Where next for pay negotiations?

Overnight we’ve seen a statement from UCU (following Monday’s emergency meeting of the HEC) threatening further strike action, a continuation of the marking and assessment boycott, and a reballot potentially allowing for further national action in the coming academic year.

UCEA has responded, citing the weekend’s letters from Robert Halfon, with the usual statement that the 2023-24 pay deal will not be renegotiated.

When?

All recent UCU action has taken place following a successful national ballot that started on 21 February, closing on 31 March with the results announced on 3 April. This gave the union 6 months from the “date of the ballot” – in this case the period between 31 March and 30 September to take industrial action. The marking and assessment boycott (MAB) is likely to continue until 30 September, and any other action would need to take place in September (bearing in mind the requirement to give employers two weeks notice of industrial action).

Many UCU members have been calling for a new ballot to extend the possibility of industrial action further into the new academic year. Yesterday’s statements indicate that UCU will “begin preparations” for a new ballot. There are no rules as to how long a ballot needs to be open, but large national unions generally prefer a longer window to encourage more responses (more than 50 per cent of members involved need to respond for the ballot to be valid). The last ballot was open for 39 days – adding the statutory seven day employer notice period suggests that the very earliest a new mandate could start (in the unlikely event that employers are notified later today) is the end of the current mandate: 30 September 2023.

In the more likely event that UCU decides not to run a ballot of members over late August and early September (the period between Clearing and the start of term being a popular time for annual leave and academic conferences) there will be a gap between mandates – during which period all industrial action (including the MAB) would need to stop. This would be welcomed particularly by students who have yet to receive finalised degree results – a gap in mandates could allow these to be processed and shared during October.

Other things to note

UCU’s release suggests it has agreed to the UCEA proposal for a joint review of sector finances (although UCEA’s note suggests that this agreement has not been made formal). This, alongside proposed continued work on the “pay related” issues (casualisation, equality, workload, pay spine review) would be facilitated by Acas and involve all five trade unions (Unite, Unison, GMB, EIS, and UCU) that are party to the dispute.

The joint review of finances will be hugely important for future of pay bargaining. If, like me, you have occasionally been frustrated by the use of old data, aggregated data, or data related to non-realisable assets in assertions about the affordability of pay claims you’ll be keen to see a shared perspective validated independently. Ideally this will lead to accepted definitions and figures used on both sides and a calmer 2024-25 New JNCHES round. But we shall see.