This article is more than 1 year old
Give campus unions New JNCHES and they take a mile
Following the recent UCU decision to stop arguing about the 2024-25 New JNCHES pay claim the 2025-26 iteration has kicked off in earnest – we have the joint union “heads of claim”, which is a summary of the key asks from the union side of the discussion which will be fleshed out in the next few weeks ahead of negotiations kicking off at the end of March.
The headline request on pay is RPI plus 3.5 per cent, or a flat £2,500 (whichever is greater). There’s also a call for a new minimum pay rate equivalent to £15 an hour, and the deletion of pay points below the Foundation Living Wage.
Though the other measures are identical to last year, the value of the main claim has risen by an extra one and a half per cent. It is not clear why unions feel RPI plus 3.5 per cent (or £2,500) is affordable next year when RPI plus two per cent was not affordable for all staff last year, or why there is a claim for a blanket increase where employers have in recent years been keenest to implement an increase that addresses the needs of staff on the lowest spine point.
Last year saw all staff promised an above-inflation pay rise: the “final offer” was implemented (between 2.5 and 5.7 per cent depending on salary), though some employers had to exercise an option to defer due to the same financial issues that are currently causing course closures and redundancies.
What you might expect, given recent news from UCU HEC, to be the major priority turns out to be a paragraph further down the claim:
The unions also call on UCEA to undertake further joint work to avoid redundancies, course closures, and cuts to academic disciplines across the sector, and to lobby politically for a sustainable long term funding settlement for the sector.
It’s here I am expecting most action – and I would be surprised if employers did not agree to further joint work here as a priority. There’s not a way through the current crisis that will see all jobs preserved, but by working together employers and unions can mitigate a lot of the impact.
The non-pay elements are rolled over from what was agreed last year (on workload, zero hour contracts, pay spine reform, and equalities) – there was no joint work on any of these priorities this year, despite the terms of reference being agreed by both sides. The unions are particularly keen on the pay spine review, mentioning it several times.
This non-pay work was agreed and then withdrawn by UCEA, apparently – which is an unusual way of saying that two of the two unions decided to start the process of industrial action rather than participate. Clearly this is work that urgently needs to happen, and it is to be hoped that we can find a path through to starting as early as possible. The fact that agreed terms of reference already exist should help.
The remaining asks are either outside the purview of New JNCHES (institutional contracts, “just transition” plans, and policies around reimbursements are determined autonomously, although UCEA can issue guidance), or just plain unusual – I’m not sure why a Scottish New JNCHES sub-committee is a priority at this time.
Unison – one of the five trade unions representing staff in New JNCHES – has recently concluded a ballot for industrial action at 75 universities. Though the results have yet to be formally released (they will be discussed at the Unions Higher Education Service Group Executive meeting on 7 March, so we should get more clarity on next steps following that), I understand that the statutory 50 per cent threshold was reached at just four providers:
This does suggest that in times where institutions are struggling financially there is not much appetite to take industrial action over pay claims, potentially weakening the hand of unions in negotiating for the next round.