abstain

(2) What action would you like the branch and its members to take if a dispute is entered over the ‘Modernising the Governance’ changes? [Choose all that apply.]

• Internal communication and information campaign, including writing to student societies, senior managers, members of the University Council and Senate, petitions, etc.
• External communication and information campaign, including, for example, writing to local MPs and candidate MPs, local media, public bodies, petitions, etc.
• Hold a formal ballot for ‘action short of strike’ (ASOS). (NB: this current consultation does not provide authorisation for such action; the branch would need to hold a further formal ballot if members wish to take industrial action, including ASOS or strike.)
• Hold a formal ballot for strike action. (NB: this current consultation does not provide authorisation for such action; the branch would need to hold a further formal ballot if members wish to take industrial action, including ASOS or strike.)
• Other: [add suggestions in free text box]

(3) Do you support the Branch entering a formal dispute with the University of Southampton over its refusal to hear Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) Grievances? [Choose one option]

• Yes
• No
• Abstain

(4) What action would you like the branch and its members to take if a dispute is entered over the University’s refusal to hear Marking and Assessment Boycott (MAB) Grievances? [Choose all that apply.]

• Internal communication and information campaign, including writing to student societies, senior managers, members of the University Council and Senate, petitions, etc.
• External communication and information campaign, including, for example, writing to local MPs and candidate MPs, local media, public bodies, petitions, etc.
• Hold a formal ballot for ‘action short of strike’ (ASOS). (NB: this current consultation does not provide authorisation for such action; the branch would need to hold a further formal ballot if members wish to take industrial action, including ASOS or strike.)
• Hold a formal ballot for strike action. (NB: this current consultation does not provide authorisation for such action; the branch would need to hold a further formal ballot if members wish to take industrial action, including ASOS or strike.)
• Other: [add suggestions in free text box]

Earlier this term, we posted correspondence between us and the University of Southampton, relating to their refusal to hear MAB-related Grievances. We have now had a further exchange of letters, which can be found below:

• A letter (sent by email), dated 30/11/2023, from UoS to SUCU.
• A letter (sent by email), sent 14/12/2023, from SUCU to UoS, in reply.

As readers may be aware, we are now consulting with members about entering a local dispute with the University regarding its continued refusal to hear members’ MAB-related grievances.

Letter from UoS to SUCU, 30/11/2023

Response to Southampton UCU letter dated 18 October 2023

Thank you for your letter dated 18 October 2023 in respect of the University’s position on the marking and assessment boycott (MAB) grievances received.

The letter raises a number of questions, some of which we believe were based on misconstrued statements or fundamental misconceptions. This letter therefore provides a summary response which we believe addresses the relevant points.

In accordance with the submissions made in earlier correspondence with UCU in May 2023, the University policy of rejecting partial performance is long standing, clear and consistent, and was communicated in advance of the industrial action. As UCU are aware, employers are legally entitled to withhold pay from an employee who chooses to breach their employment contract by taking part in industrial action, including action short of strike (ASOS). The policy is therefore based on the appropriate employment legislation and not an issue for negotiation or consultation.

Upon the receipt of multiple grievances, all of which adopted a similar pro-forma template, alleging that the University’s decision to withhold pay for taking part in the MAB was unlawful, unreasonable and/or disproportionate, it was clear to the University that the individual grievances raised were challenging the policy to withholding pay for participation in industrial action and partial performance. We therefore sought external legal counsel, as we were also aware through the University and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) that a number of other institutions had received similar grievances and provided legal commentary in response to this. Legal counsel’s opinion sought by both the University and UCEA remains confidential and legally privileged, and the University does not intend to waive its privilege to this advice.

Those participating in the MAB made an informed [and conscious] choice to breach their contract of employment when deciding to participate and in the knowledge that the University’s policy would apply. Therefore, as set out in writing to UCU and the individual colleagues on 17 August 2023, the University determined that these were not matters that could reasonably be dealt with in accordance with the University’s Grievance Procedure and which were not issues which were appropriately within the application and scope to address under the grievance procedure (Part II ¶4). For the avoidance of doubt, the procedural content thereafter was not applicable.

The University has and continues to provide relevant information in an open and transparent manner where requested, such as participation dates and the calculation used to withhold pay. We have also facilitated any concerns or issues raised by individuals directly with the faculties to ensure these can be resolved promptly. The University remains committed to addressing these issues and where possible to resolve these informally.

Whilst the University ultimately determined that the substance of the grievances raised by members of staff were not concerning their employment, which relate to themselves as individuals, and therefore not within the application and scope of the procedure, we felt there were a number of other considerations that were relevant. Primarily, that these matters were ‘collective’ in their nature in challenging a university policy position in direct response to industrial action called by UCU regarding a national dispute.

The University strongly believes these matters should have been addressed by UCU through a collective grievance and dealt with accordingly. Whilst there is no ‘agreed’ collective grievance procedure, the Joint Negotiation Committee (JNC) would have been the appropriate committee to discuss such collective issues in the first instance.

As UCU will be aware, the University recently tabled at the JNC a proposal to explore establishing an agreed dispute resolution procedure that would provide a clear and transparent framework to address such issues in the future. The University shall continue to consider all grievances on a case-by-case basis in line with the relevant procedure in place.

We recognise UCU may be disappointed by the University’s decision, but we believe it is unhelpful to suggest or infer that we acted in bad faith during our extensive negotiation and consultation meetings as part of the Modernising the Governance project. That said, we remain committed to working with UCU to maintain good employee and industrial relations for the benefit of all our employees.

Your Sincerely,
[HR Director, Client Services]

Letter from SUCU to UoS, 14/12/2023

Dear [HR Director, Client Services],

Thank you for your letter dated 30 November 2023 concerning MAB grievances. We are grateful to the University for supplying this response in time for it to be considered by our members before they vote in our disputes consultation. You will perhaps forgive us, however, for seeking to have the last word before this vote opens:

1. While we note the University’s argument for viewing MAB grievances as a collective matter, we fundamentally disagree. As we alluded to in question 2 in our previous letter, the ACAS Code of Practice provides very clear guidance on what constitutes a collective grievance, stating in paragraph 47:
   ‘The provisions of this Code do not apply to grievances raised on behalf of two or more employees by a representative of a recognised trade union or other appropriate workplace representative. These grievances should be handled in accordance with the organisation’s collective grievance process.’
   It is a matter of record that our members’ MAB grievances were not raised by representatives of UCU on their behalf, but by the members themselves, individually. Therefore, these are individual grievances, not a collective grievance, and the provisions of the ACAS Code of Practice apply in full.
2. While the University’s position is that these grievances should have been presented as a collective grievance, it concedes that there is currently no collective grievance procedure at the University of Southampton. Therefore, even if we are somehow mistaken in point 1 above, we would have thought the University would have excused staff for failing to use a non-existent collective grievance procedure, and would have exercised its discretion to allow the grievances to be heard, in the interests of fairness and of maintaining good employment relations. University of Southampton staff should be able to rely upon their employer following its published procedures and the ACAS Code of Practice, and for the University to listen to their concerns and treat them with respect.
3. In the absence of a collective grievance procedure, the University proposes that UCU should have raised our members complaints at the Joint Negotiation Committee (JNC). We believe the following context is important when considering this proposal:
   (i) The Branch President raised concerns over the harshness of the University’s MAB pay deductions with the Vice-Chancellor on 4 July, requesting, in the interests of limiting damage to local employment relations, that the University introduce a cap on MAB deductions, as other institutions had already done. This request was declined by UEB.
   (ii) When Southampton UCU representatives raised the topic of the University’s refusal to hear MAB grievances at the next available JNC meeting on 12 October, we were advised that the University’s position remains unchanged.

To be frank, we find it somewhat difficult to believe that the University’s apparent concern to differentiate between individual and collective grievances is motivated by a fastidious conviction to correct procedure. Rather, we fear that the University’s insistence that MAB complaints be categorised as a collective grievance, for which there is no procedure at this University, is a tactic to deny complainants the possibility of resolving complaints using internal procedures. The approach of University of Southampton denies staff their legal right to have a workplace grievance considered by their employer, thus forcing them to have to decide between dropping their complaints, or enduring a stressful, time-consuming and expensive external legal process.

On a more positive note, we concur with the University that negotiating an agreed dispute resolution procedure between the union(s) and the University is now urgent and essential, and we look forward to discussing this further in the coming weeks and months. We would want to include consideration of a Collective Grievance Procedure as part of those discussions.

In the spirit of collegiality, we are of course happy to accept that the University negotiates in good faith. And, like the University, we remain committed to working together to build and maintain good employee and industrial relations for the benefit of our members and indeed of all staff. To this end, we hope that if our members vote to enter a dispute on this matter, or in relation to the ‘Modernising the Governance’ changes, the University will work with us to reach a mutually acceptable resolution, quickly and amicably.

For now, we await instructions from our membership via our online consultation.

With best wishes,
[Southampton UCU]