General Meeting – 10th April 2025

Amendments to Congress Motions Received

Amendment to HE Sector Conference Motion 14

Motions Submitted

Amendments to Congress Motions

Amendment to HE Sector Conference Motion 14

Insert before Resolves a, “a. To open a trades dispute with UCEA over pay and/or a serial dispute with employers over no compulsory redundancies;”.

Renumber Resolves, and amend Resolves b (previously a) to insert “As part of either or both disputes, to” at the start of that point (replacing ‘To’).

The amended motion would read

HE14   Composite: Trade union dispute with Secretary of State for Education over funding University of Essex, Goldsmiths University of London, Queen Mary University of London  

Sector conference notes:  

  1. UK Higher Education is in crisis and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost;  
  2. UCU Northern Region call for urgent action on sector funding, and UCU commitment to ‘defending jobs, free education’;  
  3. The funding model for HE in England is determined by the Secretary of State for Education (Higher Education and Research Act 2017);  
  4. Recent legal advice commissioned by UCU members shows the viability of a trade dispute with the Secretary of State over the funding of HE.

Sector conference resolves: 

  1. To open a trades dispute with UCEA over pay and/or a serial dispute with employers over no compulsory redundancies;
  2. As part of either or both disputes, to explore urgently opening a trade dispute with the Secretary of State for Education over HE funding;  
  3. To coordinate with other HE unions and students to build wide support for the dispute;  
  4. To campaign to build awareness and support for the dispute, highlighting the direct link between sector funding, employment conditions and student experience.  

The original motion (as composited by CBC) reads:

HE14   Composite: Trade union dispute with Secretary of State for Education over funding University of Essex, Goldsmiths University of London, Queen Mary University of London  

Sector conference notes:  

  1. UK Higher Education is in crisis and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost;  
  2. UCU Northern Region call for urgent action on sector funding, and UCU commitment to ‘defending jobs, free education’;  
  3. The funding model for HE in England is determined by the Secretary of State for Education (Higher Education and Research Act 2017);  
  4. Recent legal advice commissioned by UCU members shows the viability of a trade dispute with the Secretary of State over the funding of HE.

Sector conference resolves: 

  1. To explore urgently opening a trade dispute with the Secretary of State for Education over HE funding;  
  2. To coordinate with other HE unions and students to build wide support for the dispute;  
  3. To campaign to build awareness and support for the dispute, highlighting the direct link between sector funding, employment conditions and student experience.  

https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/14984/UCU2163/pdf/UCU2163_-_CBC_report.pdf

Motions

Motion 1: Support a Trade Dispute with the Secretary of State for Education over Funding

This branch notes:

  • UK Higher Education is in crisis and tens of thousands of jobs have been lost
  • UCU Northern Region call for urgent action on sector funding, and UCU commitment to ‘defending jobs, free education’
  • The funding model for HE is determined by the Secretary of State for Education (Higher Education and Research Act 2017)
  • Recent legal advice commissioned by UCU members shows the viability of a trade dispute with the Secretary of State over the funding of HE
  • QMUL UCU and Goldsmiths UCU have passed motions for UCU HE Sector Conference at Congress in May, calling for our union to open a trade dispute with the Secretary of State for Education over HE funding

This branch believes that:

  • The crisis in UK HE can only be tackled by challenging the current funding model
  • An increase in student fees leverages yet more student debt to fund universities, which does not resolve the problem
  • Increases to the block grant are the only way to secure the future of Higher Education in the UK, through publicly funding universities

This branch resolves to:

  1. ​As a step toward opening a dispute with the Secretary of State over funding in HE, ask UCU to open a trades dispute with UCEA over no compulsory redundancies, workload, equalities and casualisation (in addition to the current dispute over pay)
  2. Support the Congress motion submitted by QMUL UCU and Goldsmiths UCU
  3. Co-host the cross-branch online meeting on 10 April 2025 at 6pm in support of a trade dispute with the Secretary of State for Education over the current funding model
  4. Sign a cross-branch open letter in support of this trade dispute, to be sent to UCU’s General Secretary and HEC members
  5. Mandate its HE Sector Conference (Congress) delegates to vote in support of this motion, so that it becomes UCU policy
Motion 2: MyAppraisal is not fit-for-purpose: Revise and Resubmit

UCL UCU notes:

  1. MyAppraisal is a new online scheme, launched for all UCL staff in January 2025, on Thrive, yet another new UCL online platform.
  2. This scheme was produced without any consultation with any campus unions.
  3. The webpage for this new scheme (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/oct/appraisals-ucl-are-evolving, dated 29 Oct 2024) (Appendix 1) states that it is based on staff feedback, but provides no information on who those staff were, or how feedback was obtained.
  4. In late January Organisational Development (OD) emailed research staff to offer them the possibility of pilot-testing a different appraisal system, designed specifically for researchers, rather than completing MyAppraisal (Appendix 2).
  5. Online training for MyAppraisal has been provided.

UCL UCU believes:

  1. MyAppraisal should not have been launched as it has been, because that has happened without any union consultation or agreement, and it is deeply flawed and not fit-for-purpose. (Appendix 3 lists some examples of flaws.)
  2. It is not clear whether MyAppraisal is optional or required. The launch webpage (Appendix 1) uses the phrase “will be available” and the OD email (Appendix 2) states “will be invited to use”, but staff in some parts of UCL have already been told to use it.
  3. Despite claims that this new scheme supports staff, appearance and experience are the opposite. This new scheme profoundly alters the character of appraisals, from supporting staff development to capability/performance reviews, with appraisals themselves performance targets, with progress to some salary scale points subject to their completion (Appendix 4).
  4. The online training is inadequate. For example, the “Setting objectives” module does not provide all the necessary information, and links seeking more information ultimately return to that module.

UCL UCU resolves to:

  1. Call on UCL to:
    1. Reaffirm the existing policy, agreed with campus unions, that appraisals are a developmental process, not performance management nor performance reviews
    2. Consult adequately with all campus unions, and discuss, negotiate, and agree, before introducing any new appraisal scheme
    3. Pending consultation with unions regarding MyAppraisal, halt any rollout of this scheme, or its replacement of any pre-existing appraisal systems in any part of UCL
    4. Provide information regarding the staff feedback underpinning MyAppraisal
    5. Review, revise, and improve MyAppraisal training before launching any revised version of this system that is agreed
  2. Request information from OD on their reasons for proposing a different appraisal scheme for research staff.
  3. Call on members who have not yet participated in this new scheme to boycott it, and instead complete appraisal documentation as used previously, and send to their appraisers, with an explanation.
  4. Call on members who have already participated in this scheme, and feel able to do so, to pause the process if possible, and/or inform their appraisers of the union’s position on this.

List of appendices (with Appendix 3 in full)

Appendix 1. MyAppraisal launch webpage (29 Oct 2024)

Appendix 2. OD email (28 Jan 2025) inviting research staff to pilot an alternative appraisal system

Appendix 3. Examples of some flaws with MyAppraisal:

  1. It does not adhere to the existing and longstanding agreement with campus unions to clearly distinguish between performance review and appraisal.
  2. It is not a neutral tool; its effectiveness for adequately supporting appraisees’ personal development is strongly dependent on appraisers’ personal qualities, characteristics, and views.
  3. It is not self-directed, but has a rigid, pre-determined structure.
  4. It is far from user-friendly, and is extremely difficult to navigate, e.g. if the appraisee wishes to discuss the appraiser’s comments, which are written online after the appraisal, the appraisee has to visit the FAQs and raise a request to support services via another online tool within 7 days, or else the form is automatically forwarded to the “2nd line appraiser”.
  5. The checklists for development and support needs at the end of the previous appraisal form – for issues such as reasonable adjustments, wellbeing, and promotion – have been removed.
  6. The “2nd line appraiser” can comment on the appraisal, without having been present, at any time for up to six months after it has taken place.
  7. Its Objectives have to be SMART, with percentage completion rates. These are thus not development goals, but rather performance targets, which could enable unsupportive behaviour, if not bullying, from managers.
  8. It appears that, even prior to its launch, OD were concerned that this new scheme was not applicable to some staff groups, specifically research staff.

Appendix 4: Update on UCL pay and reward strategy (3 April 2025)