With ballots about to be launched at both national and local level, and with the very real likelihood that members will need support as we get into the detail of Transformational Change, it is vital that all each member ensures that their membership is up to date and that they are paying the correct subscription.

In preparation, UCU will conduct an annual membership checks in order to meet its legal requirements. You will shortly receive an email from UCU head office checking whether the data held is accurate. This will include your membership number, workplace and branch.

If you want to check or update your membership details in advance, please visit My UCU.

If you have multiple employers in sectors represented by UCU, please register each one as an ‘additional employment’. This will link all your eligible employments to a single membership number, allow secondary branches to represent you, and eliminate duplicate subscriptions.

If you need some support when called into a consultative meeting please click on this link and complete the online form.

Do not contact individual committee members to request assistance.

Please note that this service is ONLY available to members of UCU.

Following a request made by a member to HR,and having been invited to a meeting as they were in scope of Phase 1 of Transformational Change, we can share the following advice:

“This is a formal meeting to discuss the Academic Transformational
Change Proposal and how the University considers your post to be
directly impacted by the proposal. The structure of the 45-minute
individual consultation is as follows:

• The reason why your post is ‘at risk’ of redundancy.
• Answering any questions you might have.
• Discussing alternatives, you may wish the University to consider, to
  mitigate potential redundancy.
• Discussing any suitable/reasonable support options.
  

Notes will be taken during the meeting. A copy will be sent after the
meeting for your records.”

The Vice President (Acting) gave a presentation in response to recent presentations to staff made by management to outline Phase 1 of the Transformational Change programme.

You can see the slides of that meeting by clicking on this link.

Following the presentation questions were invited from the floor. A brief summary of those questions and the answers given will appear shortly.

Please note that Chatham House Rules apply to all meetings and as such no comments made should be attributed to colleagues if repeated outside of the meeting.

Comments made by members

• Thanks were expressed for the way in which the VP (acting) held the presentation team to account and challenged inaccuracies in the presentation made by management to launch Phase 1 of Transformational Change.
• It seems the Senate did not approve the numerical changes, but just to new schools and faculty names?
• The proposal is ruinous and does not address the issues: ie falling student numbers and lack of research grant income. We should note that is the low tariff institutes that are largely failing and that is the direction that management has led us to. What we need is addressing the realm problems; ie a management led decline in reputation, decline in student numbers due largely to poor marketing and weak research income for a variety of management meant reasons. The structure will prevent recruitment of any talent with a further decline. So, what is to be done -this will send us into an even deeper spiral of decline-just as happened in places such as Coventry.
• We should be happy to see the unprecedented resignation of the CFO and the Secretary. Is it not true that the whole executive is jointly and severally responsible and the whole executive should resign given the ruinous state they have led us to. I think we need a vote of censorship before strike tbh. Surely the executive has shown they are not fit to lead?
• Can we suggest we do not trust the current mgmt and take it over with a democratic committee?
• All grades transparent except for that of the Dean
• One member commented that grades and cost reduction table is not making sense
• Are grades not transparent over a certain level? If not, why not?
• Has Bradford pathway been withdrawn? So short sighted as this will impact what REF29 looks like too
• Bradford academic was based on equity issues, if they get rid of this they won’t (eg) get Athena Swann
• I have asked what they will do about the Gender disparity they expect at senior level since they no longer think there will be enough women !
• The EDI expectation also presents a very poor picture in change this mean we can not say we are a leader in the field of EDI
• 29 professors in total in the entire university? and 50 plus grade 11 snr admins? [29 in addition to those in the leadership roles (I think!?)]
• Does the 29 correlate almost to subject areas? Were the 34 for them? Those that haven’t a named research theme?
• if we move to a statutory ballot and got a sufficient turn out when might we propose strike action?
• Are we in managed decline (not sure its managed tbh)?
• It is time to stop tweaking and go for radical overhaul of governance
• First step has to be the resignation of the whole executive-we cannot move forward while the executive are in post. The problem is we are in this process now -ie next week.
• I agree about our model! I am happy to propose, support and/or volunteer for a Democratic Leading Office to represent us for the Democratic and Sustainable University of Bradford and our academic future. I would like to request the removal of the current VC Office and calculate the savings, and produce the transition towards The University of Bradford.
• Currently SoM has a Dean of School – due to accreditations? [The new head is called Director, and is out of scope]. School of Management being effectively out of scope of this restructure means they will keep duplicating all their extra management posts over whichever faculty/school they end up in. so no savings and harder cuts in the rest of their faculty
• the current model,of the past 2 cuts, is a failure. Why would we want to continue it?
• Importantly, look any where Coventry was led to. Is it reasonable to keep going down the route of ruining institutions.
• Vision appears to be to reduce social sciences to teaching-only
• We should push for more information on the vision – student don’t associate with faculties

The TC Phase 1 failed to clarify several key points: 

• What roles are figures in slides 7 & 8?
• What are the FTE numbers about?
• How many Professorial G11+ and Senior Admin G11+ are included? [Clarification on this point: this is only staff in faculties] 

The presentation fails to provide this detail.

Q&A’s from the floor

Q– Is the VR offer same as earlier in the year?

A – Yes it is.

Q – Is the 6-month cap applying to VR?

A – Yes, based on your length of service and salary.

Q – Who has responsibility for these changes?

A – Technically this is Rob James as the sponsor, but all the SMT are complicit.

Q – It appears that ‘subject leads’ are in effect Heads of School?

A – Yes it appears so but we are not clear on the role of Subject Lead. (comment from a member – We have equivalent of subject leads in FoHS who are not programme leads but manage programmes and staff. I was hopeful this might be the new model!)

Q – Are they getting rid of G10 if not a subject lead?

A – If similar logic is being applied in Ph 2 as in Ph 1, then we fear that will be the case, and that G9 will be the highest grade for teaching/research roles.

Q – What about future academic promotions scheme? Is the Bradford Academic framework to go?

A – We believe that the Bradford Academic framework is not liked by the current senior team. Clearly the move to permanent leadership appointments means that there is no scope for advancement unless a post becomes vacant – a ‘one in/one out’ arrangement that will hamper progression.

Q – Who and how takes responsibility of these changes [to faculties]?

A – Technically Rob James but in the name of the SMT.

Q – Why these do not apply to all roles, including top 13+ named ones?

Q – was the closure of subject areas taken to Senate?

A – No, just the change of faculty structure

A well attended online meeting heard from the acting VP who updated members on the branches current knowledge regarding the next phase of Transformational Change. Members also heard from regional UCU representative Julie Kelley.

The primary purpose of the meeting was to seek a mandate from members to issue a failure to agree as the first stage of a process of escalation and in the face of swingeing cuts that have the potential to affect all staff at all levels.

You can see the presentation here

Jus one motion was considered by members:

UCU UoB LA endorses the branch committee to

• Lodge a Failure to Agree
• Move to a Consultative Ballot

The motion was CARRIED with no votes against or abstentions.

Following the meeting the branch issued fromal notification of Failure to Agree to the management in accordance with the terms of our recognition agreement, calling upon management to enter into talks aimed at resolving matters.

A further General Meeting is scheduled for 5th March at 12:30 in H33 and online, shortly after the launch of Transformational Change (3rd March).

All members are encouraged to attend.

As you may be aware, UCU’s higher education committee (HEC) backed a ballot on pay in December 2024, which was expected to take place early in the year, aiming to take industrial action before Easter. The HE officers (who are the elected group who agree the ballot timeline) met just before the Christmas 2024 break. At that meeting the HE officers decided that the ballot timeframe agreed by the HEC was not capable of implementation, and new options for the ballot timetable and other campaign activities should be put to the HEC so that they could determine what the timeline would be. This will take place at a special HEC meeting which has been called for Wednesday 19 February 2025. Therefore, any ballot will take place later in the spring.

If you or your branch has comments about the ballot, please do get in touch with your HEC representatives. You can find details of how to contact them here .

Branch committee members will be involved with the following activities of engagement with management:

• 24th February – Organisational Change Forum
• 3rd March – Transformational Change formal consultation OPENS
• 17th March – organisational Change Forum
• 25th March – Trades Union University Group
• 26th March – Meeting between UCU and Vice Chancellor
• 16th April – Transformational Change consultation CLOSES

The branch has provisionally identified the following dates for General Meetings to report back to members on progress regarding consultation:

• 5th March 2025 @ 12:30
• 27th March 2025 @ 12:30

Please watch out for confirmation of the above dates in your inbox.

You can review the meeting presentation here.

The meeting of 23rd January was quorate and called primarily to update members on branch engagement with management and to seek a mandate for escalation should that prove necessary.

Members were first apprised of the situation regarding the current period of restructure and the Chair fielded questions from the floor regarding the VR process, the implications for jobs as a result of the proposed academic restructure, academic reviews etc.

Three motions were scheduled for debate and a vote:

• Motion 1 – Protecting Jobs and Terms & Conditions
• Motion 2 – Demilitarisation
• Motion 3 – Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

Motion 1 was passed unanimously, thus authorising the branch ‘To lodge a formal dispute if the employer is unwilling to make material concessions’.

Motions 2 and 3 were deferred in the absence of the proposer.

The campus trade unions – UCU, Unite and Unison – are holding an open meeting for all staff to discuss the cost reduction strategy of the employer.

This meeting is open to all staff, union membership is not required, so please encourage your colleagues to attend.

It must not be understated that the cost reduction strategy will impact on all aspects of the university, all employees, and the fundamental future of the institution. 
All employees of The University of Bradford have a vested interest in the institution to ensure that whatever changes made are the best interests of the institution, its current and future employees, and students.  

If there ever was a time to be in a trade union, this is it. The employer is not engaging in meaningful consultation/negotiation on a range of matters (including workload arrangements and Bradford Academic) and is actively seeking to downsize whilst refusing to rule out compulsory redundancy.

We urge all members to talk to their colleagues about UCU fears. This is NOT scaremongering, rather it is a rational assessment based on announcements from management that are in the public domain, coupled with information gleaned from sources that UCU have reasonable confidence in.

UCU Bradford LA supports the Reclaim the Night initiative and will be taking part in the march that starts in the Atrium at 16:30 on 10th December, moving to the city centre.

You can learn more about the movement on the University Sharepoint Site (just search for Reclaim the Night in the search bar).