The below Response and Counter Proposal was sent on 14th July 2020 to the Deans, John Latham (VC), University Leadership Team and Keith Bissett (Chair of the Board of Governors).

UCU Coventry Response and Counter Proposal to Faculties Organisational Change Proposal

UCU is officially registering with the Deans, John Latham (VC) and the University Leadership Team of Coventry University its objections to the Change Proposal presented to faculty-based Associate Professors on 7th July 2020. The objections fall into two broad categories: the Announcement of the Proposal and the Substance of the Proposal. The objections to the substance equally constitute a Counter Proposal submitted by UCU. UCU reserves the right to add to the Counter Proposal and/or submit further Counter Proposals during the Consultation Period or Extended Consultation Period. 

Objections to the Announcement

• Due notice and timing
  1. The University did not send a Section 188 notice to UCU National /Regional Office at the proper time. It was delayed until 9th July 2020 after the launch of the consultation.
  2. The University informed the UCU Coventry branch that impacted staff would be informed by email of the proposal announcement on Friday 3rd July, but in fact staff were not informed until Monday 6th July.   The email was vaguely entitled “Meeting – important”, rather than “Organisational Change Proposal” or other meaningful subject, potentially leading some staff to delete it as spam.
  3. The proposal announcement was made on Tuesday 7th July, one day after the email was sent. One day’s notice is wholly inadequate for an announcement of such gravity, and this is evidence that the University is not consulting conscientiously as required by law.
  4. In recent weeks, staff have been continuously reminded by management and the People Team to take all remaining annual leave. Many staff will now interpret this apparent concern for their well-being by the University as a cynical attempt to ensure that as few staff as possible were at their desks when the Change Proposal was announced.

• Form of consultation
  1. Previous Organisational Change Proposals have been conducted in an open meeting. The fact of the COVID-19 lockdown does not release the University from that obligation; indeed, the recent consultation with Enterprise and Innovation colleagues was conducted as an open meeting on MS Teams.  In the present process, there was no interaction and no opportunity to ask questions. 
  2. The word “meeting” does not mean a piece to camera with senior staff reading from a script. No consultation meeting therefore took place on Tuesday 7th July; what did take place was rather an Information Giving Exercise. The consultation should therefore be relaunched once the proper form of meeting has been convened. In practice, this will give rise to an Extended Consultation Period.

• Conduct of 1:1 meetings
  1. Senior staff (Deans) have been scheduled to join 1:1 meetings, but they have not always arrived as scheduled. UCU understands that Deans have busy schedules, but not showing up for a scheduled meeting of such potential significance to an impacted colleague’s career indicates a lack of respect for that colleague, if not outright discourtesy.
  2. The People Team have typically handled the 1:1 meetings with tact and sympathy, as have the attending managers and deans, and this is welcomed.
  3. People Team have not always had video conferencing enabled. This is needed to ensure everyone can participate fully. Will the University please ensure that People Team colleagues are provided with the equipment and connectivity needed to perform their role, or alternatively allocate the tasks to People Team colleagues who already have functional webcams?

Objections to the Substance

• These objections constitute a part of UCU’s counter proposal, which may be elaborated in due course (after further discussions with members).
• The ACAS rules and the law require a justification for the proposed change to be set out. 
  1. Normally this would take the form of a business case, but no business case has been provided. It is merely stated that the University needs to find £40m in the current financial year. The measures in the proposal will clearly not generate the required amount. The employer is obliged to consult with the recognised trade unions as soon as it is contemplating job losses and the likely number of those job losses. Given the lack of rigour put forward by the proposals and the vast amount of money the employer has stated it wants to save it is clear the legal test has not been met.  Explanation is required of what is meant by “further radical changes” (page 3 of the consultation document).
  2. The number of proposed ring-fenced roles has been provided, but there is specified number of backfilled posts at the lower grade. It is also unclear whether or not the new roles have been properly job evaluated and where they will sit in the pay structure.
  3. It should be easy to calculate the number of backfilled roles, since it is already clear in most cases which of the impacted staff will be able to slot into the proposed new posts, and their teaching loads are known.
  4. It is most surprising that the number of potentially impacted staff is nowhere stated (other than in the Section 188 notice, which is not sent to staff). This is a significant oversight and the figure should be communicated to staff as a matter of urgency.
  5. In particular no benefits to the student experience are listed. In fact, the student experience will certainly be adversely impacted by the changes as the number of experienced teaching staff will be reduced.
  6. Slide 7 (Staff Meeting Presentation via MS Teams) states that, “The Principal Lecturer role has been in existence for many years with no review of the specific purpose of the role”. This should be addressed by conducting such a review in conjunction with UCU, rather than proposing the removal of the role. The employer is reminded that the PL role was established in the national contract in 1992 and was actually reviewed in 2007 during our National Framework Agreement discussions.
  7. Slide 7 further states that current PL posts are “without clearly defined duties and, in particular without leadership elements”. This is incorrect as these were drawn up in the national role profiles in 2007. Many PL roles in FBL are associated with particular areas of responsibility (such as Employability) and carry line management responsibilities. In FBL and in HLS these include the designation “Subject Lead” in some cases.  The fact that Subject Leads already exist is compelling evidence that the proposed changes are simply unnecessary.
  8. Slide 7 finally appears to charge PLs with neglecting their responsibilities, “focusing on areas of individual interest rather than School needs” and failing to “align with the generic responsibilities defined in the Associate Professor/Principal Lecturer job role”.  
  9. The University must provide clear evidence, in the form of PIP statistics, MEQ results, CORE/Clear Review data or other indicators, that PLs are less successful in meeting “School needs” or job role responsibilities than staff at other grades. 
  10. These comments above have not been substantiated and are extremely damaging to the achievements and professionalism of colleagues. Any performance issues should be dealt with on an individual basis via the University’s established procedures.  

• The provenance and authorship of the proposal documents are unclear.
  1. The proposals cannot have been raised jointly by the four Deans. The proposal is clearly the result of action by the ULT.
  2. The documents were physically prepared by a member of the People Team and a “graphic designer”.  It is unclear what if any input the Deans provided, but UCU suspects it was limited or absent.
  3. UCU enquiries suggest that Deans were unaware of the proposals until the last minute.
  4. The University needs to make known the authorship and origin of the proposal documents.  Which member of ULT was responsible for authorising the proposals?

• The 2004 National Framework Agreement (NFA) (between employers and the recognized TU’s) designates the academic role of Principal Lecturer Grade 9.
  1. It is not in the gift of the University to remove this academic role from the structure, and such removal would violate the terms of the NFA.
  2. At the time, the renaming was touted as a way to bring the University into line with international / North American job title conventions.  In the USA, though, there is a clear career pathway from Assistant Professor, via Associate Professor, to full Professor, for those who can evidence academic excellence. The proposals delete the Associate Professor (Academic) roles but not Associate Professor (Research).
  3. If the proposals are adopted, there will be no progression pathway for academic/scholarly excellence beyond Assistant Professor except by admission to a FRC or URC – but such admissions are based on a range of factors, of which academic excellence is only one.

• The University’s proposals remove senior academic roles from the structure. 
  1. Subject Lead is presented as a mainly administrative role, with teaching and research/scholarship mentioned seemingly as an afterthought in the Job Description. How does the university envisage this work being done without adversely affecting our member’s workloads? It also raises the question whether or not the university proposes to increase reliance on a casualised workforce in the future or there are even further plans to grow the number of subsidiaries with worse terms and conditions?
  2. The title “Subject Lead” does not have the gravitas of a senior academic role and is more commonly associated with a role in primary or secondary education. Furthermore, the title has no currency internationally or indeed at other UK institutions, so it will be difficult for external collaborators to understand the postholder’s role.  The University must retain the original title of Associate Professor.
  3. Tasks such as workload management and timetabling are administrative in nature and could readily be undertaken by Registry colleagues.
  4. In the absence of any progression opportunities to senior academic roles that do not involve administrative duties, junior academics with promising career trajectories will no longer wish to join the University. Moreover, given the poor pay and grading structures at Coventry University compared to many others, the retention of existing staff could prove problematic.

• As noted above, it is surprising that the University has not thought through the “anticipated” (Slide 12) numbers of Grade 8 posts available.
  1. There is a clear risk that PL colleagues moved to Grade 8 roles may end up with similar or identical duties at lower pay which is clearly unacceptable.  UCU seeks an assurance from the University that this will not be allowed to happen.
  2. It has been indicated that the University would take a sympathetic view to any staff offered a Grade 8 post, but who opt instead for redundancy. UCU requests clarification that redeployment to Grade 8 roles will be optional, and that staff who prefer not to accept such roles will receive redundancy pay.

• The proposals appear not to meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.
  1. Most PLs are in their 50s or 60s. The proposals therefore directly discriminate against staff in that age group.
  2. The Subject Lead posts appear to be 1.0 FTE, whilst many current PLs work part-time. A significantly higher proportion of part-time colleagues at risk (and in the general population) are women. The proposals therefore indirectly discriminate against female staff. How does this fit with the University’s stated intention of closing its gender pay gap?
  3. UCU demands the University undertake an independent Equality Impact Assessment and present the findings to staff at risk.

• The proposals do not raise the possibility of seeking voluntary redundancies.
  1. UCU urges the University to replace its proposed scheme with an application scheme for statutory voluntary redundancies on enhanced terms.
  2. The University should then cancel the proposed mandatory redundancy arrangements.

• The University has neglected its duty of care to staff in these proposals.
  1. It has shown its apparent contempt for loyal and largely long-serving members of the Coventry family.
  2. The fact that many of these staff will not be able to find jobs elsewhere, and that their incomes and pensions will be radically impacted by the proposals appears to be of no consequence to the University.
  3. It is beyond doubt that amongst this large group of staff there will be individuals whose physical and/or mental health will suffer as a direct consequence of the proposals, if adopted.
• The University has neglected the impact on students.
  1. As noted above, it is a consequence of the proposals that the number of experienced teaching staff in the University will be reduced.
  2. If not redeployed, dismissals will be due to take place in Week 8 of Semester 1. No thought appears to have been given as to who will teach out the semester, or the impact on the student experience given a sudden change for the later part of Semester 1.
  3. Adverse student impact represents significant potential reputational damage to the University. UCU will not hesitate to raise these issues with the student unions and the press if necessary.
• UCU now requests the following from the University.
  1. The consultation period is extended such that at the very least that no dismissals take place until after the January marking period, so teaching and feedback can be concluded.
  2. Reconsider the statutory redundancy proposals, and substitute a voluntary redundancy scheme.
  3. Address the issues raised in this letter, point by point, and provide its response within two working days – Thursday 16^th July 2020 9am.