Loughborough UCU

Category: Newsletter

LUCUs regular members newsletter

  • Notice of Annual General Meeting

    Members are invited to attend the Annual General Meeting of the Loughborough University branch of UCU.

    The Meeting

    We plan for your AGM to be held in a hybrid format, both in person and online (via Microsoft Teams) on Wednesday 2nd July at 12:30pm. More information on this, including a link to join and an agenda, will be provided two weeks in advance of the meeting.

    Motions

    At this point we would like to request motions for the AGM. Please submit any motions to ucu@lboro.ac.uk by the deadline of 11th June at Midday. If you have an idea for a motion but need some help forming it as a motion, please get in touch and we can support you. 

    Nominations for Branch Officers and Committee Members

    Nominations for branch officers and committee members are now open. All nominations must be received by the deadline of 4th June at Midday. Ballots will then be sent out to all members for any contested positions in mid June. At the AGM we will announce the results of any contested nominations and a full list of officers and committee members for the next academic year. These officers and committee members will take up their new roles on 1st August.

    If you are interested in any of these roles, but would like to discuss them first, please do get in touch. We encourage any member that wishes to get more involved to do so.

    The nomination process this year will be via email. If you wish to be nominated, please send an email to ucu@lboro.ac.uk with the subject “AGM Nomination”. In the email, please state your name, membership number and the role(s) you wish to be nominated for. Please cc this email to the people who have agreed to propose and second your nomination. Your proposer and seconder will then need to forward that email along with their name, membership number and confirmation they are proposing or seconding your nomination to ucu@lboro.ac.uk. All 3 emails will need to be received by ucu@lboro.ac.uk by the 4th June midday deadline.

    Nominations are requested for: Chair, Vice Chair, Branch Secretary, Membership Secretary, Treasurer, Personal Casework Co-ordinator, Anti-Casualisation Officer, Equality Officer and Health, Safety & Environmental Officer.

    In addition to the above core positions, and if we have interest from members in filling these roles, we can also elect: Union Learning Rep (ULR), Recruitment Officer, Green Rep and Pension Rep. For more information on any of these roles please look at this section of the UCU website.

    There are also 11 positions on the branch committee for members who don’t wish to be an officer. Please indicate “Ordinary Member” on the nomination email if nominating for these non-officer roles. These positions are great for people new to being active in a Trade Union and who want to be more involved but may not yet have the confidence or experience to take on an officer role. These are also a great way for our departmental reps to be more involved in the wider branch should they wish to join the committee without taking on an officer role.

    Please remember you can be nominated for more than one officer role and/or to be an ordinary member of the committee. If positions are contested, they will be elected in the order listed (above) in this email. Where a member is unsuccessful for one position, they would then be eligible for their next nomination. Members can only be elected to one role. If successful they withdraw their nomination(s) for the other position(s).

    We also welcome self-nominations (no proposers/seconders required) for additional Equality Rep roles which will support the Equality Officer and each look after an area of Equality work i.e. BAME or LGBTQ for examples. These are not committee positions but if you are interested in one of these roles and being on the committee you could also be nominated to one of the 11 “Ordinary Committee Member” roles.

    As always, if there are any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us via ucu@lboro.ac.uk

  • Working at Loughborough

    Loughborough UCU is able to share some information about recent and current staff assessments of what it is like to work at the University. The material comes from two sources: firstly, exit surveys and interviews conducted with staff who left the University between May and October 2024 (these details have kindly been shared with us by management and HR); secondly, the open meeting that we ourselves organised on 28 February, following closure of the Cost Reduction Scheme.

    Exit Surveys and Interviews

    The first thing to say is that this data should be treated cautiously, given that only 12.7 percent of leavers during this six-month period completed the exit survey, with a tiny fraction of those – seven colleagues in all – opting to follow up with an exit interview. The response rate was comparable across job families. 

    Despite the relatively small evidence sample, however, some conclusions can still be drawn. The first is that, on the basis of the exit survey in particular, the University was judged a good place to work. None of the questions asked received a response that was les than 50% positive: the lowest number was 52.6% expressing satisfaction with the pay and benefits packages offered here, while the highest was 75.4% answering in the affirmative that ‘I was able to be my true self.’

    Most of the reasons given for leaving were benign or neutral: retirement or personal circumstances, for example, or the opportunities for career enhancement available elsewhere. Thirteen leavers, however, did cite issues with working relationships. In the discursive comments themselves, there were some echoes of LUCU themes: e.g. concerns over the level of training undertaken by middle and senior management, or dismay at a lack of ‘openness and compassion’ in some working relationships on campus. 

    Open Meeting of 28th February

    No workplace is static, of course, and it is significant that the exit interviews mentioned here took place before well before the impact of the Cost Reduction Scheme, launched last summer, could be assessed. Mindful that many staff members may be facing especially challenging workloads in the wake of this programme, LUCU convened the open meeting to capture opinion from right across campus.

    At the meeting, staff discussed issues such as:

    • insufficient communication about and preparation for the significant localised impact of exits 
    • a lack of meaningful review, redistribution or deletion of tasks associated following exits
    • leadership vacuums following the departure of line managers
    • School-wide workload allocation percentages being arbitrarily adjusted in WAMS, but not corresponding to actual changes
    • individuals taking reduced hours but with no commensurate reduction in workload
    • insufficient capacity to handle upcoming strategic change projects.

    Since the meeting, we have followed up on these concerns with the University’s senior management, and we will continue to address them. A key aim is to improve how the University monitors the effects of programmes such as the Cost Reduction Scheme which have profound effects upon remaining staff.

  • What is a Protected Conversation?

    Protected conversations, formally known as “pre-termination negotiations” under Section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, are confidential discussions between employers and employees about terminating employment, with a settlement offer often on the table. These discussions are “protected” because evidence of them cannot be used in an unfair dismissal claim. The purpose is to encourage open communication and explore potential solutions before formal termination. 

    As an employee, understanding this legal concept gives you important leverage. When your employer initiates a protected conversation, you gain the chance to negotiate favourable severance terms without going through lengthy performance management or redundancy processes. You can speak candidly about your expectations regarding notice periods, financial compensation, and references without these discussions prejudicing your position.

    Confidentiality is a crucial aspect of protected conversations. The content of these discussions is legally privileged, meaning neither party can disclose the details in subsequent tribunal proceedings for ordinary unfair dismissal claims. The protection only covers ordinary unfair dismissal claims—not discrimination or whistleblowing issues. The protection does not apply if the employer engages in threatening behaviour, applies undue pressure, or makes discriminatory comments, meaning that you would still be able to seek redress in an employment tribunal.

    Many employers will also request that employees maintain confidentiality about the content of these negotiations, particularly while still employed. There is no legal requirement for you to keep the existence of a protected conversation confidential. Settlement agreements resulting from these conversations do typically include confidentiality clauses restricting what you can share about the terms and circumstances of your departure.

    A protected conversation invitation doesn’t mean you need to make immediate decisions. You have the right to take time to consider what’s being proposed. While the conversation itself may feel pressured, you can request time to reflect on any offers or suggestions before responding.

    Confidentiality works in your favour too. The content of these discussions is legally privileged, meaning your employer cannot use what you say against you in an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. This creates space for you to express your thoughts and concerns more openly than you might in regular workplace discussions.

    You’re entitled to bring a companion (a colleague or union representative) to protected conversations. Having someone else present can help manage anxiety and ensure you don’t miss important details. Additionally, seeking legal advice before finalizing any agreement is not just advisable—it’s often a requirement for settlement agreements to be binding.

    Remember that you remain in control of your decision. Despite the formal-sounding name, a protected conversation is ultimately just that—a conversation. You’re not obligated to accept any offer made, and the protection extends to the discussions themselves, not the outcome.

  • Palestine Motion

    Following the motion passed at our autumn General Meeting we have continued to pursue the motion’s stated objectives.  In particular, we have continued to push the University to re-assess its projects with potential links to breaches of international law, war crimes and genocide against the Palestinians, as it did with links to Russia following its invasion of Ukraine.  This request was refused.  We asked as a general case what the bar would be for re-assessment where the ethical context had significantly changed since the project’s initial ethics approval.  The University responded, emphasising legality as the important factor, implying that our “Ethics approvals” process is in fact simply a “legality checking” process.  We will continue to challenge this, given the emphasis on ethical and moral implications embedded in our Ethical Policy Framework.

    LUCU are planning an open meeting on the history of the Middle East conflict to help everyone better understand the context that has led us to the current situation.

  • Promotions Changes for staff in RTE and SSA job families

    Promotion Appeals for RTE Staff

    Academics who apply for promotion can currently appeal a denial of support from their school.  The University intends instead to allow them to submit their application directly to the University-level committee without Dean’s support.  While we understand the desire to simplify the process and reduce bureaucracy, we believe this will create a two-tier system at the committee stage and have asked the Provost to consider how to avoid this.

    Promotion pathway for Specialist and Supporting Academics

    After some delay in this area, we expect HR to provide us with a first draft of policy and process documentation in May.  The University is planning to accept applications for SSA promotions in the summer for a one-off autumn promotions panel, after which the timing will be merged with promotions applications for RTE staff, with a panel in the spring.

  • Disability Passport

    The University has just released its Disability Passport scheme which aims to help individuals agree reasonable adjustments in the workplace, with a particular emphasis on adjustments following them around the organisation without having to be re-negotiated.  We welcome this step, but have highlighted that it does little or nothing to address our two main concerns around the implementation of reasonable adjustments:

    1. Individuals are often left to implement their own adjustments with no support, facing complex purchasing schemes for equipment or software with which they have no experience.  In some cases individuals have resorted to spending their own money on necessary purchases instead,
    2. It is unclear where in the University individuals and managers can go for specialist advice on implementing reasonable adjustments, with involvement split between HR and Occupational Health, and no one area taking primary responsibility.

    We will continue to work closely with the other campus unions and with the Disability and Inclusion Staff Network to have these concerns addressed.

  • Module Structure Changes

    There has been significant confusion and mixed messaging around what changes are and are not being made to the structuring of modules and programme parts, as part of broader changes to the structure of the academic year.  We have asked the University to provide more clarity to affected colleagues and to ensure that school management teams are fully informed and providing consistent information. 

    The key change being made, is that undergraduate students will be expected to take no more than 8 modules per part.  This has implications for the number of 10 and 20 credit modules, with an expected increase in 20 credit modules.  It is also anticipated that the total number of modules offered will reduce.

    Management have offered some welcome reassurance that changes should be used to rationalise and reduce workloads associated with administration, teaching and assessment, and not to side-line individuals or undermine job security.  We advise everyone to remain vigilant and to contact us if you feel changes are being implemented locally which are not in keeping with that sentiment.

  • LUCU Response to the Supreme Court Judgement on Sex in the Equality Act

    The UK Supreme Court recently ruled that the protected characteristic of Sex within the Equality Act 2010 refers to “biological” sex as recorded at birth, and not lived gender, even for individuals who have obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate.  This effectively excludes transgender individuals from protection against sexism they might suffer in their lived gender.  This interpretation generates several further problems in and of itself, not least because it over-simplifies the concept of sex, which in reality exists on a spectrum, and further erases the existence of people who are intersex, a community that is already severely marginalised in law.  The Good Law Project believe that the judgement, which included no testimony from trans people, violates the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and is asking the High Court for a declaration of incompatibility.  A similar legal campaign is what forced the UK government to implement the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and give legal recognition to the lived gender of trans individuals.  You can donate to the Good Law Project case here.

    Compounding the problems of this judgement, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has seen a wave of resignations and criticism over its increasingly transphobic positions in recent years, has released interim guidance which seeks to dramatically expand the implications of the judgement.  In documents released and interviews given by EHRC Chair Kishwer Falkner, proclamations have been made about excluding trans people from facilities such as toilets and changing rooms: not only those aligning with their lived gender, on the basis that they are a different sex from those the facility is for, but also those aligned with their “birth sex”, because their transition likely means that they do not present as the sex the facility is for. This risks locking transgender people out of all available facilities. Falkner has claimed that trans people should instead use their “power of advocacy” to ask for facilities including a “third space” for toilets – ironically a move which, even if it were feasible, would force all trans people to share facilities with people of a different sex.  She has also suggested that the judgement excludes trans athletes from participating in sports in alignment with their lived gender, a view echoed and welcomed by Loughborough University Chancellor Seb Coe. 

    It is critically important to emphasise that many of these, and other, supposed implications of the Supreme Court judgement circulating online and in the media are highly speculative at best.  The Good Law Project has produced its own response, giving clarity over what the judgement in fact does and does not mean, and urging organisations not to make hasty policy changes that further marginalise people who are trans and potentially violate their rights. 

    Loughborough UCU maintains unwavering support for the rights of women to safety and security in a world which is still deeply misogynistic and where violence against women and girls remain endemic.  We do not believe, however, that the long list of dangers to women includes trans rights.  Rather, the targeting of the trans community, under the guise of defending women, is a cynically-deployed divide and rule tactic which allows the real issues, such as partner violence, rape culture, sexual assault in public spaces, and structural misogyny, including in institutions such as the police, to go un-challenged.

    We are pleased that Loughborough University has issued guidance to staff and students offering reassurance that, at least for the time being, access to facilities has not changed. This is stark contrast to some other organisations which are unnecessarily implementing trans-exclusionary policy changes.

    We stand in solidarity with all women and with the trans community, natural allies in the fight for civil rights, equality, and an end to gender-based violence.

    LUCU Committee

  • Challenging Excessive Workload in Education – CPD Training

    In order to tackle rising workloads and the resulting work-related stress that many members of staff are experiencing, we need to take a collective approach to pushing back on excessive workload.

    Lboro UCU branch has organised an online CPD workshop, open to all LU staff, which will help staff with the tools to take a collective approach and push back on excessive workload. Masters and PhD students at LU are also welcome to attend the session.

    The CPD course will take place online on Wednesday 4th June from 12:30 – 2pm. Please come along and invite your colleagues (including those who may not be UCU members) to join us.

    The full aims of the interactive workshop are to:

    • identify why excessive workload is so damaging to education and staff
    • Identify collective responses to tackling excessive workloads
    • Develop an understanding of workload as a health and safety issue
    • Make members aware of the UCU campaign on workload and how they can contribute

    Sign up to the training here and please share this link with any other staff at Lboro who may be interested in coming along – https://cpd.web.ucu.org.uk/events/challenging-excessive-workload-in-education-loughborough/

  • Save Higher Education: Solidarity with Branches Fighting Cuts

    LUCU unequivocally stands in solidarity with UCU branches that are taking industrial action against the wave of cuts to higher education that is arising in light of the current economic climate. We believe that the local disputes, including Coventry University, Newcastle University, Brunel University, University of Kent Canterbury, and more, are of national significance. These cuts, regardless of form, will fundamentally damage both the sector’s reputation and the national labour market for decades to come.

    Our branch recently passed a motion acknowledging that these disputes stem from local financial mismanagement, alongside longstanding structural problems of a broken University funding model and hostile immigration environment. The strategy of campus expansion a revenue generator has proven limited. This ongoing financial crisis, of which the current cuts are merely the latest manifestation, result from decades of sector marketisation.

    We believe reimagining the sector’s future requires courage and creativity, looking at and learning from successful government-funded models such as in Germany. London Economics has also proposed viable alternatives to the current broken system, including a stepped repayment system and a graduate tax. Both options would remain fiscally neutral while improving progressivity, with the graduate tax socialising what is currently individualised debt.

    Decades of disinvestment in higher education has contributed to current stagflation conditions, themselves symptomatic of poor economic policy, planning, and resilience gaps. Higher education is a public good, not a commodity, and deserves to be valued accordingly.

    In our unanimously passed motion of March 12, 2025, we resolved to: 

    1. Act in solidarity with branches in dispute, including regularly amplifying branch-level calls for support on social media.
    2. Encourage members to sign petitions and donate to the UCU Fighting Fund, or the local funds of striking branches.
    3. Urge UCU to take a national approach to this national problem.

    To take a step today, please consider reading and signing this open letter to Bridget Phillipson, Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, and Sunderland MP. Written by Newcastle University UCU and Northern Region UCU, it urges recognition of higher education’s value and implementation of sustainable solutions.

  • Reduce Your UCU Subscription Cost by Claiming Tax Relief

    It’s that time of year again so here is your reminder that UCU members can claim tax relief on up to 67% of their total annual subscription, at the tax rate applicable to their earnings. You can claim this tax relief online, by post or via telephone. You have up to four years to claim for each tax year. All the information you require to make a claim is available on the UCU website, here.

  • Open Meeting with Jeevun Sandher, MP for Loughborough

    When: May 9th, 1-2pm.
    Where: U005 (Brockington Extension) & Online via MS Teams.

    Loughborough UCU will be hosting an open meeting with the MP for Loughborough, Shepshed, and the Villages, Dr. Jeevun Sandher, on May 9th from 1-2pm in U005 (Brockington Extension).

    The event will focus on “The Future of Higher Education Policy in the UK”. Dr. Sandher will speak for a few minutes on the topic, before we then open up the discussion to questions from the audience.

    Prior to his election to Parliament last year, Dr. Sandher previously worked as an economist researching inequality and poverty at King’s College London, and he has also served as a UCU trade union rep.

    As this is an open meeting, please do forward this invitation along to any colleagues you think may be interested in attending.

    Note that while online attendance will be possible, we would encourage in-person attendance where possible – and there should also be time to ask questions to Dr. Sandher informally before and after the event.   

    Please click here to download an appointment for your calendar or, if joining online, use this link to join the meeting via Teams: Join online