2025–26 pay negotiation heads of claim
David Kernohan is Deputy Editor of Wonkhe
Tags
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This non-pay work was agreed and then withdrawn by UCEA, apparently – which is an unusual way of saying that two of the two unions decided to start the process of industrial action rather than participate.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:
- University of Leeds
- City St Georges University of London
- Norwich University of the Arts
- Manchester Metropolitan University
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.
Wow, those threshold results really speak to the wisdom of the strike enthusiasts on UCU HEC trying to force through a £200k ballot on this issue eh.
What a shame it looks like some of them have been voted off that far-too-powerful decision making body. And kudos to those in UCU who forced them to take ownership – albeit often embarrassed or reluctant or “I did contemplate abstaining you know and also sometimes I disagree with ucu left [citation needed]” – of that ridiculous decision.
The election results are essentially a UCU Left wipeout.
This is good to hear.
Equally, another UCU faction ‘UCU Commons’ has increased its power significantly on HEC.
In my opinion, UCU needs to come together in unity, including the resolution of UCU staff dispute, before any successful industrial action strategy can be designed and implemented.
Its also important to note, as written the new Employment Rights Bill will remove the need to achieve the statutory 50 per cent IA ballot threshold. UCEA would be shortsighted to forget this and wise to continue negotiating with JNCHES with a view to reaching a compromise.
It’s not fully on topic here but I have to say that looking at the UCU staff dispute, I am not sure that is quite the easy fix it’s being painted as by people like Vicky Blake. Some, ok, such as a general stress risk assessment. But some of the other parts seem very unlikely to be possibly solved without the abolition of all work policies. I mean, stopping all probation and disciplinary processes for some individuals seems to be one of them. Feels hard to see how that can happen really and without any details it’s hard to be onside with that part of it. Seemingly another is permitting fully remote working for all and paying for staff travel to the main office, where they agreed to work when they joined…? It’s pretty clear the union is not being well managed to have got to this point, but it is also clear from that dispute that the demands are very wide ranging and seem very difficult to settle for the employer – from what I can tell, currently union members are refusing to go to the office at all as asos which again seems maybe not that supportable. I think this is why the specifics of that dispute are typically not really got into when the call to settle is made.
This is a good point re 50%. but it’s also why having a more strike-cautious HEC is vital because there is no way IA is going to work without buy-in from a majority of members (only 70k in ukhe remember, and of those probably only 70% max ever go on strike) even with a mandate from a ballot without a threshold.
Re UCU Commons, I am not part of that group but they have shown themselves to be far more realistic about the situation of ukhe and also of UCU than UCU left in recent times (eg most recently voting vs a strike ballot on the 24-5 pay round). They aren’t so wedded to the idea that strikes mean increased membership so are essential for union growth, nor are they wedded to the idea that strikes are essential whenever possible as part of the long term need for worldwide revolution. They’re also not part of the socialist workers party.
This is not to say they are perfect btw, they definitely are not! but it was vital for UCU to lose the majority on hec in decision making held by UCU left (plus the people who aren’t members but almost always vote with them while pretending they’re totally independent voters).
In regards to the dispute, as with any good IA strategy, I am sure Unite have in mind what success looks like in terms of a compromise to bring the dispute to a conclusion.
In relation to diversity of HEC, I agree about Commons being typically more pragmatic. However, it’s important to remember the diversity of the HEI sector. Approaches UCU Left recommend may work at Russell Groups, but not Post 92s. This is why a multifaceted organising strategy is so important.
In my opinion, if UCU is to win it needs to come together and stop the in fighting presently seen. In solidarity there is strength.
I dunno – you’d like to think that the unite branch has a compromise in mind but the stuff they’re on strike about doesnt seem easily or quickly fixed I don’t think. But then again that’s not out of keeping with UCU itself where eg the casualisation part of the 4 Fights was always very unclear in terms of what might be an acceptable win on that.
I would expand what you say to encompass basically all of the decision makers at UCU, re having very little idea about post 92 uni’s. Some of the 4 Fights dispute – esp casualisation – was simply nowhere near as big an issue at post-92s, and the comment section here has featured on several occasions people claiming that strike action saved “your” pension with seemingly no awareness that for many uni’s, USS is not the pension scheme. For those members, there have been years of recent strike action with more or less no gain.
But – and sorry to go back to 4 Fights so often – this is why that action was so wrongheaded, because there was so little chance that the settlement that would please one group in the union would be enough for another. (I’m discounting UCU Left and their deniable mates here cos I know they never actually want to settle on national issues).
“It is not clear… 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”.
Perhaps because trade unions don’t predicate pay claims merely on what employers are “keenest” to offer.
“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),…”
Only if you stick to CPI. CPIH is the ONS’ lead measure of inflation, for what should be obvious reasons. On that measure, many staff received a pay cut. Oops!
Two of the unions did not “decide to start the process of industrial action rather than participate”. They were perfectly happy to engage on non-pay matters while balloting over the pay element, but UCEA refused, so there is nothing at all “unusual” about saying that UCEA withdrew – that is in fact what happened.
My memory of how this unfolded was that UCEA said it couldn’t progress joint work under the threat of industrial action – just like every year. Two unions decided to ballot for industrial action (formally in the case of Unison, consultatively in the case of UCU) so the joint work didn’t happen.
But why did UCEA say it couldn’t progress that work under the threat of industrial action? The threatened action wasn’t about the non-pay elements, so why link the two?
The more charitable view of ucea would say that they see the conditions as part of the same overall negotiations and as such if there is IA on one part then the overall cannot continue. (I think this is still wrong of them but still).
The cynic but also realist would say that UCEA saw the ballot results and knew that the union is weak after years of basically fruitless action over pay and conditions, and had a decision making structure dominated at the time by people who want to go on strike rather than settle or win any disputes, and so picked up the ball and went home in full knowledge that their adversaries would engage in months of the internal blame game. And so it proved.
A characteristically unrealistic ask from the unions – I am as frustrated as anyone about the constant cuts to real-pay, but in the current climate it just looks like a laughable claim, and one which I have no doubt UCEA will dismiss as completely unrealistic. Why not go in asking for a match of inflation? Surely it’s much harder for UCEA to simply dismiss that out of hand
As it is, I am fully expecting a negligible offer from UCEA on pay, given that Raj Jethwa has stated in THE ” “Any discussion of a pay uplift….” – not “any discussion around the extent of the paylift” or words to that effect…
“Last year saw all staff promised an above-inflation pay rise” is a generous statement mind, given CPIH was over 3% in August 2024