25th May 2021

Dear Vice-Chancellor,

We thank Gemma Bailey for the institutional response that we received on the 7th May. However as a committee, we are disappointed not to have received a direct response from yourself, as the figure head of this institution, as well as the explicit intended recipient of our formal letter. Within your institutional response it was stated that:

As you will be aware, there are a number of different parties involved with USS, each with different roles and views. UUK represent USS employers and UCU act on behalf of USS members and, given these different consultation lines, it would be unusual to consider a joint response with our union colleagues.

We are indeed aware of the different parties involved with USS, we are also acutely aware of the consequences that current proposals have for our members (i.e. your staff members). We are also aware that:

– in April 2020, UUK signed an agreement with UCU to ‘encourage participating employers to seek local feedback, for example through the formation of local working groups, on developing USS issues’. As Vice-Chancellor of Brunel, as well as UUK President, it is surprising that you have not supported the establishment of such a working group as previously proposed by the Brunel UCU Branch Chair, in order to honour this agreement.

– where such joint employer/UCU working groups exist in other institutions, they often take the lead in drafting that employer’s consultation responses (e.g. at Sheffield). At present, UCU head office know of at least eleven institutions that have established such a working group.

– other employers have produced joint statements with their UCU Branch, please see the joint statement at Kent, and Dundee, as examples of local joint working.

The letter also confirms that Brunel will not be sharing its institutional response to the UUK consultation, however it does not state any reasons why Brunel is unable to do this. We are formally requesting clarification as to the reasons behind this refusal, as UCU head office is aware of at least seventeen institutions that have committed to sharing their consultation response, either publicly, with all staff, or with UCU representatives.

In addition, there are two crucial requests from our previous letter still outstanding:

– confirmation that Brunel senior management will stand in solidarity with the Brunel UCU Branch regarding defence of the current Defined Benefits scheme.

– answers to our seven specific questions regarding the institutional response to the current UUK consultation, especially as we have been given no justifications as to why these answers can not be provided. We would appreciate a response from yourself as soon as possible.

Thank you

Yours Sincerely

Brunel UCU Committee

4th May 2021

Dear Vice-Chancellor,

This letter is a follow-up to the request that Stan Gaines, Branch Chair, made (on behalf of the Brunel UCU Branch Committee) to Gemma Bailey in September 2020 regarding the formation of a working group at Brunel (to include senior management and UCU reps) concerning a potential joint position on the USS scheme. We did not receive a positive response. With no working group in place, and with only a few weeks left in terms of UUK consultation, we write to you directly (given your role as Vice Chancellor and President of Brunel), in order to seek answers to key questions about your plans for Brunel’s response.

We are aware that on 7th April, UUK launched a consultation of employers which closes on 24th May. UUK is asking employers whether they support proposals for benefit cuts, as a response to the extremely high contribution rates and other demands which USS is making in its 2020 valuation. We understand that both employers (UUK) and UCU agree that the 2020 valuation methodology that USS is using, is flawed, and UCU is urging UUK to join the union in robustly resisting the USS approach.

The UUK response so far, unfortunately, has been to largely ‘recycle’ the first proposal that was presented via the ACAS talks when UCU members took strike action in 2018/2019, a proposal which UCU branches decisively rejected: [https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/9300/Agreement/pdf/UCU_UUK_agreement_at_ACAS_12_March_Final.pdf]. We are aware that UUK is proposing to:

-lower the salary threshold where defined benefit (DB) accrual stops from £59,883.65 to £40,000
-reduce accrual (and therefore the size of payments in retirement) from 1/75 to 1/85
-impose a CPI indexation cap of 2.5% (removing the protection of benefits against any inflation above that level)
-keep the contribution rate as it is now (9.6% for members, 21.1% for employers).

We also note with concern that UUK is consulting individual employers on options for addressing the high rates of staff opting out of the scheme. We understand that UUK’s preference seems to be a defined contribution (DC) only option which would be aimed at low paid members of staff, provide no guaranteed retirement income, and almost certainly amount to a very poor pension compared with the defined benefit scheme (DB) which USS members have now.

Consequently, we are asking as part of the current consultation:

-Will Brunel commit to sharing its consultation response?

-In terms of addressing opt out rates, does Brunel endorse the DC option preferred by UUK or an alternative?

-Is Brunel willing to pay higher contributions than the current rate?

-Does Brunel endorse the benefits cuts proposed by UUK or not?

-Does Brunel want UUK to explore conditional indexation with UCU?

-Is Brunel willing to provide more covenant support, particularly in the form of a 30 year moratorium on employer exits?

-Would Brunel be willing to consider legal action against USS/TPR and/or express no confidence in USS?

We note that, although you have utilised a series of weekly Campus Communications e-mails to publicise your criticism (in your role as President of UUK) toward the UK government for deciding that students could not return to university campuses prior to 17th May, you have not used that same platform at Brunel to criticise USS for its highly flawed 2020 valuation and the subsequent proposal to shift from a Defined Benefits to a Defined Contributions scheme for lower wage earners. Hence, we seek explicit assurance that Brunel senior management will stand in solidarity with the Brunel UCU Branch regarding defence of the current Defined Benefits scheme. This is all the more important as Brunel’s USS related information-dispensing exercises (combined with rejection of our trade union branch efforts toward developing a working group with senior management concerning the USS pension scheme) do not represent genuine consultation, let alone negotiation, under the terms and conditions of our Recognition Agreement.

If you could respond to the letter within the next week (Monday 10th May), we would be most grateful. We shall be circulating any response to our members.

Sincerely,

Brunel UCU Branch Committee

This branch notes:

1. A vigil was organised on Saturday 13 March 2021 on Clapham Common in memory of Sarah Everard who was allegedly murdered by an off-duty police officer.  Other vigils were also organised across London and across Britain.

2. Despite the court ruling that the police could give permission for the vigil to go ahead the Metropolitan police banned the vigil citing Covid-19 regulations. 

3. The vigil in Clapham Common went ahead with the aid of feminist group Sisters Uncut before being dispersed by the police. 

4. On the 16 March 2021, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 passed its second reading in parliament. The bill contains new limits on the right to protest, sweeping new powers for the police, the criminalisation of Gypsy Roma Traveller communities and increased stop and search powers. Damage to memorials, such as the statue of slave trader Edward Colston that was toppled during last year’s Black Lives Matter protest, could carry a 10-year prison sentence. 

This branch believes: 

1. The police response to the vigil in Clapham Common was a violent and outrageous abuse of power. Women standing up against gendered and state violence should be respected, not be arrested and physically manhandled. 

2. The use of Covid-19 restrictions to limit free assembly is a prelude to a more general clampdown. Research indicates little or no risk of transmission in open air spaces when participants are socially distanced and masked. 

3. Trade unions will be adversely affected by the criminalisation of basic forms of protest. These limitations only add to the existing punitive restrictions placed on trade unions by decades of anti-union legislation. These measures may diminish our ability to legally assemble, to protest against our employers and to picket our place of work. This would destroy the most basic forms of resistance available to trade unions. 

4. Moreover, we have a responsibility to stand with oppressed groups who will face renewed gendered and racialised attacks on the basis of the new legislation. 

This branch resolves:

1. Support Sisters Uncut, BLMUK, People’s Assembly, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller organisations and other forces mobilising and demonstrating against the bill by publishing a statement of support and encouraging members to attend protests where possible. 

2. Commit funds (£100) and practical support to an arrest fund relating to the Police Bill.

3. Call on the national union to commit to campaign against the Police Bill long term

Brunel UCU is in solidarity with ongoing protests in and from higher education institutions across the world, including protests against the marketization of university, police presence within universities as well as the loss of academic freedoms.

We raise our voice in solidarity with our colleagues at Boğaziçi University in Turkey, who are currently resisting to uphold academic freedoms and democracy in the university. Boğaziçi University is a top public research institution with an international standing. Dating back to 1863, it has strong scientific, intellectual, and democratic traditions. In the past, vice-chancellors have been elected through free and fair elections by faculties at Boğaziçi University. In its history, these democratic processes were suspended only following the 1980 coup d’état. On 1 January 2021, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appointed a vice-chancellor to Boğaziçi University in one night. The appointee, Professor Melih Bulu is not only from outside the Boğaziçi community but also has been parachuted in without any consultation with the university staff or students. Bulu has been a member of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government since its foundation in 2002 and had also run a campaign for nomination for the parliamentary elections in 2015. Bulu also faces allegations of plagiarism in his MSc and PhD theses. Bulu’s appointment is another symbol of and step in Erdoğan’s attempt to extend his influence over Turkey’s social, cultural and political life, including higher education.

Since the beginning of January 2021, Boğaziçi university students, staff, alumni and the broader civil society have organised peaceful protests on campus and online campaigns demanding the appointee’s resignation, a return to the democratic process, and an end to outside interference. These protests were met with escalating attacks by the president, the ministry of the interior, the AKP establishment, and the AKP-controlled media. This includes targeting LGBTI+ students and student clubs, which have been fundamental in the organisation of the peaceful protests as well as targeting professors embracing Marxist traditions in their research. The political attacks on the media have been accompanied by an excessive use of force by the riot police, supported with snipers located all around the campus. So far, the riot police have detained more than 200 students and arrested over 10 students. Student homes have been raided by SWAT teams in full gear. There are frequent reports of unlawful strip searches and abuse by the police of those in custody.

We condemn the police violence, targeting of academics and students by state actors and arrests towards students. We call Turkish authorities to respect Boğaziçi University’s academic freedom and its autonomy.

The #CoronaContract website is here: https://coronacontract.org/ ‘This website contains relevant information, actions and resources to further the #CoronaContract campaign to secure the livelihoods of casualised university and college staff.’

UCU has adopted a policy to campaign for postgraduate researchers (PGRs) to be recognised as members of staff. We are keen to discuss this with our PGR members and to hear your ideas and thoughts about the campaign. To register for the event and to submit any questions you may have please click on the link above.

In a quorate General Meeting held on 28.10.20, members voted to endorse Version 2 Track changes version of Complementary Document regarding Dual Delivery Plan Draft

Motion for Brunel branch on ‘hard’ or ‘no-deal’ Brexit

This UCU branch notes that no major country has ever left the European Union or similar trading bloc. A recent report by the independent (King’s College London based) research group, The UK in a Changing Europe, stated that “no deal will not get Brexit done” and instead would be the start of a “period of prolonged uncertainty for citizens, workers and businesses”. Unfortunately, in terms of securing a proper UK/EU trade deal (to replace the current trading arrangements), the UK is running out of time. At present, during the current so-called transition period, we are trading with the EU on the same level ‘single market customs union’ basis that we did when we were still in the EU. That privileged position will come to an abrupt end at the end of this year (when the transition period expires), unless a mutually beneficial new trading relationship is negotiated. At present, a ‘no deal’ exit looks increasingly likely. Such an exit is expected to cause
• GDP 5% to 10% lower over the course of the next 10-15 years than it would have been, had the UK stayed in the EU. Treasury data also states that the limited free trade deal planned with the EU would strip 6.7% from the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) over a similar time scale – meaning £130bn of lost growth.
• The UK finding itself trading with the EU on purely World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms, with import tariffs on goods ranging from 3–25% and additional non-tariff barriers adding a further 14%.
• A possible increase in net public borrowing of between £96bn and £141bn by 2035/2036, according to the Government’s long-term analysis. Government borrowing has already risen by an extra £200bn since March to deal with Covid-19.
• Foreign Direct Investment to fall by around 24% and overall business investment by 3.5% over the long term.
• The UK’s trade with its biggest partner, the EU – which accounts for 49% of UK trade with a further 10% from countries with an existing Free Trade Agreement with the EU – damaged.
• As well as the high ‘no deal’ trade tariff costs, the Government’s modelled ‘no deal’ scenario also includes non-tariff-related costs (in UK/EU trade) of 10% for goods and 11% for services. Non-tariff barriers (NTBs) include customs checks, regulatory barriers, rules of origin, administration costs, etc.
• Significant delays at UK borders, with supply shortages in key sectors for both businesses and households.
• Further negative effects on our environment, health, security, workers’ rights, consumer protection and the integrity of the UK.

This UCU branch notes the likely, multiple negative consequences of these economic and other effects of a ‘hard’ or ‘no-deal’ Brexit on higher education and those working within the sector.

This UCU branch further notes with regret that the national UCU, consumed as it is by issues arising from the COVD-19 pandemic, has had little to say about this impending disaster.

This UCU branch therefore calls on the national UCU to use its profile and resources to apply pressure on the government to reach comprehensive deals with the EU on trade and other issues in order to avoid the multiple negative consequences outlined above.

Motion by UCU Branch Committee On Brunel’s Return to Work Plan

This branch notes:

1. UCU branch officials have been in talks with Brunel University’s Senior Management in the Delivery of Education group, in the Health and Safety Group and in the Staff Consultative Committee. These talks have been productive in some regards but there are major areas of concern outstanding.

2. That from the outset of these Covid-19 discussions the UCU branch strategy was that Brunel should provide on-campus testing for staff and students and an effective on-campus track and trace system, in order to mitigate the national government’s failure to provide an effective system of testing, track and trace. Brunel could have been a ‘market leader’ in this regard. Exeter University for example is offering staff and students on-campus testing for C-19. While Brunel has indicated that they are in discussion with Hillingdon Borough and other local universities to offer on-campus testing, we have had no clear statement as to where these plans are and when or if they will be effectively implemented.

3. That branch officials have repeatedly insisted that online teaching should be the default mode of delivery (as per the official UCU view), citing both the latest Independent Sage and “official” Sage reports.

4. That in the first wave of Covid-19 Brunel University’s Dr Jie Chen died of Covid-19 on Sunday March 29th, aged 55.

5. That the University has opted for a partial normal ‘campus’ experience for students which includes some on-campus face to face teaching.

6. That there are wide variations in the demands being made on staff in different departments to deliver on-campus face to face teaching, that these are inconsistent and therefore unfair and present a public health risk to staff and students.

7. That branch officials have repeatedly insisted that mask wearing should be mandatory on campus in indoor environments, including corridors and in seminar situations. By contrast the university has chosen to hide behind shifting government guidelines on this issue and resists making mask wearing mandatory or even strongly recommending it as a civic obligation.

8. This motion recognises that there have been some positives to come out of the discussions, including the university making 2 meters the standard for Social Distancing and the University’s explicit recognition of the 1996 Employment Act Section 44 which allows employees to raise health and safety concerns without detriment to their job, salary or role, etc.

This branch believes:

1. That in an overall assessment of progress made, the return to work model delivered by the university does not command the confidence of this branch and constitutes an unacceptable public health risk to staff and students.
2. That with Covid-19 rates escalating nationally, pressure for a return to online delivery and further lockdown restrictions (on campus and/or nationally) are likely to become irresistible in the next few weeks.

This branch resolves:

1. To demand that Brunel University make on-line delivery of teaching in accordance with expert scientific opinion (e.g. Independent SAGE) the default position.
2. To demand that where it is impossible to deliver parts of the educational provision on-line, the university must arrange regular testing and tracing for students and staff and that wearing a mask in seminars and any indoor teaching scenarios is made compulsory.
3. To demand that no-one will be required to undertake on-campus face-to-face teaching if they express the wish not to do so.