Employers make full and final offer in 2026-27 pay negotiations

The “full and final” offer from employers is an across-the-board uplift of 2 per cent, which can be deferred (without back pay) for up to a year. This is an improvement on the initial offer of a 1.5 per cent uplift made at the start of the 2026-27 New JNCHES round at the start of March, and a revised offer of 1.8 per cent made in April.

This comes alongside a pay spine review, and work on a joint statement on sector funding which could lead to co-ordinated lobbying involving unions and employers. And there will be updates to statements on job security (setting out good practice in managing redundancy and restructuring) and career pathways for professional services staff.

What’s not there from previous years is the joint work on contract types, pay gaps, and workload: after several years in which a pay dispute with unions has made it impossible to work together on this the work has been completed within member institutions and was shared with the sector in March 2026. Notably, UCU is relaunching its longitudinal workplace survey, last run in 2021. There will be a further discussion on HESA data and interpretation between unions and employers outside of the New Jnches process.

The union full claim, made back in March was for RPI plus three percent (or £3,000 whichever is the greater) without deferment. Despite the yawning gap between the original ask and the offer, few will be surprised at the below-inflation nature of what employers (as a whole) feel able to sign up to.

Given the large number of restructuring, redeployment, and redundancy exercises ongoing – every day seems to bring news of another – campus unions are much more concerned with direct and ongoing risk to the jobs (and terms and conditions of employment) of members. For this reason the running commentary on New Jnches from the union side on social media and in member communications, has not been as much of a feature this year as in previous years.

This, plus the issues faced by UCU last time it attempted to ballot members for industrial action, suggest that strikes or action short of a strike will not be a part of this year’s pay negotiations. There are many local disputes, and union activity there is more likely to blunt the impact of the sectors’ financial precarity on staff – there have already been examples of jobs saved and decisions altered – than a national campaign demanding universities commit to spending money they don’t have and are unlikely to have in the foreseeable future.

It’s not a question of whether a two per cent rise is a fair reflection of the hard work higher education employees do in increasingly difficult circumstances – UCEA even points out that:

A 2 per cent pay uplift clearly does not reflect the true value employers place on staff, but unfortunately it is the best we can offer given the severity of the financial pressures facing the sector.

It’s more that campaigning energy and focus is rightly focused on support for members on redundancy and restructuring on an institution by institution basis. On this, the commitment to updating best practice on these processes is very welcome, as where there are and need to be changes to employment staff should at least expect to receive appropriate support and consultation.

The work on a joint statement on finances – which on the face of it might not feel like much – is an immensely valuable contribution to wider campaigning about sector finances: in making the case to ministers about sector finances, having unions and employers speaking with the same voice is a powerful message.

The next steps with all of this at UCU will be the presentation of the negotiating team’s conclusions to Congress on 27 May. Other unions involved have similar reporting and decision-making mechanisms.