7th July 2020: Consultation process for Principle Lecturers/Associate Professors (Grade 9) in the form of “information giving” by Coventry University began.

14th July 2020: UCU sent a Response and Counter Proposal to the all Deans of the Faculties, John Latham (VC),  Magi Hoppitt (CPO) and Keith Bissett (Chair of Board of Governors). UCU requested a response by 16th July 9am.

14th July 2020:  Consultation process for the Faculty Research Centre Built Natural Environment also initiated with a proposal from Coventry University to close the research centre (30 day consultation process).

15th July 2020:  Magi Hoppitt (CPO) responded with the following:

“On behalf of the University, and those to whom your email is addressed, I acknowledge receipt of your response and counter proposal to the Faculties Change Proposal received yesterday, 14^th July.  I note your request for a response by tomorrow morning and confirm that I will come back to you as soon as possible.”

19th July 2020: Further response was received from Magi Hoppitt (CPO) which failed to address our concerns.

“Dear UCU

Further to your letter dated 14^th July 2020; firstly, I want to clarify that the University formally commenced a consultation process with a group of academic staff and its recognised trade unions on 7^thJuly 2020.  I am concerned to note that you do not accept this to be the case.  The process followed was in line with the University’s Organisational Change Policy and Procedure, a copy of which was made available to your representatives and our staff via Office 365 OneDrive.  To be clear, the policy has been in existence for many years, it was developed and agreed with our recognised trade unions and has been followed in the numerous change processes that have taken place since its development.

You refer to Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act and the requirement for an employer to complete and provide formal notice of intended redundancies, and your assessment that this was delayed.  As I am sure you are aware, the requirement is to notify the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and recognised trade unions within 30 days of the first redundancy taking place where 20-99 redundancies are intended or 45 days for more than 100 redundancies.  If you read our policy, and indeed the consultation document, you will see that we do not make any decisions on redundancies until the consultation process has concluded and then, any staff formally placed at risk of redundancy are given 3 months’ notice of that fact – this is at least 45 days in excess of the legal requirement and therefore I do not accept that the University has failed to follow its legal obligations.  Indeed, we provided our trade unions with a copy of the HR1 form on the 9th July 2020 at least 12 weeks before we were legally required to do so.

With regard to the actual process being followed; this is largely in line with normal practice, whereby management met with the trade unions in advance of meeting with the staff affected.  This first meeting provided ample opportunity for discussion and questions from the trade unions.  I acknowledge that, due to the number of colleagues involved and the on-line approach taken as a result of the pandemic there was not an opportunity for staff to ask questions immediately after the presentation by management.  However, experience suggests that under normal circumstances, when we meet in person, staff tend to ask very few questions, and those asked are generally about process and so, in anticipation of this, a number of FAQs were also made available for staff on the OneDrive. I therefore do not accept that this modified approach, adopted as a result of the challenges presented by the pandemic, has led to colleagues being disadvantaged. We have a 45-day consultation period (15 days more than our legal obligation given the number of anticipated redundancies) during which there is time for staff to raise questions though the central in-box or directly via 1-1 meetings, their trade union representatives or further small group meetings, which can be arranged as required.  Management have also made it clear that they will be available to meet with the trade unions again if this is required.

As you are aware, and notwithstanding we anticipate less than 50 staff ultimately being placed at risk of redundancy, 100 staff are potentially affected by this change, all of whom have the right under our policy to meet with a member of management and HR to talk about the proposal, consider what it means for them personally and to provide feedback on the proposals.  It is unreasonable to assume that this can be done by just the 4 Academic Deans.  Each faculty has a senior management team, all of whom understand what the proposal is seeking to achieve, and are perfectly capable of talking to affected staff about this and the impact for them. However, to be clear, the Academic Deans are fully committed to the proposed way forward and the benefits that will be realised by this change in leadership structure.

The business case for change, which includes a range of drivers, the most recent of which is COVID-19, is set out the proposal document.  This was prepared by the Academic Deans and has the full support of the University Leadership Team.

With regard to the other aspects of you letter, which are effectively about the substance of the proposed change, these will be picked up, in the normal way, through the consultation process.“

24th July 2020: UCU responded to points in the 19th July response on 24th July to Magi Hoppitt (CPO) and stated:

“Dear Magi,

Re: Faculties Organisational Change Proposal

Thank you for your response dated 19^th July to the UCU response dated 14^th July regarding the proposed redundancies arising from the faculty restructuring exercise.

Unfortunately, your reply failed to address the majority of the detailed comments and questioning raised in the UCU letter and we draw these to your attention once again as our members rightly, have the expectation that management can clarify and justify their concerns.

Objections to the Announcement

2.b – You have acknowledged that the large number of colleagues involved in consultation/information giving, coupled with an online format resulted in no opportunity for staff to ask questions following the presentation. We find it astonishing that you then seek to justify this by offering unsubstantiated assertions that staff would not have asked questions anyway and attempt to ameliorate the lack of proper consultation with a series of FAQ’s that weren’t even posed by our members. This seems nothing short of a “cut and paste” exercise from prior unrelated consultations.  Taking this into account UCU requested that the minimum 45 day consultation period be extended until at least January 2021 as set out in 11.a of our letter. We have not received a response to this request and would appreciate this being addressed without delay so that we can consult with members when they are returned from annual leave.

3.c – Notwithstanding that the large number of individual consultation meetings cannot be undertaken by only 4 deans, you have not addressed the concerns raised about the technology available to those members of management and People who do undertake these meetings.

Objections to the Substance

2.a – No explanation of what “further radical changes” are has been provided and we refer you back to our comment about the obligation to consult when proposals are at a formative stage and not when decisions have already been made.

2.b –No explanation about whether or not the new roles have been adequately job evaluated have been provided. If so, what are the score ranges, where do they sit in the pay structure and who was involved in the JE exercise?

2.d – There is no response as to whether staff have now been informed directly of the number and scope of proposed redundancies.

2.f,g  and 4– No  response has been supplied which comments on the relationship between the new proposals, the national post-92 contract and the National Framework Agreement and how these fit with the normal expectations of career progression.

2.h – No data has been forthcoming as requested which outlines the assertion that PL’s are neglecting their responsibilities.

5.a – There has been no explanation forthcoming about how workloads will be managed in the wake of the proposals. Moreover, there is no response to the question about whether or not management is harbouring intentions to swell its number of subsidiary companies.

6.a – There have been no reassurances given to the concerns raised about current PL staff being redeployed to grade 8 posts on lower salaries but still carrying out substantively the same work. 

6.b – No response has been given as to whether or not PL staff choosing not to redeploy to grade 8 roles if offered will have the option of VR.

7.b – Your letter of reply fails to address the specific point about how the proposals impact the existing gender pay gap and what plans will be put in place to address this.

7.c –No response has been forthcoming about the UCU calls for an independent Equality Impact Assessment. We made a further call for the findings to be made available to staff and unions.

8.a – There has been no response on the UCU calls to implement a voluntary severance scheme as an alternative to compulsory redundancies and made available to all staff at risk.

In order to move forward with meaningful consultation UCU needs written responses to the queries raised in our letter of 14^th July by 29th July. We also request that a series of meetings is set up which will provide a forum in which meaningful consultation can take place by 3rd September. 

UCU Committee“