Category Archives: News

Southampton UCU – motion on returning to campus and our comms with UEB

Posted on by
Reply

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:

  1. The high rate of Covid-19 infections across the country
  2. The low vaccination rates of people between 18-24
  3. The increased risk of transmission as a result of the highly contagious Delta variant
  4. That, although covid-19 rarely kills young adults, ‘about 10% of infected people at any age can develop long covid’ (BMJ, 2021).
  5. The lack of robust covid mitigation measures recommended by the government in educational settings

Southampton UCU also notes:

  1. The University of Southampton’s commitment to continuing with its saliva testing programme
  2. Its guidance for Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) staff, which has been publicised
  3. The willingness of many line managers to conduct individual risk assessments for vulnerable staff that request them
  4. Its commitment to support students who test positive and need to self-isolate.

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:

  1. Clinically extremely vulnerable staff, or staff living with or caring for clinically extremely vulnerable people, must be allowed to work/teach from home, without detriment, for the 2021-22 academic year.
  1. No staff member with concerns about the safety of their working environment should be compelled to work on-site until the University has satisfactorily addressed their concerns.
  1. Southampton UCU have not seen detailed data about ventilation in classrooms, despite numerous requests. Our H&S representatives need to urgently be supplied with quantitative data on each room cleared for teaching and shared occupancy.
  1. If anyone feels that a room is not well-ventilated, they should be able to ask for it to be checked by Estates. UCU asks the university to provide portable CO2 monitors so colleagues can check rooms which may be unsafe and to regularly monitor ventilation in rooms.
  1. Mask wearing should be mandatory in teaching spaces and other indoor shared spaces, and crowded outdoor areas, except for those with medical exemptions. Sufficient spare masks should be readily available. The University must ensure its communications around mask wearing are clear and consistent.
  1. Clear guidance must be issued immediately to staff about what happens if a student or staff member in a class tests positive. If a staff member has to isolate, or care for isolating people, or they have numerous students in their class isolating, they must be allowed to switch to online.
  2. The University must commit to an active public campaign to encourage vaccinations and weekly testing for staff and students, and share anonymised data gathered through vaccination surveys with unions.
  1. Maintain social distancing by lowering room capacity where necessary to allow 1m+ to remain in place.
  1. Ensure all managers are aware that a blended model of teaching is permissible in order to reduce the number of students and staff on campus at any given time.
  1. If a member of staff feels a classroom situation is unsafe; e.g. students are refusing to wear masks, the number of students exceeds the listed room capacity, or the ventilation is poor (windows will not open, for example), they should cancel the class and reschedule it online.

This branch resolves to:

  1. Continue to engage with the University in improving the working conditions for all staff during the pandemic
  2. To inform SUSU of UCU’s branch position and seek support for the recommendations outlined above
  3. Support members if they use their rights under Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  4. Provide caseworker support for members who challenge the safety of their teaching environment
  5. Refuse to endorse the return to campus plans until these issues are addressed

Proposer: Lucy Watson

Seconder: Claire Le Foll

For:                        77%

Against:                13%

Abstain:               10%

 

A bonus for some…… further response from University management

Posted on by
Reply

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

A bonus……for some

Posted on by
Reply

Southampton UCU Executive Committee has written to the VC and University Executive Board, urging them to reconsider their decision not to award the one-off COVID bonus to University of Southampton workers employed on casual contracts or whose fixed-term contracts ended before 13th July.

We are, of course, pleased to see that the hard work of colleagues has been recognised in this one-off bonus of up to £600. We know that it has been an exceptionally difficult year for many of our members, who have often gone above and beyond to carry out their duties in the face of huge uncertainty and upheaval. We are sincere in saying that the bonus is a significant gesture for a sector that is prone to recognising staff contribution in words rather than action. However, we are compelled to highlight a fundamental inequality in the bonus as structured — specifically, the decision to exclude casual colleagues from receipt of the payments.

Since the announcement, many of our hourly-paid members have contacted us to express their disappointment and anger about their exclusion from the bonus payment. They have pointed out that their work over this period is often indistinguishable from that of staff on more secure contracts. Additionally, like their permanent counterparts, they have stepped in to take on additional duties as part of the COVID-19 response. This is to say that they have taught, marked, enabled, supported and administered in the same way as their colleagues. In fact, they have seen their workload increase with the extension of teaching slots from 45 to 60 minutes, with no accompanying increase in pay. They have worked even when sick, because of the shameful policy that leaves Uniworkforce employees with no contractual sick-pay entitlement. They have also been unable to access many of the schemes of Government support made available to more formalised employees during lockdown.

The hard work of staff on casual contracts deserves no less recognition and reward than that of other staff.  We appreciate that there may be added complexities in identifying and quantifying the work histories of casual workers — and we are happy to work with UEB to seek solutions to these.

Actions you can take

Those who share our sense that this situation is unjust are welcome to join us in the following actions:

  • If you are active on social media, share examples of the important tasks carried out by casual workers in your team this year and why these contributions deserve to be recognised. Remember to tag @SouthamptonUCU in any tweets.
  • If you are on an insecure contract, either employed through Uniworkforce or on a fixed-term contract, join UCU (if you’re not already a member) and come along to a meeting of casualised members on 17 August at 12pm (invitation to follow). We will discuss a further response to the decision and our campaigning priorities for the year ahead as part of our insecure contracts working group.
  • If you are a PGR member, you can join our active PGR UCU Teams page for updates from UCU where we will also be coordinating the PGR as staff manifesto campaign. Contact UCU@soton.ac.uk to join.
  • If you are a staff member that has received a bonus and would like to donate a portion of it toward insecure colleagues, unfortunately, there is no general hardship fund for PGRs at University of Southampton (we are working on that). Please consider donating to Education Support, a partnership initiative with UCU that provides a variety of support to all members. Given the strong likelihood of industrial action in the upcoming academic year, you might also consider contributing to the  UCU national fighting fund or Southampton UCU’s local hardship fund, both of which provide financial support to members taking part in industrial disputes.

What else is Southampton UCU doing?

As well as lobbying for a reversal of this decision not to include casual workers in the bonus, Southampton UCU remains committed to improving the long-term employment conditions for all our members, including those on casual contracts. Under the new definition of a casual worker being introduced by HR, we hope to see all colleagues engaged with Uniworkforce for more than 12 weeks move over to fixed-term contracts. We will push for equality of these contract terms with those currently offered to permanent staff members.

In line with the recently launched PGR manifesto, we will be campaigning for uniformity across the University of Southampton in the way PGRs are treated: concerning both research work, and paid teaching work. In addition, for those PGRs who teach, we are seeking to negotiate a Graduate Teaching Assistant Contract based on the principles of employment laid out in the recently launched UCU PGR manifesto and in the 2021/22 JNCHES pay claim, which includes the principle that PGRs who teach should be included in any reward or recognition schemes run by the employer.

 

UCU Congress 2021 – Motion Results

Posted on by
Reply

https://www.ucu.org.uk/Congress2021

UCU Congress 2021 took place over the May Bank Holiday and into half-term. Thanks to Marianne O’Doherty, Bea Gardner and Denis Nicole for representing the branch alongside Claire Le Foll and Lucy Watson. Again, it really was a team effort.

In full conference (29th and 31st May) 270 delegates were sent a unique voting link. 231 delegates voted. In HESC (2nd June) 191 delegates were sent a unique voting link. 164 delegates voted. The Conference was held online, but this time there was added security and the webinar mode was used. This meant that no spontaneous interventions could occur, and all speakers had to be invited in. Although we understand the challenges of holding such large meetings online and the UCU staff and elected officers chairing the meetings did a fantastic job, it must be acknowledged that managing conference in this way stifles debate and makes for a very ‘dry’ experience for delegates. There is also the added complication that voting is not synchronous. Separate voting links for amendments and motions were sent out after the close of conference.

Our branch was able to canvass members’ view in advance on the key issues surrounding the Four Fights dispute and USS, and we had extensive discussions within executive committee around the more controversial motions, including ones which focused on the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. All delegates voted in accordance with the views of the branch where there was a clear steer from members.

Congress motions

Delegates voted for most motions which carried, except for the IHRA motions (12, 13 and 14) where these motions appeared to contradict each other. Delegates voted against 13 and 14 but for motion 12, with 12A.1. Motions 12 (as amended) 13, and L3 carried and 14 was remitted to be considered at NEC. Motions 13 and L3, carry references to BRICUP and thus, to an Israel boycott.

A full report of Congress motions may be found here:
https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/11576/Congress-Motions/pdf/Voting_report_Congress_29and31.05.21_1.pdf

HESC motions

The motion on electronic voting was lost. The motion to reject the UCEA offer for 21-22 (HE3), enter into dispute, and ‘organise towards the possibility of balloting’ passed. The motion to develop a timetable to ballot for industrial action over the unfinished ‘four fights’ campaign (20-21 claim) (HE5) passed. A number of USS motions were passed, some of which cancel parts of the others out, and some of which may or may not have much of an impact (replace USS as trustee; initiate legal action against USS). The key one which passed and was mentioned in the branch AGM (23rd June) is HE12, which commits branches to a summer ballot for escalating industrial action in the autumn if employers won’t join UCU in calling on USS and the pension regulator to cancel the 2020 valuation. Since then, HEC have agreed to hold a special conference on the 9th September where important decisions will be made about the future of the campaign. We will contact members with more details when we have them.

By a margin of 62 to 56, HESC also carried motion HE13 to scrap two of the principles for negotiation on USS from the report accepted in HE11 (explore conditional benefits and additional covenant support); this also instructs negotiators to focus on demands to set aside the valuation and preserve members’ benefits and contribution levels. HESC also voted to declare all current industrial disputes to be of national significance (HE 21), remove requirements for consultative ballots before industrial action, and allow academic Boycott and Censure to be declared immediately on request of the branch.

A full report of HE Congress motions may be found here:
https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/11578/HE-Motions/pdf/Voting_report_HE_sector_conf_02.06.21_2.pdf

Comms with senior management about returning to campus on 12 April

Posted on by
Reply
Further to our email (see below) to the Vice Chancellor on 31 March raising our concerns about returning to campus on 12 April, we received the following response from Roberta Head, HR Director Client Services on 1 April.

To: Southampton UCU Executive Committee,
Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for your note dated 31st March to the Vice-Chancellor relating to the arrangements for return to campus on 12th April. He has asked me to respond as many of these items were dealt with in our joint meeting earlier in the week and we want to ensure that our response is fully informed by our previous discussions with you.

We have been very happy to have ongoing detailed and frequent dialogue with our UCU colleagues on the return to campuses, including at weekly meetings with our Health, Safety and Risk team. We have discussed this at the regular meetings with our Trades Unions led by Richard Middleton including the most recent meeting on Tuesday 30th March . At all of these meetings colleagues have been able to discuss the plans for a safe return to campus and raise issues and concerns for response. This positive engagement has helped us to plan and we believe has provided an opportunity for meaningful consultation.

In addition, we have been clear about our plans for return to teaching on 12th April, and the need to revisit risk assessments, for some weeks. Colleagues have been engaged in planning for the return of students and have been making amendments to risk assessments since the Government announcement. We would always have planned to have students on practical programmes on site on the 12th April, since this became possible after the 8th March. The generic risk assessment for learning and teaching will revert to that which staff engaged with in the autumn term, with the additional enhancements added relating to face coverings which has been shared directly with all students who are returning to campus. We believe that this means that we have planned well in advance.
Whilst we note members’ concerns relating to the percentage of 16-24-year-olds who will have received a vaccine, we remain confident that the risk mitigation measures that we have agreed will keep students and colleagues safe. We continue to offer access to a testing regime, enforce social distancing and have guidance in place on the wearing of face coverings and hygiene. As always our approach will be monitored and reviewed in light of any new information and Government guidance.

I hope that you would agree that we have been clear that any return for students on 12th April will be in line with Government guidance. We have planned on the best-case scenario but it is possible that we will, in fact, not be able to bring students back at the level of the autumn term. Should this be the case a number of the points your raise become less relevant.
With best wishes,
Roberta

———————————————————————————————-
We have today (31 March ) written to the Vice-Chancellor and senior management over continued concerns about returning to campus on 12 April.

Dear Vice-Chancellor

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

Victimisation of trade union representatives – motion passed at EGM 26 February 2021

Posted on by
Reply

The following motion was discussed at an emergency general meeting held on 26 February.  The meeting voted overwhelmingly to support the motion and to withdraw from the Partnership Charter with immediate effect.

Victimisation of TU representatives

UK employment law provides a robust framework of protection for trade union membership, duties and activities.  This includes:

  • Legal protection for taking part in strike action or action short of strike action if all statutory requirements are fulfilled (for example a ballot, notice to the employer)
  • Victimisation from an employer on the basis of trade union duties and activities
  • Dismissal on the grounds of trade union membership

The University notified UCU of a disciplinary investigation against one of our reps in May 2020 and in November 2020 wrote to state that they would be brought to a disciplinary hearing for what amounts to participating in lawful ASOS as part of industrial action.  These allegations have been reviewed by UCU National and Regional Officials, including the national UCU legal team, and all are in full agreement that the University action against our member is unlawful on the basis that it constitutes victimisation.

The first disciplinary case against our representative has concluded with no further action being taken, not because the University accepted that they acted unlawfully, but because of their failure to follow proper procedure. It should be of concern to members that the University was prepared to seek to dismiss a long-serving employee without following the procedures, regardless of the subject matter of the allegations.  To be subjected to an investigation for so long, with such grave potential consequences, has understandably cast a long and stressful shadow over the working life of the victimized rep.

Following the failure to discipline our member due to procedural irregularities, University of Southampton management have chosen to continue with a second disciplinary against the same rep for activities which relate clearly and directly to their union Health and Safety brief. Again, UCU Officials are of a view that this is unlawful.  This second investigation is being carried out by an external investigator—presumably at some cost—which is outside of the procedures negotiated by UCU, and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.

SUCU condemns the victimisation of our rep in the strongest terms and has sought to resolve the issue through negotiations with the University over the past 9 months, but to no avail.

This branch calls on The University of Southampton to:

  1. Immediately cease the disciplinary action and investigation against our representative.
  2. Give assurance that University of Southampton will comply with the procedures agreed for disciplinary matters, which does not include the engagement of external parties to conduct investigations.
  3. Make a meaningful statement to all three campus trade unions that the university understands the seriousness of trade union representative victimization and provide assurances that it will not victimise trade union members or representatives.
  4. Apologise to our representative who has been subject to this victimisation.

Following the EGM on 26/2/21, this branch resolves to immediately:

  • Issue a public condemnation of the University of Southampton’s victimisation of our representative
  • Withdraw from the Partnership Agreement, originally ratified in September 2019: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/hr/services/tus/index.page
  • Call for an Emergency JJNC to discuss the case and its negative effects with regards to the lawful exercise of workplace rights by union members
  • Write to the General Secretary and President of UCU, notifying them of this victimisation case, and formally seeking national UCU support

If the University of Southampton does not carry out the actions set out in 1-4 above by  3rd April or they move to dismiss our rep, the branch executive will call a further EGM to discuss next steps, which could include the following proposals:

  • Make a public media statement about victimisation at the University
  • Write to elected representatives, such as local MP and City Councillors, to ask for their public support.
  • Enter a trade dispute with University of Southampton
  • Consider escalating collective action

Proposer Lucy Watson                  Seconder Claire Le Foll

Motion passed overwhelmingly.

Motion result:

Yes: 81%

No: 5%

Abstain: 13%

UCU’s concerns about equality during the current (3rd) lockdown – response from management

Posted on by
Reply

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

UCU concerns about long-term planning for teaching – correspondence with senior management

Posted on by
Reply

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.

UCU equality concerns during the 3rd lockdown – correspondence with management

Posted on by
Reply
Email response received from Mark Spearing, 14/1/21, to UCU equality concerns during the 3rd lockdown.  Our initial email outlining the key issues can be found in the thread below.

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.

————————————-

Email sent on 14 January 2021 to Mark Spearing, Executive Champion for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, cc’d to Richard Middleton, Chief Operating Officer.
Dear Mark 

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.