Motions passed at General meetings

OU UCU motions passed at the General meeting on 19th October 2023

Motion 1 - Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), Dean of EDI

The branch notes with concern that following the move of Marcia Wilson to London Metropolitan to take up a senior role there, the role of Dean of EDI has apparently been allowed to lapse. While we wish to extend our heartfelt congratulations to Prof. Wilson on her new appointment, questions and concerns have been raised by many staff with protected characteristics across the different staff network groups, and also in Senate. 

In response the university have said that LJ is still in post and have created a Directorship of EDI in place of the Dean of EDI role - apparently under the University Secretary's Office, rather than reporting directly to the Vice Chancellor's Office as the Dean's role did. The university have said that the Dean of EDI role was always a temporary appointment and that although its full term has not yet been run, a review is going to be undertaken - although no clear timetable for this review has been set out. 

This branch wishes to express grave concern about the possible slowdown of work on EDI across the university, which was proceeding at good pace compared to other HE institutions (although there was considerable work needing to be done). There is potential conflict of interest with the work coming under the University Secretary's Office rather than reporting directly to the Vice Chancellor's Office. Creating a Directorship rather than appointing the Deputy Dean of EDI as interim Dean sends a poor message about how much the university prioritises the EDI work. 

There has been loss of confidence in the university's commitment to EDI and this branch believes this approach is not the correct one for us at this time. We call on the University to undertake a proper consultation on this issue, and to include this in a clear timetable for the review they are undertaking. 

Motion 2: Supporting OU Staff with fees for UK work visas and the UK’s International Health Surcharge

Branch notes:

The UK Home Office announced an increase in UK work visa and International Health Surcharge (IHS) fees in July 2023. The change in the International Health Surcharge (IHS) from £624 per year to £1,035 a year – a 66% jump – is expected to come into effect in early 2024. The work visa fee changes were published on 15 September 2023 and will come into effect on 4 October 2023. The changes reflect a 15% increase in cost for most visa applications and a 20% increase in cost for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) applications.

This increase of expenses will be incurred by those current and future OU staff who require a visa or an ILR to work in the UK. This is, and is likely to remain, a small minority of OU staff. 

The current OU Relocation Expenses policy states that staff are re-imbursed the cost of the visa application fee at the time of their initial onboarding. This means that new staff have to pay the IHS themselves and current staff must pay both IHS and visa application fees every time their contracts are extended, if they are issued a new contract, or if they apply for an Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). For example, this charge would be incurred every time an existing Fixed Term Contract is extended, or a new Fixed Term Contract is issued (as commonly occurs at the end or start of project-based work), even if the employment with the OU is unbroken. The charge would also be incurred if the FTE (Full Time Equivalent) component of a contract is altered, whether fixed term or permanent. While employees who apply for an ILR do not pay IHS, they still must pay the application fee of £2,885.

Whilst the fees component of the visa system would be costly for any worker, the OU’s approach to managing contracts creates significant barriers to employment. Issuing staff with permanent contracts and then using OU-internal workload and financial management to allocate their time and costs, rather than by issuing or extending Fixed Term Contracts or Additional Duties Contracts, would mean many visa charges were not generated. It is the OU’s decision to use contracts to manage workload and finances which prevents individuals requiring a work visa from taking up a range of employment opportunities.

Reimbursements of visa fees are regarded as a taxable benefit unless it is a new employee applying for their visa outside the UK. This means that under HMRC regulations, the payment is subject to tax and National Insurance contributions. Even if the OU covers the full costs of visa fees, contract changes may alter the tax status of an individual, such as moving them into a higher tax bracket.

While the university offers a visa costs loan scheme which does not exceed £5,000, this policy perpetuates a divide between foreigner and non-foreigner workers who have to shoulder these exuberant costs.  As an example, consider staff members who are already residing the UK and who would start a new contract on 4 January 2024:

• On a 3 year contract a new staff member will incur £3,105 (£1,035*3 years IHS fees) and an existing staff member will incur £3,824 (£719 visa application fee + £1,035*3 years IHS fees), 

• On a 5 year contract a new staff member will incur £5,175 (£1,035*5 years IHS fees), and an existing staff member will incur £6,598 (£1,423 visa application fee + £1,035*5 years IHS fees). 

Note that a staff member who is on a contract which renews yearly will incur £1,754 per year; so, if an existing staff member works for three years, then this cost adds up to £5,262. Other universities already support their staff with their expenses, including Durham University, University of Bath, University of Sussex, University of Exeter, University of Dundee, etc. 

Branch resolves: 

• To campaign for a change in policy and procedure so that the Open University covers visa fees for current employees and the IHS for new and current employees.

• To liaise closely with the OU EDI team and the International Staff Network.

• To campaign for increased use of permanent contracts, including reduced use of Fixed Term Contracts and more effective ability to issue contracts with unallocated FTE (e.g., non-module Tuition Related Activity) in the initial contract.

This branch notes

The new Associate Lecturer (AL) Contract negotiated in 2018, explicitly recognised the principle of no detriment for all ALs, including those working at over 1.3 FTE. Specifically the 2018 agreement said the following about this situation:

Managing ALs with greater than One FTE of AL work

1. In accordance with the “no detriment” principle no ALs will be offered a new contract which has the impact of removing work from them, including those ALs working above 1 FTE. 
2. At implementation ALs who have work greater than 1 FTE will be issued contracts that fully reflect the work they are doing at offer date.
3. After implementation the University will honour the working time directive of 48 hours for staff who do not already exceed it at offer date, and for AL staff recruited after implemen-tation so that no AL is working more than 48/37 = 1.3  FTE equivalent, based on a per-manent contract 
4. Any AL whose offer FTE exceeds 1.3 will be required to formally opt out of the European worktime directive if they wish to be given a permanent contract for their full FTE above 1.3.
5. Any Associate Lecturer working more than 1.3 FTE for the OU on all types of contract will be encouraged to discuss their personal circumstances with their internal and AL line manager. 
6. For ALs who are employed outside the OU they will have a responsibility to let the OU know the FTE size of their external work.
7. From the point of new AL contract implementation onwards ALs who are already working above 1.3 FTE will not normally be allocated any further work which increases their FTE. 
8. By these means the University will use natural staff turnover to work towards compliance with the European worktime directive without seeking to disadvantage affected ALs or take work away from them.

Despite this, OU management are now proposing to remove all work over 1.3 FTE from all ALs with OU contracts totally more than 1.3 FTE, by use of the fire and rehire tactic last used by P & O to replace their workforce with workers on a lower wage. This clearly breaches the no detriment and natural staff turnover aspects of the 2018 agreement as outlined above. ALs are extremely angry that some of their number are being singled out for treatment that is clearly in breach of the 2018 agreement.  ALs are extremely angry that Staff Tutors/Student Experience Managers (STs/SEMs) are being potentially asked to implement this ‘fire/rehire’ policy even though many are clearly unhappy about this and ALs send their full solidarity to STs/SEMs on this issue.

This branch believes:

• An attack on one AL is an attack on us all
• Attacks on one aspect of the 2018 AL contract agreement is an attack on all of it
• If the OU management can get away with breaking an agreement and the use of fire and rehire, for one group of staff, there is nothing to stop them using it against us all.

This branch resolves:

• To open a petition for all OU staff and students to utterly condemn the use of repressive practices such as ‘fire and rehire’.
• To write to the OU management making clear that unless they withdraw their current proposals and reach an agreement with UCU based on the implementation of the 2018 AL New contract agreement, we can have no trust or confidence in them as fair employers
• To extend full support to any AL or ST/SEM affected by the proposed actions of OU management including, if necessary, the use of a ballot for clear strike action unless these proposals are withdrawn in their entirety.
• The Branch Executive is asked to organise a wide-ranging campaign on this issue, including but not limited to the above. 
• If the University refuses to retract their fire and rehire proposals, then the Branch Executive should arrange the ballot for strike action.

OU UCU motions passed at the General meeting on 20th September 2023

1. The OU has recently updated a number of its sustainability policies, and whilst the commitment to improved aims and practice is to be commended, the UCU branch was not consulted or negotiated with in a formal capacity. The policies cover: ‘Environmental Sustainability’, ‘Net Zero Carbon’, ‘Sustainable Construction’, ‘Biodiversity’, ‘Waste Resource’, ‘Heating and Cooling’, ‘Water’, and ‘Sustainable Food’. 
2. Nationally, UCU is a pioneering union in the fight for changes to be shared, organised and distributed progressively, for a Just Transition. Practically, in the recent FE England Joint Claim (equivalent to HE’s JNCHES) a Just Transition is integral to the proposals for how to rebuild that sector, shaping the negotiations on improvements in pay, workload, casualisation and equality that will allow the sector to deliver education as a socio-economic enabler and a public benefit.  
3. Concerning Net Zero, education will be significantly affected both directly and as an enabling sector for others. Analysis by the Committee on Climate Change, the independent advisory body estab-lished to support the UK’s actions towards the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has argued that the next decade will see the greatest impacts upon employment.  
4. The branch has existing policy on ‘institutional sustainability’, particularly “Motion 2 - Towards institutional sustainability at the OU”, passed on the Annual General meeting on 7th June 2022 (see below). Which commits to: 

• “To produce a branch definition of institutional sustainability – to include reference to the environment, climate change, health and well-being, travel (but not limited to these examples).
• “To encourage OU leadership to publicly and actively share institutional data related to the results and performance of existing sustainability initiatives
• “To use this data and the branch definition to publicly campaign for institutional policies that reflect the full scope institutional sustainability.”

• To establish an OU UCU ‘Sustainability and Just Transition Working Group’, to deliver on AGM 2022 Motion 2, particularly to bring members together to support the negotiation of improvements to the OU’s Sustainability policies. 

This meeting notes staff reaction to management proposals to reduce FTE for those above 1.3FTE, and that many affected staff had taken on the extra work to help the university out in the past. 

This meeting also notes that:

1. It comes hard on the heels after the uncertainty and disruption at the start of our academic year caused by 100% group sizes.

2. It also takes place against a backdrop of problems caused by under-resourcing of the Skills Audit and Workload Management System (WMS), key elements in AL contract implementation.

This meeting expresses concern about the priorities of the OU senior leadership and their ability to lead the university.

OU UCU motions passed at the Extraordinary General meeting on 26th July 2023

Motion 1 - Workers Summit model motion 

This branch has been inspired by the wave of industrial action that has taken place over the last two years in response to the cost-of-living crisis. We believe that as the strike movement has developed, different questions have arisen within it. We believe there is a desperate need for a more coordinated campaign against the government, with unions striking and marching together. We also believe there is a need to reflect on the “deals” that come our way and discuss ways that bad deals can be roundly rejected. We take heart from the RCN vote to reject the pay deal from government and note the key role of NHS Workers Say No as a key force in that vote.

We believe there are further questions about the best strategy to win, including the question of escalating the strike action and what that escalation should look like. We resolve to support the “Workers Summit” event, currently called by Lambeth and Hackney NEU, NHS Workers Say No and Strike Map, in London on the 23rd September. We commit paying £200 towards the cost of the event and we commit to sending 2 delegates, paying for their transport costs where necessary.

Motion 2 - Tutor groups at least 100% size 

This meeting notes with concern the decision by senior management that all tutor groups will be at least 100% size in the coming academic year. This meeting believes this will cause operational difficulties and will be bad for students and staff. This meeting asks the university management to reconsider this decision.

Motion 3 – Amazon workers’ industrial action

This branch notes:

1. that Amazon made a profit of over £155m last year and its founder and executive chairman Jeff Bezos is currently the third richest person in the world.
2. that workers in Coventry have led the first Amazon strike in the UK following an imposed 50p pay increase last year, and have just renewed their strike mandate for a further 6 months

This branch believes:

1. the company has used union-busting tactics from bullying and harassment to calling police on pickets to employing an extra 1,300 people in the warehouse to dilute union density and stop GMB gaining union recognition
2. that striking Amazon workers need maximum solidarity from across the labour movement in their fight.

This branch resolves:

• to support and build the mass rally outside the Amazon Coventry warehouse called by the strikers on 5th August 2023, by
• adding our branch as a supporting organisation
• sending a delegation from our branch
• sharing on our email list and social media channels
• working with other local trade union branches, trades councils and organisations to book a coach.
• to make a donation of £50 towards the cost of the rally and the Amazon workers’ strike.

OU UCU motions passed at the Branch meeting on 18th July 2023

Motion 2 - Supporting the Postgraduate Researchers (PGRs) as Staff campaign, opposing use of fixed-term contracts by UCU

OU UCU Branch Notes: 

• It is longstanding UCU policy to actively campaign for Postgraduate Researchers (PGRs) to be made into staff positions in the UK Higher Education system
• The resounding successes, benefits and necessity of campaigning on the issue were detailed and approved by overwhelming majorities at the Higher Education Sector Conference (HESC) dated May 28 (resolutions HE23, 24, 25, 37). 
• That members interested in learning more about the work done, barriers and opportunities might read the PGRs as Staff report (UCU 2085). Endorsed by HE23, it contains a more detailed analysis of the situation.
• The OU branch of UCU has drawn upon the support of the PGRs as Staff team and would have struggled to organise on the issue without this specialist support. 

Notes furthermore:

• Two members of UCU staff were hired on 22-month contracts, in 2021, to work on the campaign. This resulted in UCU staff members being employed on conditions that UCU is itself campaigning against employers using (Motion HE14, 2019 HESC).     
• Redundancy notices have been served on two fixed-term members of UCU staff in the ‘PGRs as Staff’ team.
• The Unite branch of UCU, representing UCU’s staff members, has registered a dispute with UCU over the issue. In a consultative ballot, 63% of the branch’s Unite members, on an 84% turnout, indicated that they were ‘prepared to take industrial action’ on the redundancies.
• An open letter by UCU members, arguing against the redundancies in more detail, is circulating and can be found here: view letter.

Branch Resolves: 

• To publicly support calls for the “PGRs as Staff” staff contracts to be made permanent at their exist-ing FTE, just as UCU has called for their members’ fixed-term contracts to be made permanent at their existing FTE.
• To send notification of this motion to all National Executive Committee members and the General Secretary, highlighting that, both ethically and tactically, we expect UCU to be a model employer in regard to workload, pay, equality and casualisation.
• To send a notification of our support and solidarity to the Unite UCU branch regarding this dispute.
• To encourage members to sign the “Open Letter against UCU PGRs as Staff co-lead redundancies”, sharing the link: view letter.
• To reinvigorate the branch’s organising on PGRs as Staff, drawing on support from the PGRs as Staff team, and so demonstrating the vital importance of this ongoing support being made available.

OU UCU motions passed at the Branch meeting on 18th July 2023

Amendment to Motion 4 - The 'Campus 2030' Project

In recent communications the VC has indicated that the university will undertake a business case over the next 9-12 months regarding a new central Milton Keynes campus. Originally there were two separate projects: a review of MK sites and exploration of a face-to-face teaching campus, which is something the university has previously rejected. These are now one proposal to sell Walton Hall, move to Central Milton Keynes and build a teaching campus. The OU will hire an external 'Chief Operating Officer' to oversee the development of the business case. 

The branch notes that:

• The use of 'business case' suggests VCE strongly supports the project before any clear statement of aims has been made or feasibility study undertaken 
• The conjoining of these two projects means a MK Central move would carry massive financial and other risks. These would be on a par with establishing a new university. 
• The risks involved would be far greater than the unsuccessful Students First Transformation Project which wasted millions of pounds, damaged the university's standing and destroyed trust in the senior leadership team.
• The feasibility study on a campus in Milton Keynes Central must involve existing staff so cannot be done without diverting resources from 'core' activity across the nations and regions.
• The institutional capacity required to plan, establish, and operate a new face-to-face campus and teaching model, distinct from the existing correspondence model (including its own face-to-face elements), is significant. The OU has no corporate experience in being a conventional university, and it is questionable whether it has the change management capacity to create one. Furthermore, developing a parallel business the size of a university for Milton Keynes would imply a financial turnover equal to a significant proportion of the OU’s current turnover. This would represent a fundamental, unresolvable risk to our capability to sustain and focus upon our unique, UK-wide, core activities.
• It is unclear what the ongoing relationship with Milton Keynes Council would be, the costs, benefits and incentives, or why the OU would be able to succeed where Cranfield, the original university partner, has withdrawn. 
• Successful partnerships to deliver OU modules through semi-traditional face-to-face teaching exist through Further Education colleges in Scotland, but prior trials of analogous models in England have been tried and found unsuccessful.   
• The Walton Hall site was, like the Open University itself, developed using public funds for the benefit of the nation(s) 
• The possibilities for repurposing the existing Walton Hall site are in danger of being overlooked, including options to generate income from the current estate.
• There are risks in assuming current levels of remote or homeworking will continue. It is still unclear how to best manage remote working in many traditionally on-campus roles, and whether or which roles are better located on campus. Furthermore, many issues with the Walton Hall and other OU sites stem from inadequate estates and facilities; inappropriate hot desking, inadequate meeting capacity (including online meeting equipment), loss of a ‘campus culture’ or ways of working conducive to sharing expertise and co-working. 
• There has been little effort for years to address poor public transport and other barriers to usage of Walton Hall by staff, students and visitors, nor evaluation of the opportunities from the imminent East-West railway links.
• The MK Central business case is likely to cost several million pounds in 2023/24 although the university refuses to fund an inflation-matching pay rise for staff. 

This branch resolves to direct the Executive Committee to: 

1. Create one or more working groups to respond to and monitor this project
2. Seek information about resources involved, if necessary, via FOI
3. Write to the Vice Chancellor and Chair of Council noting the following:

• The future and resources of the OU must not be placed at risk
• The OU’s academic standards and institutional independence must remain paramount. Any external institutional funding, investment or partnership agreements, whether public or private, must not grant those external bodies the authority to direct the university’s core business and operations. 
• The option of retaining, refurbishing and repurposing Walton Hall must be given full and equal consideration
• Sustainability, clearly defined in negotiated policy and evidenced, must be central to any discussions
• There must be effective consultation with staff from the outset, over appropriate timescales, and embedded in the project
• Senior Leaders must not repeat the many mistakes identified in the Critical Review of the Students First Transformation project
• Attention and resources must not be diverted from the OU’s core business, including consequential risks to: agreements with devolved governments, agreements based on being a unique part-time, correspondence HE university sites beyond Milton Keynes, and homeworking staff. 
• Any new 'arm' or undertaking that is proposed must avoid outsourcing, must recognise the OU trade unions and must use employment contracts to the same standard as those for current OU staff. This includes being part of the OU for the purposes of processes such as (but not limited to) internal vacancies, pay progression (spine points), redundancy, redeployment, and eligibility for funding from bodies such as UKRI. 

Motion 5 – Support for Branches on Strike or Facing Punitive MAB Deductions

This branch notes that a number of our sibling branches are taking action against compulsory redundancies and/or are facing unprecedented threats of pay docking for the marking and assessment boycott. 

This branch directs the Executive Committee to send and publicise messages of support and donations to local hardship funds as appropriate.

OU UCU motion passed at the Emergency General meeting on 12th June 2023

This branch notes with dismay that Congress 2023 has been overshadowed by controversy and division over motions relating to the war in Ukraine, which have caused some members to leave the union or to consider doing so. 
This branch affirms its commitments to the main principles of Congress Motion 6 with one addition, in point 2. This branch: 

1. Condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
2. Recognises Ukraine’s right to self-determination and self-defence 
3. Support the courageous work of Russian anti-war activists and journalists despite state op-pression and personal risk
4. Condemns all manifestations of imperialism
5. Reaffirms UCU’s commitments to international solidarity; protecting human rights, workers’ rights and education for all; defending and promotion rights of all displaced people and all flee-ing conflict.

This branch resolves to: 

1. Affiliate to the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign (£20 for branch affiliation) and publicise its work 
2. Donate £100 toward the venue needed for the Campaign’s event on 17 June called ‘Another Ukraine is Possible’:  Ukrainian workers' fight for a just reconstruction - a Politics crowdfunding project in London by Ukraine Solidarity Campaign (crowdfunder.co.uk)
3. Contribute to the work of UCU’s International Working Group (as outlined in Congress Motion 6) to build awareness and understanding of the situation in Ukraine, and to publicise opportuni-ties for practical solidarity 
4. Bring the Statement on Ukraine following UCU Congress 2023 (google.com) to the attention of all members.

OU UCU motion passed at the Annual General meeting on 7th June 2023

Model motion on OU’s abuse of Fixed Term Contracts (FTCs) for research-only staff   

Purpose
For research-only staff, the OU’s abuse of Fixed Term Contracts (FTCs) has been revealed by much anecdotal evidence and by its own official figures. Towards improving the OU’s practices, this model motion is meant for all academic units. Staff could circulate this motion to the list-serve of their academic unit. The motion would be more effective if taken up in parallel at many levels (Centres, Schools, Departments and Faculties);  smaller units could forward their motion to larger ones.

The UCU branch would like to know about plans for such an agenda item and about any outcomes.  Please send info to ucu@open.ac.uk, Subject header ‘Researchers on FTCs’.   

MODEL MOTION for academic units - Let’s stop the OU’s abuse of Fixed Term Contracts (FTCs) for research-only staff 

The OU UCU branch asks academic units (and sub-units) to discuss and approve this motion. 

This meeting asks the branch Executive Committee to support members who raise the issues below within their academic units. 

Whereas UK universities have been churning research staff

The term ‘research-only staff’ denotes employment contracts which stipulate only research responsibilities, though such staff may volunteer for other tasks such as teaching.  UK research-only staff are predominantly on Fixed Term Contracts (FTCs). The 2002 Fixed Term Work Regulations limit the renewal of a FTC beyond 4 continuous years, after which it should be made open-ended, unless the employer can justify ‘objective reasons’ to the contrary. In many UK universities or in some academic units there, ‘objective reasons’ have featured spurious criteria, such as the source of previous funding.    
Moreover, OU management has avoided or pre-empted that procedure by signalling well beforehand that a FTC will not be renewed, thus incentivising the researcher to seek other options and to leave post before the contract ends, often before the research project ends.   

When more research staff are needed, new staff are employed on an FTC, thus regularly ‘churning’ them. In many cases research staff could have been retained to carry out ongoing or future work, e.g., generated by research bids.  
In some other cases, research-only staff are employed on FTCs beyond 4 years but are denied access to an open-ended contract, even when their skills are relevant to ongoing research work.   
For a national overview, see the 2017 UCU report. 

By abusing FTCs in all those ways, universities undermine career development, research continuity and prospects to raise external funds.  

Whereas the OU has been likewise churning research staff 

Such abuse of FTCs has been widespread at the OU. It has approx. 67% of its research staff on FTCs. Although that figure has declined somewhat in recent years, many have left before their contract ended, knowing that it will not be renewed beyond 4 years.  Few FTCs have become open-ended contracts.  (See February 2023 People Services report).  The indicators are consistent with management practices churning research staff.

In some cases, the OU management pressure has been blatant:  Before employing a researcher on a research project, a PI was required to sign a prior undertaking not to re-employ the researcher beyond that contract.   
A 2019 OU document undertook. to reduce the numbers remaining on FTCs beyond 4 years. This indicator has served as the official ‘success measure’ for implementing the Researcher Development Concordat (RDC), supposedly by improving employment stability.  The ‘success measure’ instead has disguised the OU management’s practices getting rid of such researchers before 4 years.  

Therefore this academic unit resolves that the OU should:

• Motivate research-only staff to remain in post for the duration of their FTC, especially through opportunities to strengthen their research skills and to bid for funds, which may provide a basis for extending their contracts.   
• Never pre-empt or avoid this opportunity, e.g., by requiring PIs not to re-employ a researcher.    
• Abide by the spirit of the Fixed Term Work Regulations: After 4 years, use FTCs only where their use is objectively justified (not by spurious criteria).  Otherwise move staff to secure contracts.  
• Work with UCU to develop robust redeployment and active bridging funds to retain research-only staff in post. The skills audits in place for ALs could similarly be used for research staff.  
• Discuss any instances of such obstruction at academic unit meetings, on request of the staff affected.   
• Promote the aim of the Researcher Development Concordat (RDC) for employment stability, thus fulfilling the OU’s commitment to the RDC.   
• Work with UCU to develop a stable work environment for research-only staff.  

Finally, this academic unit asks other units to approve and circulate the model motion.  

1. The announced threat of 140 redundancies at Birkbeck, 84 academic and 55 adminis-trative staff
2. That the majority of those academic staff threatened work in Arts and Humanities sub-jects.
3. The response of Birkbeck UCU, which includes this statement: “Birkbeck has a proud history of reaching students who otherwise would not enter higher education. Sacking 140 staff, including up to one in four teaching staff, threatens to trash that history. The cuts would severely harm student learning and jeopardise the university's commitment to social mobility and lifelong learning.”

1. That all threats of this nature are to be opposed
2. That this threat is part of wider assault on Arts and Humanities subjects, and that this weakens Higher Education as a whole
3. That staff within an institution whose goals parallel our own deserve our special sup-port

1. To make an immediate £1,000 donation to the campaign to save these jobs
2. To maintain close contacts with Birkbeck UCU, and offer ongoing support to their campaign to save jobs and the goals of the institution.

1. The announced UCU strike dates in November coincide with strikes called by CWU.
2. That while currently involved in talks, the RMT is also conducting a re-ballot for strike action
3. That the RCN has balloted for strike action for the first time in its history
4. That the NEU is currently conducting a consultative ballot for national strike action.

1. That coordinated and concerted action strengthens our collective claims over pay, pensions and working conditions. 
2. That after 14 years of austerity and cuts to public services, and the current cost of liv-ing crisis, enough is enough
3. That “the longer the picket line, the shorter the action”

1. To urge and encourage our branch members, wherever possible, to attend our own picket lines
2. That where this is not possible, to urge and encourage our branch members to visit other UCU picket lines and to send the branch mailbox selfies for a collective display on the branch website
3. To to invite representatives of other unions striking or balloting for strike action to visit our picket lines and, wherever possible, to encourage members to reciprocate.