We continue to push management on their unsatisfactory responses to our concerns about in-person examinations. Our recent email resulted in the below letter from Wendy Appleby (VP Operations) – yet another disappointing response to our valid concerns.
Loading...
Following our recent email to management raising our continued concerns about returning to campus and in particular in-person examinations, we received an unsatisfactory reply prompting a further email from the branch:
Dear Mark, Alex and Wendy,
We are writing again in response to developments regarding in-person exams which have occurred over the past few days and to urge the University once more to think again.
We thank Wendy Appleby for her response to our letter sent on 5th January formally requesting the University not to go ahead with large in-person exams because of the risks posed by the highly contagious Omicron variant. We are not satisfied with the reply, most of which repeats content from emails already sent to students and H&S officers and does not address our key concerns.
On Tuesday 11th, Alex Neill sent an email to students explaining the University’s rationale for continuing with in-person exams despite strong opposition from staff and students. UCU takes issue with a number of statements in that email:
1. ‘Rigorous risk assessments have been carried out, and we are only using venues that have sufficient space to allow for our COVID safety measures to be put in place’.
2. Students have been told ‘If your ability to attend an in-person exam is affected by COVID – for example, because a positive test requires you to self-isolate – please use our special considerations process to notify your School’.
3. ‘The Government and public health bodies are clear that in-person on-campus activities can and should continue’.
4. ‘We want to reassure you that the University has taken every precaution to reduce potential risks for both staff and students’
5. It has come to our attention that the usual reliance on Uniworkforce temporary staff as invigilators has led to a shortage of invigilators due at least in part to a fear of catching COVID whilst invigilating. Absent sight of a risk assessment related to invigilating exams, we are not in a position to comment on the safety of undertaking invigilating work should colleagues be offered the opportunity.
Furthermore, for some subjects, students are being required to attend on-campus in-person examinations which are computer-based online assessments and have been designed to work both online and in-person. Forcing students and supervisory staff to undertake this risk given that there are alternative, viable plans in place seems gratuitous.
Finally, no consideration seems to have been given to the potential harm caused to the wider Southampton community (noting evidence from the USA that young children are at particular risk, and that they are unvaccinated in the UK) by increasing the spread of COVID omicron at this critical time. It seems entirely inappropriate for in-person exams to be taking place in the current climate when it is possible to move to an alternative plan.
Once more, UCU requests your urgent response.
Southampton UCU
Response from management to our email of 5 January
Loading...
UCU has written today (5 January) to the Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Operations) asking them to reconsider the University’s position on returning to campus in January 2022. We will keep you posted of any response received.
Omicron is now known to be much more infectious than other COVID variants. UCU believes that, alongside getting vaccinated, the most important thing we can do as a community is to try to “spread out” the coming January peak load on the NHS. The impact on public health caused by staff absence, lack of care home placements, the large backlog of scheduled interventions, and new COVID infections will be enormous. We can help reduce this impact by minimising the rate of infection among our staff and students for the next month or so.
We believe that the University should:
Our views are informed by this opinion piece from the British Medical Journal which has a large group of signatories https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o1.full.pdf. They specifically promote high-quality masks, ventilation, and filtration. We are also taking advice from national UCU and scientists who believe that the Department of Education’s response to Omicron in our settings is woefully inadequate. Universities can choose to do more to protect staff and students independently, and we believe that they should.
As teaching is due to start on Monday, we request your urgent response.
With regards
Southampton UCU Executive Committee
We have sent the below urgent email to the Vice Chancellor and Vice-President (Operations) on 14 December following the communication to students yesterday. The University responded to us today.
Dear Southampton UCU,
I am writing in reply to your message to the Vice-Chancellor and the Vice-President (Operations) in which you suggest that the University move to online learning for non-practical classes until the end of the Semester. The University has considered this option in the light of the new variant and student cases numbers, and we have determined that we should continue to follow the latest government guidance, which states that in-person teaching and research should continue ‘as is’.
We continue to monitor very closely our positive cases numbers at the University, taking speedy and proportionate action when we need to do so, working closely with our partner agencies including the local public health teams, the Health Protection Board and the UK Health Security Agency. As we approach the end of term, we are seeing an increase in COVID cases which may in part be due to the increase in testing which is required before students leave for home this week. We have yet to find any evidence that transmission has taken place in a teaching environment.
With respect to the availability of LFD tests, at Southampton we continue to benefit from our unique saliva testing programme and we continue to encourage all staff and students to take advantage of that; currently 61% of staff are using the programme. In addition to the saliva testing option, LFD tests have been available for collection from the staff club foyer. The University continues to offer support to any member of staff experiencing work related stress or mental health anxiety.
Best wishes,
Alex
————————————————-
Professor Alex Neill
Vice-President (Education)
From: ucu
Sent: 14 December 2021 15:19
To: Vice-Chancellor <vice-chancellor@soton.ac.uk>; Vice President (Operations) <Vice-PresidentOperations@soton.ac.uk>
Cc: Kieron Broadhead <K.Broadhead@soton.ac.uk>; Cathy Day <Cathy.Day@soton.ac.uk>; Luke Kelly <L.A.Kelly@soton.ac.uk>; Lucy Watson <Lucy.Watson@soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Urgent: UCU concerns about students’ travel plans
Dear Mark and Wendy
We write urgently to express our concern at the latest email from Kieron Broadhead sent to students on 13th December. The email reminds students that they are responsible for their own actions and should consider how they can ‘reduce the risk of self-isolation impacting [their] winter break plans’ by ‘balancing the various factors that are important’ to them when planning to travel. On Wednesday 8th December, VP Operations Wendy Appleby sent an email to all staff stating that teaching plans would remain the same and that teaching staff were exempt from the government’s work from home advice. The message from university management was clear that in person teaching would continue for the rest of this week. This expectation was reiterated in the CHSC on Monday 13th December.
We are now in a position where students must choose between staying on campus and attending in person classes, thereby risking testing positive and being unable to travel over Christmas or missing some of their education. Conversely, staff are expected to be on campus and teach in person regardless of the fact that cases amongst the student population are rising at an alarming rate: 95 new cases today alone. This increased risk of infection, along with the difficulty of getting boosters and the lack of availability of lateral flow tests is adding to stress and anxiety for the whole university community as we run up to the end of the semester.
The only sensible course of action is for all non-practical classes to be moved online for the rest of the semester so that students and staff can stay safe and ensure they can spend some much-needed time with family and friends over the holidays. We note that Kieron Broadhead’s email does not ask students to test before they return home. Surely the importance of testing is something the university should be reinforcing in its messaging consistently.
As this is a rapidly evolving situation, we ask for your prompt response.
Southampton UCU executive committee
We have today (30/9) sent the below email to UEB, following overwhelming support of our motion discussed at the recent EGM. You can read the full motion at the bottom of the thread.
——————–
Dear UEB
On Friday 24th September, UCU organised an EGM to discuss the back to campus teaching plans. This was in response to a large number of concerns raised by our members about the COVID mitigations being proposed by the University. UCU drafted a motion in the meeting, which outlined the main areas of concern and set out some clear expectations from the University. This motion was then voted on via survey monkey. There was overwhelming support from members to accept the motion (77% for, 13% against, 10% abstain). The motion is attached.
We hope it is clear from this motion that large numbers of teaching staff are very uncomfortable with the University’s position on masks, physical distancing and ventilation. Induction events which have taken place this week have shown that there is not the level of compliance on mask wearing we would hope to see, and staff taking part in those events are reporting overcrowding in rooms which are ‘stuffy’. We are deeply concerned that the survey of all rooms to be used this semester has not yet been completed. Timetabling has been under enormous pressure and many staff have not yet received their correct timetable so they are unable to check their rooms for suitability. In the final days of preparation before teaching staff are coming to campus, all of this feels very chaotic and does not reflect the ‘careful planning’ which university communications state has been taking place over the summer.
As things stand, without the University addressing the concerns outlined in this motion, UCU cannot endorse the University’s plans. We request a response from UEB which can be shared with members at your earliest convenience.
——————-
SOUTHAMPTON UCU EGM – 24 SEPTEMBER 2021
MOTION – RETURNING TO CAMPUS
Southampton UCU notes:
Southampton UCU also notes:
However, this branch believes that the measures the University has put in place are not sufficient to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of all staff and students and the wider community.
This branch calls on the University to immediately agree to implement the following safeguards for the 2021-22 academic year, which have been formulated with reference to the Independent SAGE report and research published in the BMJ, and following numerous expressions of concern from members and reps:
This branch resolves to:
Proposer: Lucy Watson
Seconder: Claire Le Foll
For: 77%
Against: 13%
Abstain: 10%
We have received a response from the University regarding the COVID bonus. UEB only responded to one of our concerns and it was to confirm that UniWorkforce staff did not receive the bonus which was awarded to frontline staff at the beginning of the pandemic either. This clearly underlines the fact that the University is operating a two-tier workforce, where some members of staff are treated less favourably than others. UCU will continue to challenge this system and work hard to address the inequalities that casualisation causes in our institution.
The branch has an insecure contracts organising group, which we would really like members to get involved with. We need as many people as possible to get behind our anti-casualisation campaign in order to successfully challenge this two-tiered system and win better employment terms and conditions for our insecure colleagues at Southampton. If you want to be part of the campaign for fairness and equality in our community, then please contact us on ucu@soton.ac.uk.
Date: 9/9/2021
Dear UCU,
Further to your email on 25 August following the University’s response to your concerns regarding the ‘Staff bonus payment’ and our subsequent discussion with local representatives and the Chief Operating Officer on 9 September, I can confirm that the University will not be reconsidering its decision on this matter and consider it concluded.
I can also confirm that nobody engaged via UniWorkforce was in receipt of the payment made to key frontline workers in June 2020. More details on the payment can be found here.
Best wishes,
Luke Kelly
Industrial Relations Business Partner
We write regarding the latest University communications about the return to campus teaching and working.
Whilst we recognise the importance of a return to normality on campus—from both a financial and a student wellbeing perspective—we must insist that this be handled with care, so that staff safety and wellbeing do not fall by the wayside.
We note that in the SUSSED blogpost dated 29th March the University accepts there is still a lack of clarity over what the recommended procedures will be for 12th April . This lack of clarity creates a number of serious problems.
1. It is not possible for colleagues to engage meaningfully with risk assessments before going on leave, as the only generic teaching and learning risk assessment currently available on the HS&R Sharepoint is the one that applies before Easter. Trades unions on campus have been asking for colleagues to be provided with the post-Easter information for a number of weeks. As we are entering a period of closure days, common annual leave and school holidays this timescale also precludes a meaningful process of statutory consultation with trade union H&S reps before the likely resumption of further in-person teaching.
2. Also relating to the upcoming Easter break, there will not be time for many staff to read and meaningfully engage with whichever risk assessment regime will be in place come 12th April – a process that will be vital to ensure assessments are adequately localised. Alternatively, it will require staff to undertake this important work outside of work hours. Both of these outcomes are detrimental to staff safety and wellbeing.
3. The University communications lean heavily on both forthcoming Government advice and the relative success of the UK vaccination programme. We note UK official guidance has to date been riddled with miscalculations and poor advice that have resulted in measurably worse outcomes in terms of health and safety. Further, any impact of national vaccination rates on COVID transmission on campus may be limited; the ONS estimates that only 15% of 16-24 year-olds have received even the first vaccine dose. Students thus constitute a largely-unvaccinated but proximate population ready to encounter the more transmissible and more dangerous B1.1.17 variant. We do not see adequate consideration of this fact.
SUCU has previously asked senior management to consider a short delay to return to teaching plans, until 19th April. This has been refused but management could still give clarity and reassurance to staff about post-Easter arrangements by proposing that the first week post-Easter continues on the pre-Easter model, so that staff (and H&S reps) have time to consider and plan for whatever return to blended learning was then proposed the week after. This would not only support staff safety and wellbeing over the break, but help ensure that the return to campus is considered and durable—something that we all have an interest in.
We hope you will give this matter your urgent attention and look forward to receiving a prompt response.
Southampton UCU Executive Committee
Further to UCU’s meeting with Richard Middleton and Mark Spearing on 26 January to discuss our equality concerns about the impact of home working during this third lockdown, we have received the following response from the University. We are pleased to note the commitment of management to address the valid concerns of our members.
“We recognise that some staff are in situations of real difficulty, in respect of their caring responsibilities in particular, which makes “attending” work problematic at some times of the day, on some days it can be difficult to attend work at all. We also recognise that staff will want to “be there” fully attentive for their children home-schooling, or for others for whom they are the carer.
We are working hard to find ways to communicate to all managers the University’s expectation that they will find ways to be flexible in their response to members of their team(s), whilst overall managing workload and delivery expectations and standards.
In 2020 during the first lock down we kept track of the use of the additional leave available for carers, and only 10% of the approximately 300 employees that used this form of leave used the full 10 days (or pro-rata) available to them. Generally the additional carers’ leave taken was well below that total. We will on this occasion also monitor closely the use of this leave and respond accordingly, which could include reviewing and revising the total amount of additional carers’ leave available while schools are closed and parents are home-schooling, in particular.
We confirmed that if a person takes additional UNPAID leave then the saving from their salary not being paid is retained within the budget of their unit [i.e the most immediate organisational unit with devolved budgetary responsibility). The key concern which can be clearly addressed is that the salary saving is NOT returned to a central University account.
We are committed to working with UCU, and have begun discussions, on our plans for ensuring that the impacts of Covid-19 are actively considered in all aspects of the promotion process, when it resumes, and in the years ahead”.
Richard Middleton
Chief Operating Officer
Email sent on 14 January 2021 to all members of UEB.
Dear UEB members
This letter is in relation to the need for improved long-term planning regarding the delivery of teaching, in particular the inclusion of in-person teaching as part of the blended learning mix. We understand from the meeting with Richard Middleton on the 11th of January that UEB have been discussing this but that, to date, no longer-term decision has been made.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, colleagues across the University have – in the face of workloads which are generally already excessive – accepted the additional burdens of adapting to pandemic-era blended learning. However, the lack of transparent medium and long-term planning is increasing workloads and having a detrimental effect on staff wellbeing, and the ongoing uncertainty is only causing further stress and anxiety for staff. It would be in the interests of staff and students to make clear, public and realistic plans for the remainder of the teaching this academic year, so that colleagues can have the best chance of delivering their best possible work in a situation in which they can retain a sense of meaningful control over their professional output. Staff cannot work to the best of their ability so long as we remain in a situation of three-week planning windows. In view of current case levels, hospital admissions and deaths, of the time-lag between infections and admissions, and the speed of the vaccine rollout, we believe that it is currently unrealistic and potentially irresponsible to expect a return to pre-lockdown levels of in-person teaching before the Easter break. We remind you that our members voted in November for the reduction as far as possible of in-person teaching between January and March in order to keep local infection rates as low as possible. Transparency, trust and efficiency would all be best served by agreeing this and enabling staff to plan for it now.
If UEB really considers it impossible to clarify plans for the upcoming term at this time, we call upon you to lay out in full detail the likely alternative scenarios and the conditions which would shift the University or parts thereof from one scenario to another. For instance: what levels of infections and hospitalizations, locally and nationally, would trigger the continued restriction of in-person teaching, as it currently is, to certain priority subjects? If the increased transmissibility of the new virus variant results, as seems likely, in even lower capacities in some teaching rooms, what is the University’s plan to manage capacity?
Failing to offer clarity and continuing to make decisions at the last possible moment threatens to undermine further the confidence of staff in the senior management team. It will also undermine the confidence that students and potential students will have in the University and add to their stress and anxiety.
We look forward to receiving a prompt response to our concerns.
I have read your email carefully, and appreciate the concerns that you articulate. However, your assessment of the situation is not accurate, and in particular we have not changed our guidance and policies. Our approach is exactly the same as it was for the first lockdown and period of school closure last March. As the Vice-Chancellor made clear again last week, we understand and are very sympathetic to the challenges of juggling working from home with caring responsibilities. We encourage all staff, and particularly those with concerns such as those you raise, to talk to their line managers about their individual circumstances and needs, and we are encouraging – as the Vice-Chancellor did – all line managers to allow staff, where possible, to manage their working life flexibly around their care obligations during this period of lockdown. We are equally conscious that it is not just those with school-age children who may be under pressure – others will have caring responsibilities for more vulnerable family members and friends, for others lockdown can be very isolating.
Regarding the particular questions that you raise, I do not believe that these are specifically EDI matters, although I recognise that there is an EDI component, so I would encourage you to raise them in the regular meetings with Richard. If there are specific EDI issues, I would be happy to join you at one or more of these meetings.
My final comment, is that this is an exceptional time, and I feel very strongly that this requires us to work closely together and with understanding. At the heart of this is looking after the people in the organisation, many of whom are your members. I know that all members of UEB are committed to supporting our colleagues and mitigating the effects of Covid on them and our institution. I think that it is very important that, as far as possible, we are working together to this goal, rather than in an adversarial fashion. All decisions, including some of your suggestions, have consequences, which may have a negative consequence on staff. Developing a shared understanding of the overall picture, including the financial aspects, was one of the key items we agreed when we developed our joint working charter in 2019. I think that it is particularly important to keep this in mind at the moment.
————————————-
We are writing to you in your role as the University’s Executive Champion for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.
Southampton UCU are deeply concerned about the additional strain that the new lockdown will have on all staff. In particular, many of our members are once again combining work, family life, childcare and home-schooling.
While we acknowledge that the University has increased the domestic leave to which staff with caring responsibilities are entitled, this is not sufficient, given the length of the current lockdown. The proposal of allowing staff flexible working hours, whereby they may be expected to work in the early mornings, late evenings and weekends, while home educating during the working week, is not physically or mentally sustainable. The alternative proposal of a temporary reduction in working hours is inequitable, as it transfers the costs of the pandemic onto individuals (it will have an impact not only on pay, but also on pension contributions, annual leave and other benefits).
SUCU are disappointed that the positive and supportive line UEB sent out in the first lockdown, of ‘do what you can’, has now been replaced with ‘take unpaid leave and reduce your hours if you can’t manage’. Indeed, we are saddened that the University considers it appropriate to promote its voluntary salary-reducing measures to hard-pressed staff at such a difficult point in the pandemic. Asking parents and carers to take unpaid leave is insulting to their hard work and commitment throughout the duration of the pandemic, which has already involving the sacrifice of family time, rest, leave and research.
Furthermore, many members are also reluctant to reduce their hours, as they realise this will have a knock-on effect on their colleagues, at a time when all staff are overloaded with work and struggling to stay afloat. We are at a time when people’s reserves are already low after the impact of the first two national lockdowns, and staff are beginning to feel the impact of recent staff departures via voluntary severance. The approach therefore has serious implications for health, safety and wellbeing of all staff, not just parents and carers.
Ultimately then, without adequate intervention this crisis will result in serious long-term and profoundly unequal detriment to the careers and prosperity of all staff who have caring responsibilities. This impacts particularly although not exclusively on women.
We would appreciate an urgent response to the following questions so we can share this information with our members:
1. Why is the University not offering a part-time furlough option for those with caring responsibilities, as other institutions are? (e.g. see the following policy from the University of Oxford– https://hr.admin.ox.ac.uk/the-job-retention-scheme)
2. If a member of staff chooses to temporarily reduce their hours, where will this money go? If we had a commitment that it would be used to bring in temporary replacements then some members may be more inclined to take up this offer.
3. Will UEB reconsider their policy of asking staff to take unpaid leave if they cannot manage with existing workloads due to parenting/caring commitments? Staff in this position are doing the best they can and should be able to continue to receive full pay.
4. Can UEB send a clear urgent message to all line managers that staff should be able to prioritise those aspects of work that are essential and set aside activities that are non-urgent?
5. We ask that UEB provide clear reassurance that the impacts of COVID-19 will not have a detrimental impact on career progression, we would like to see a clear plan on how these mitigating circumstances will be fully factored into future promotion rounds, and how the equality impacts will be monitored and transparently shared.
We look forward to receiving your prompt response.
Reload document 
Open in new tab