Category: Uncategorized

Click here for detailed information about appealing a redundancy:

https://www.ucu.essex.ac.uk/files/2026/05/UCU-Member-Redundancy-Appeals-guidance_FINAL-1.pdf

On 15th April 2026, more than 400 members of the University community gathered at a joint union meeting to consider the motion below. The motion passed overwhelmingly, with 97% voting in favour. Only 2 votes expressed confidence in the current leadership of the University.

—

VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE:

This ballot will ascertain the degree to which University of Essex staff agrees with a Vote of No Confidence in the Vice Chancellor and/or the Executive Committee, on the following grounds:

REASONS FOR NO CONFIDENCE:

• No business case for the Southend campus closure, and refusal to meet with, or offer up running cost details to, Southend-on-Sea City Council and local investors.
• Inconsistencies in staff numbers presented to the unions as the basis against which cuts are being made.
• Significant inconsistencies, inequalities and errors made throughout in communication and information provided to staff, including staff being told they are out of the ‘at risk’ pool in error and management missing multiple timelines for providing information.
• Lack of meaningful consultation and transparency throughout with repeated violations of ACAS best practice recommendations for a fair and genuine consultation, including the pre-determined decision to close the Southend campus and the VC’s lack of participation in collective consultations, including her refusal to MP’s requests to discuss the Southend closure, which have been a key constraint to making progress.
• Selection and pooling process for compulsory redundancies that are variable between departments and the lack of transparency regarding these.
• Going directly against Essex’s founding principles, allowing low-income, working-class students the opportunity to access higher education, by targeting Pathways for heavy cuts and closing the Southend campus where a high proportion of students are from local, low-income families.
• Failure to consult with trade unions over the sudden announcement of the February 2025 pay award deferral, as required under the collective bargaining agreement written into staff employment contracts.
• Failure of transparency and accountability over the CAS crisis and UKVI sanctions, partly responsible for the current financial situation.

WHAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE:

• The resignation of the Vice Chancellor, Frances Bowen, and an apology and full accountability from the senior management team.
• The re-opening of the consultation process, including full consultation over the proposed closure of Southend, in line with ACAS best practice recommendations for a fair and genuine consultation.
• Halting the compulsory redundancy process due to the errors and failure of consultation made throughout the process.
• The option provided for the revocation of signed redundancy contracts for staff who believe they have been forced into taking voluntary redundancy as a direct consequence of errors made throughout the process, including the pre-determined decision to close the Southend campus.
• Financial disclosure of Southend campus running costs to the Southend-on-Sea City Council and investors.

The following motion was passed at a quorate branch meeting on 15th October 2025.

—

Motion for USS to divest from fossil fuels

This branch notes that:

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that global emissions must decrease by 45% by 2030, and this means there must be no new fossil fuel projects;
2. As of August 2025, 116 universities had divested fossil fuels. But the USS board of directors still refuses to do so, and UUK has not yet pushed USS with its £72.9bn fund to divest;
3. Fossil fuel investments perform worse than nearly all others, particularly renewables, according to a 2021 report by Imperial Business School and the International Energy Agency;
4. USS was forced to write off £500m in Russian investments in 2022, much of which was in coal, oil, gas and their banks;
5. USS’s own Ethical Investment Survey of members in 2019 showed a large majority wanted to divest fossil fuels, but the board buried the report until it was sued;
6. The USS board continues to appoint members who are executives from the fossil fuels industry, including British Coal and HSBC (Europe’s second largest fossil fuel funder).

This branch believes that:

1. University staff understand the science and evidence of climate change and the ecological damage caused by fossil fuels;
2. University staff have the right to ensure that their pension investments contribute to preserving a healthy, living planet, and does not bankroll coal, oil or gas;
3. University staff care about protecting their pensions and savings from poor financial decision-making.

This branch resolves:

1. To circulate the petition for USS to divest fossil fuels at https://divestuss.org/petition-uss/ to members by email and social media, and encourage members to sign, within the next month;
2. To be listed on the petition website as a branch that supports divesting from coal, oil and gas, and shifting investment to renewable energy and other ethical economic activities;
3. To write to the university to demand that the employer calls on USS to divest from fossil fuels;
4. To submit a motion to Congress to state that unless there is agreement UCU must open a dispute with UUK within a month, and collectively bargain for USS to divest fossil fuels without delay, and use its shareholder votes to decarbonise all companies.

Essex UCU environmental reps

Dr Elia Valentini, Dr Jane Hindley and Dr Nina Markl

The following motion was passed at a quorate branch meeting on 15th October 2025.

—

Motion: amendments to branch rules

This branch resolves to make the following amendments to its rules (here, for reference):

8.7 – clarify criterion for anti-casualisation officer

Original text:

8.7 The role of anti-casualisation officer will ordinarily be filled by a member whose main employment is casualised, or who has, in the two years prior to their nomination, been in casualised employment as their main employment.

 After amendment (addition highlighted):

The role of anti-casualisation officer will be filled by a member whose main  employment is casualised. However, if there is no eligible candidate, the role can be filled by a member who has in the three years prior to their nomination been in casualised employment as their main employment, with a new call being made for the role (if no nominations from a recently casualised member are made).

Rationale: to clarify the meaning of “ordinarily” which we were advised by national UCU was too ambiguous.

9.2 – change to timeline for submitting nominations for committee positions

Original text:

9.2 Nominations

All nominations will be received in writing by the returning officer no later than the day that is 7 days before the day of the annual general meeting. Nominations must be accompanied by the written consent of the nominee and supported by the identifiable signatures of 2 members of the LA.

After amendment (addition highlighted):

All nominations will be received in writing by the returning officer no later than the day that is 21 days before the day of the annual general meeting.  Nominations must be accompanied by the written consent of the nominee and  supported by the identifiable signatures of 2 members of the LA.

Rationale: rule was amended in 2024 to better reflect branch practice, and reduce potential barriers to people wishing to put themselves forward for positions. However, this created an internal conflict within the rules and the proposed change resolves this and allows for ballots to take place should they be needed.

 9.4 – addition of role-sharing to elections process

Following amendment (addition highlighted):

Subject to rule 10.4, if there is only one eligible candidate for any officer  vacancy that candidate will be declared elected.

If the number of candidates to be ordinary members of the committee does not  exceed the number of vacancies, those candidates will be declared elected.

If there is either more than one eligible candidate for any officer vacancy or  more candidates than there are vacancies of ordinary members of the committee  a ballot of the members of the LA will be conducted in accordance with rule 10.

Where eligible candidates agree to jointly share an officer role, they may be elected or co-opted as joint officers (up to a maximum of three). In the event that one joint officer resigns or is otherwise unable to continue, the committee shall determine how to proceed in consultation with the remaining joint officer(s) and subject to ratification by a quorate general meeting of the branch. The resolution may include (but is not limited to): the appointment of a new joint officer to the vacant position; the continuation of the remaining officer(s) in a solo or reduced capacity; or a recommendation to hold an election to fill the vacancy. Any solution must remain consistent with the duties and responsibilities outlined in these rules and the overarching rules of UCU. 

13.1 & 13.2 – clarification of process for general meetings

Amendment: after “accepted at the discretion of the president” add, “VP or substitute chair; this decision may be challenged by the members in line with branch rule 3” in 13.1 and 13.2.

Rationale: to clarify process for AGM and other general meetings.

The following motion was passed at a quorate branch meeting on 15th October 2025.

—

Motion: Terrorism Act 2000 Amendment and the Proscribing of Palestine Action as voted for by Pam Cox

This branch notes:

• A draft order to amend the Terrorism Act 2000 and proscribe Palestine Action passed the Commons on Wednesday 2^nd
• The effect of the order is to make it a criminal offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, not only to belong to Palestine Action or to participate in its activities but even to voice support for it.
• Palestine Action is a protest group that carries out acts of civil disobedience. These involve property damage but no violence against living beings.
• According to international standards, acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.
• The proscription has been condemned by UN experts, civil liberties groups, cultural figures and hundreds of lawyers.
• Already, large numbers of people have been arrested and charged simply for voicing support for Palestine Action.
• There are also several reports of the police misusing the powers they have acquired as a result of the order to arrest and intimidate protestors simply for expressing support for the Palestinian people or disapproval of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
• Former branch member and senior academic member of staff Pam Cox, now MP for Colchester, voted in favour of the order.
• Many branch members who are now constituents of Pam Cox wrote to her prior to the vote expressing deep concern regarding the consequences of proscribing a non-violent direct action protest group and received this reply: “I believe it is right that the Government takes these threats very seriously, and that it is willing to take the necessary and proportionate steps to protect the public and defend our values.”

This branch believes that:

Far from defending our values, the order is a shocking infringement of liberty. It undermines civil liberties, constitutes a misuse of anti-terrorism legislation, suppresses dissent against the United Kingdom’s policy on Israel, and criminalises support for a protest group, thereby creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Given the harm it causes to civil liberties, all should oppose the order, whether they agree with Palestine Action’s aims and methods or not.

This branch resolves:

To condemn Pam Cox in the strongest possible terms for voting in favour of the Home Secretary’s order designating Palestine Action a terrorist organisation.

To formally communicate the branch’s position on this vote to the former colleague and union member and now MP for Colchester.

The following motion was passed at a quorate branch meeting on 25th June 2025.

—

Branch recruitment motion

 

This Branch notes:

• The current ongoing national negotiations and disputes within FE, HE and Prison Education.
• The current trends in UCU membership and the need for the Union to grow its membership base.

This Branch believes:

• That growing branch and Union membership is the key to making sufficient progress on local and national disputes.
• That the more members the branch and Union have the greater their power to influence our employers.
• That growing membership is a core responsibility of all Branch members.

This Branch resolves:

• To prioritise the recruitment of members and to embed recruitment in all branch activities.
• To have a standing agenda item for each branch committee meeting to discuss recruitment activity being undertaken by/in the branch.
• For the membership secretary of the branch to present a membership report at any Ordinary General Meeting and a yearly summary at each Annual General Meeting.
• To provide support for branch members undertaking activities to recruit non-union colleagues.
• To engage in cross-union collaboration and recruitment activities wherever possible to increase membership across all campus unions.

The following motion was passed at a quorate branch meeting on 23rd April 2025.

—

Solidarity with University of East Anglia UCU

The Branch Notes that:

• UEA UCU has been notified about the potential for mass redundancies affecting every sector of the University.
• The scale and nature of these redundancies threaten the institution and the wider Norfolk community, amounting to nothing less than cultural vandalism.
• UEA management are attempting to blame this on the COVID-19 pandemic and sector-wide issues such as rising staff costs and caps on student tuition fees, but the real blame lies with financial and strategic mismanagement.
• Staff at UEA have formally declared no confidence in key University leaders for the second time in two years.

The Branch resolves to:

• Publish statements of support for UEA colleagues fighting these redundancies and encourage members to do the same.
• Write formally to UEA’s Chair of Council, Sally Howes and Vice Chancellor David Maguire to protest against the impact of these cuts on staff and students and to express solidarity with those affected, encouraging all members to do the same.
• Contribute to the newly established local hardship fund, to aid UEA UCU members on strike to prevent mass job losses at the institution.
• Liaise with UNISON and Unite at Essex, UNISON and Unite to encourage similar solidarity actions to be carried out in support of UNISON and Unite members at UEA.

The following motion was passed at a quorate branch meeting on 23rd April 2025.

—

Trans and non-binary policies and relevant legislation

This branch notes:

• On 26^th March 2025 Office for Students (OfS) fined the University of Sussex £585,000 for breaches relating to free speech and governance. OfS stated the University’s Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy failed to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom public interest governance.
• On 16^th April 2025 the UK’s Supreme Court unanimously concluded “woman” and “sex” refer to a “biological woman and biological sex” for the purposes outlined in the Equality Act 2010, excluding trans women from this definition, including those with a Gender Recognition Certificate.
• The University of Essex has taken down their web page and subsequent policy Our approach to supporting trans and non-binary staff, with intentions to review and update.

This branch believes:

• The Supreme Court ruling does not bring clarity on this matter, and potentially undermines the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
• The ruling, alongside the temporary removal and subsequent review of the University’s trans and non-binary policy, may enable and/or increase hostilities and transphobic rhetoric, particularly transmisogyny, making trans lives more difficult in public and academic life.

This branch resolves:

• To explore and encourage the University to commit to meaningful trans and non-binary inclusion in academic life, and clarify how they intend to safeguard these communities in relation to their Harassment and bullying: Our Zero tolerance approach.
• To encourage the University to share transparency in its processes and decision-making relating to its equality policy reviews, inclusive of its upcoming review of its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy 2019-25 by September 2025.
• To encourage the university to involve relevant communities from the onset of the review including students and academics. The issue pertains to academic freedom and as such the review should be considered in appropriate university governance channels, especially Senate.

The following motion was passed at a quorate branch meeting on 10th March 2025.

—

Essex UCU Branch Motion
Opposing the Latest Version of the New Academic Calendar
Proposed by: Essex UCU Committee

This Branch Notes:

• We have had productive meetings and negotiations with the Senior Management Team (SMT) about the new academic calendar. The branch welcomed the agreement reached on 23.09.2024, in which SMT agreed to several red lines for any future changes to the academic calendar.
• Members are not opposed to change in principle. However, numerous members and non-members across departments, sections and schools have raised serious concerns about the revised version of the proposed academic calendar.
• Moreover, the latest version has not been widely shared with staff and the full report has not been shared with the campus unions. This has seriously limited transparency and input from the Essex community.
• No serious evidence has been provided to support the claims that the changes will help improve retainment and retention, reduce attainment gaps, and increase student recruitment. A structured literature review evidencing these claims was promised but never delivered, and in recent meetings with the campus unions SMT has stated that the changes will themselves be a kind of ‘research project’.
• There has been insufficient effort to ensure the proposal is workable across all departments, with particular implementation issues (such as for January start courses) deferred until after the proposals are approved.
• No costing has been conducted for the implementation of this calendar. SMT has dismissed concerns by claiming it is a ‘resource neutral’ project, ignoring the significant burdens such major changes would place on staff time, at a moment when the university is both shrinking and facing a financial crisis.
• Finally, a new Vice-Chancellor is about to take office, and several major leadership positions at the university are changing. Implementing a radical change to the academic calendar before new leadership is in place is very ill-advised.

Based on these serious concerns, this Branch Resolves:

• To oppose the latest version of the new academic calendar, and to call for the project to be postponed, until our concerns have been adequately addressed.
• To call on Senators to vote against the latest new academic calendar proposal.
• To insist that any future changes to the academic calendar be developed collaboratively, drawing on the university’s research, teaching, and administrative expertise. This process should include comparative analysis with other universities; an assessment of the resources involved; a clear, coherent, and evidenced justification; adherence to principles previously agreed with SMT; and thorough resolution of implementation concerns.
• To communicate our position widely to the university community.

The following motion was passed at a quorate branch meeting on 14th February 2024.

—

This branch notes:

• UCU national has an existing policy on the REF, and in May 2019, UCU’s annual higher education sector conference passed a range of motions on the REF, including a motion that called on the HESC to resolve to campaign against the use of REF criteria for performance management
• UCU Essex has existing policy on the REF, including the following:
  UCU Essex opposed the formal linkage of REF assessment to career security in 2014.
• We oppose the University’s current effort to pretend that they are not in fact directly linked, while it goes ahead with performance management measures (using REF metrics) leading to the threat of competence proceedings and dismissal.
• This linkage and these threats have imposed unreasonable pressure on many research staff across the last five years.
• The serious flaws and negative consequences of REF-related performance-management measures mean that HoDs should give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible

This branch resolves:

• To arrange a meeting with the PVC (R) to discuss the University’s approach to the 2028 REF and any Code of Practice they may produce.
• To campaign against the use of the REF criteria for performance management.
• To support members that oppose the REF and its use in management practices.