Branch News

Bullying

Posted on by uea

From HSE website:

Advice for organisations
What should we be doing as an organisation to tackle bullying and harassment?

Promote a culture where bullying and harassment is not tolerated

This can include:

accept that bullying can occur in any organisation
understand what bullying and harassment are and what the consequences can be
consult and discuss with your staff
devise a policy and ensure your managers and harassment advisors are trained to implement it
promote the policy within the organisation and enforce against the policy

Be aware of the organisational factors that are associated with bullying, and take steps to address them

What is workplace bullying?

Bullying at work can take many forms. It can involve:

ignoring or excluding someone
spreading malicious rumours or gossip
humiliating someone in public
giving someone unachievable or meaningless tasks
constantly undervaluing someone’s work performance

There is no legal definition of workplace bullying. ‘Bullies’ are often – but not always – more senior than the person they are bullying. ‘Bullies’ sometimes target groups as well as individuals.

Responsibility for dealing with bullying and harassment rests with the organisation, and prevention strategies must be organisation-wide. Many organisations adopt a zero tolerance approach. Some factors associated with bullying include:
perceived imbalance of power; few consequences perceived by perpetrator
internal competition; reward systems focused solely on outputs
organisational change

As an organisation, to tackle these factors, you might, for example:

  • encourage a more collaborative, less autocratic management style in your managers
  • encourage staff to attend diversity training
  • publicise your bullying and harassment policy, and explaining the consequences of bullying within the organisation
  • encourage control and choice for staff, as far as possible
  • explore levels of competition between individuals and teams
  • consider alternative incentives to achieving high performance
  • ensure you are confident and comfortable in managing poor performance
  • consult staff regularly and keep them informed during times of change
  • ensure your managers have sufficient support to help them implement the policy

Academic freedom

Posted on by uea

STATUTE 7: JOB SECURITY AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

UCU is currently in discussions with the University about changes to Statute 7. Statute 7 is the part of the university’s rules which covers the processes around dismissal and redundancy, as well as grievance procedures.
The key principle of the present Statute is ‘to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges’.

This statement, protecting academic freedom, will be at the heart of any up-dated version of Statute 7, and UCU’s aim is to ensure that this important principle is adequately supported by detailed practical provisions that protect the interests of our members. We are still some way off a consensus between the sets of negotiators, but once we reach such a position we will take the resulting proposals to members, for consultation and then to be put to a vote before the University takes the changes to the Privy Council for their approval.
It is timely to consider what we all mean by academic freedom, in research and in teaching and its vital place at the heart and soul of the University.

Committee member David Mead had a letter in the THE this week: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/letters/the-real-threats-to-freedom/2019186.article

Get in touch with your thoughts and comments.

 

Pension changes

Posted on by uea

Last week we heard that UCU members had voted to accept the proposed reforms put to them following negotiations with UUK, who put in an improved offer after the ASOS of November 2014.

The offer is far from ideal, notably in its introduction of an element of Defined Contributions for earnings above £55,000. This shifts the risk from the employers to employees.

This brings Higher Education pensions closer towards the schemes that private companies have. But the professionals who work in universities don’t get comparable pay to those in private companies – the pension has always been cited as a benefit that compensates for this. But let’s not forget: the VC said in his first interview with the student newspaper Concrete, he is the ‘CEO’ of a multi-million business. We must therefore be aware that on the horizon in this pensions dispute is the fate of universities as in some way ‘public’ institutions, and we must be vigilant to protect their commitment to the public good in the future. USS reform, like the hike in undergraduate fees, is a glimpse of things to come.

 

This aside, we recognise that there were improvements made to the original proposal as a direct result of UCU’s action:

1/75 is an improved accrual rate

The cap for earnings to still receive defined benefits was raised from £40k to £55K and it has been confirmed that this will be uprated in line with inflation (CPI rather than RPI)

The employers agreed to increase their contributions to 18% and to maintain this for 5 years.

 

It remains disappointing that the employers were determined to introduce a defined contribution element to pensions, but it seems that the ballot of acceptance was necessary as negotiations were unlikely to achieve a reversal of this. The negotiating team stated that in their view substantial industrial action would be needed to bring about any improvements. Some within the union feel that further industrial action could have brought more concessions.

Members of staff, including representatives from the UCU committee, attended the pension event that the university organised on February 3, and put questions to Mercers, the actuaries who are acting on behalf of UUK. There was a notable lack of detail on elements such as AVCs, the costs of running a hybrid scheme, and the costs and complexity of the defined contribution pot, which was far from reassuring.

 

What’s next?

USS will hold a 60 day consultation, expected to take place mid-March – mid-April. This will be for all USS pension members – and is a further opportunity to ask for changes.

UCU will continue to call for the valuation methodology to be changed.

UCU will continue to call on USS trustees to explain their actions

 

Motion passed at UCU@UEA Emergency General Meeting 19.11.14

Posted on by uea

UCU at UEA EGM 19/11/14 Resolution

 

UEA UCU notes that the senior management team’s response to the assessment boycott called for 6th November and continuing has been to threaten to deduct 100% pay on grounds that it does not accept partial performance of contracts.

 

We note too, the letter signed by over 100 academics – both UCU members and not – condemning the university’s stance and we note the letter published in this week’s Times Higher Education in a similar vein, signed by thirty or so academics at other universities but who have contact or collaborations with colleagues at UEA.

 

This union believes the University’s response to be disproportionate and aggressive, and likely both to damage relationships with staff (in the long and short term) and to harm recruitment. It is a clear rejection of the collaborative “do different” ideals on which UEA was founded 50 years ago. It fails both to respect the sincerely held views of staff about the merits of the dispute and the genuine worries staff have for the long term viability of their own pensions, and to take any account of the hard work above and beyond that all colleagues provide – to students, to other staff. Last, it is incredibly poor and short sighted industrial relations practice; the fact that deducting 100% pay might be lawful – which this union does not accept – does not mean that employers should deduct the totality of wages. The Senior Management Team says that it is “with profound regret that we find ourselves in a situation where we have to take that stance” but has never explained why it has to. The vast majority of other universities are deducting a much smaller proportion.

 

We also note that the University has accepted uncritically the explanations, figures and projections provided by USS and the Employers’ Pension Forum when there is a good deal of counter-evidence to the contrary on both the size of the deficit and how best to tackle it from reputable economists and statisticians. There is not a “one-size” fits all approach from university employers – several pre-1992 Russell Group institutions, namely Warwick, Oxford, Cambridge have taken stances significantly at odds with taken by UEA.

 

This union calls for the University of East Anglia to:

  1. Pay back any pay deducted since 6th November 2014;
  2. Show a commitment to work with the union to establish a more balanced policy on deductions for industrial action short of a strike, that better takes account of not only the university’s legitimate interests, but the interests of its staff to take lawful action without punitive disproportionate threat of penalty;
  3. Show a commitment from the senior management team that they are making representations to the employers’ national negotiators that they want them to engage in a constructive dialogue in good faith with the UCU national negotiators based around all sets of figures, data and projections;
  4. Open up communications with its own staff – UCU members and non-members alike – affected by the proposed changes to understand the views and to investigate these issues further at local level.

 

If the senior management does not withdraw its threat to deduct 100% of pay of anyone taking part in action short of a strike in this current dispute, this union will, as a first step, call on UCU nationally to authorise the grey-listing of UEA. If the senior management carries out its threat to victimise people taking part in action short of a strike and withholds their pay indefinitely, this union will regard this as an escalation on the part of management and will respond proportionately. Our responses may include, but may not be limited to, withdrawal of any co-operation not specified in our contracts, and/or calling on UCU nationally to authorise strike action.