We held a General Meeting at 1-2pm on 19th November 2024. After the approval of previous minutes and a local update from the Branch President, the following business was considered.

Policies and Procedures

We discussed a number of proposed University policies/procedures that the branch will be asked to ratify at the forthcoming JJNC and JNC meetings with management on 28th November. Members voted as follows:

• To approve the proposed Dispute Resolution Procedure. For: 58. Against: 0. Abstain: 2. Carried.
• To authorise the Executive Committee to take a decision on the proposed Career Pathways, pending further clarification from the University. For: 49. Against: 0. Abstain: 5. Carried.*
• To approve the proposed Whistleblowing Policy. For: 2. Against: 49. Abstain: 0. Failed. 
• To approve the proposed Sabbatical Policy. For: 10. Against: 8. Abstain: 35. Carried.** 
• To approve the proposed Flexible Working Policy. For: 52. Against: 0. Abstain: 1. Carried. 

* Since the GM, the University has confirmed that the ‘placeholder text’ in some of the TAE sections will be removed, and the trade unions will be consulted if further amendments are needed.

** Following the GM, the Exec. has secured the requested reassurance that an unsuccessful sabbatical application does not reset the clock on eligibility to apply, and the policy wording has been modified to make this explicit. Further, we have secured a strengthening of the wording (‘may’ changed to ‘should’) in Section 9.1. of the policy, relating to disrupted sabbaticals.

Branch Rule Change and Changes to the Executive Committee

Members voted in favour of a local rule change to rename the ‘Black Members’ Officer’ to ‘Officer for Members of Colour’, proposed by Shmma Quraishe. This proposal passed by the required 2/3 majority, with 52 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 4 abstentions. This change now needs to be approved by UCU headquarters.

Working on the assumption that the rule change will be accepted, branch voted overwhelmingly to co-opt Shmma Quraishe to the position of Officer for Members of Colour, and Hannah Fair to the Ordinary Member position vacated by Shmma. (These co-options will be confirmed once we know that the rule change has been accepted by UCU headquarters.)

Motions

Members voted on the two motions given below, which were tabled by the Branch Executive Committee. Both motions passed overwhelmingly, and will now be raised at the forthcoming JJNC and JNC meetings with management on 28th November.

1. Ban New Staff-Student Sexual and Romantic Relationships

Branch notes:

• The proposals from the OfS on regulating harassment and sexual misconduct in England; and
• Research showing that most students – particularly women – are not comfortable with romantic and sexual staff-student relationships.

Branch believes:

• That UCU should support policy-making that will prevent abuses of power by higher education staff; and
• That an evidence-based approach to preventing sexual misconduct reasonably involves action on regulating staff-student sexual and romantic relationships, as well as establishing professional boundaries more widely.

Branch resolves:

• To call for a ban of the formation of new sexual and romantic relationships between staff and students, where there is a teaching, assessment or pastoral component to that relationship.

For: 42
Against: 1
Abstentions: 7 

Motion carried.

 

2. Handling of Student Complaints of Staff Misconduct

Branch notes:

1. That at the University of Southampton, complaints raised by students about staff misconduct are considered under the Student Complaints Policy (s. 3.1c). Outcomes are reported to the student, and any ‘upheld’ complaints may be referred to the staff Disciplinary Procedure for further action.
2. That the OIAHE’s ‘Good Practice Framework’ instead recommends that ‘a complaint about alleged misconduct of a member of staff […] should normally be handled under an HR procedure’ (s. 125), that it should be ‘referred [at the outset] to the provider’s staff disciplinary process’, and that ‘[t]he outcome of the process will normally be confidential to the staff member’ (Disciplinary Procedures, s. 108 and Case Study 8).
3. That staff are afforded important protections by the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures, but that while these are incorporated into the Disciplinary Procedure, several key protections are absent from the Student Complaints Policy, including the respondent’s right to see and challenge evidence in a Hearing before a decision is taken, and the right of the respondent to appeal a decision.
4. That some student complaints about staff misconduct have been ‘upheld’ under the Student Complaints Policy, but subsequently ‘not upheld’ once the respondent had a meaningful opportunity to challenge evidence and present a defence in a Disciplinary Hearing. In such cases, there is no mechanism for the earlier decision to be rescinded.
5. That our 1973 recognition agreement commits the University to ‘consult and negotiate’ with us on matters relating to ‘conditions of service’, yet the Student Complaints Policy is not one on which we are typically consulted.

Branch believes:

1. That students have a right to complain about staff misconduct.
2. That student allegations of staff misconduct should be investigated in a manner that respects the rights afforded to staff by the Acas Code of Practice.
3. That student allegations of staff misconduct should be referred to the staff Disciplinary Procedure at the outset, and that outcomes should normally remain confidential to the member of staff, in accordance with the OIAHE’s recommendations.
4. That while some staff may find the title ‘Disciplinary Procedure’ more alarming than ‘Student Complaints Policy’, the former is nevertheless the most appropriate process to follow to ensure that their rights are protected when they are respondents to misconduct allegations.
5. That the referral of a student complaint to the staff Disciplinary Procedure should not automatically require an investigation or hearing, and that the University should avoid unnecessarily escalating complaints to the formal part of the Disciplinary Procedure.

Branch resolves:

1. To call on the University to enter negotiations with UCU on the handling of student complaints of staff misconduct.
2. To call on the University to implement the recommendations of the OIAHE ‘Good Practice Framework’ regarding complaints about staff misconduct.

For: 43
Against: 0
Abstentions: 2  

Motion carried.

 

Thank you to everyone who came.

 

[Post updated 27/11/2024]