The action that seems to have caused the greatest consternation so far during this dispute is the University’s decision to deduct 1/260th of our annual salary for every day we are on strike, instead of 1/365th which they have done in previous disputes. These feelings were manifested in last week’s termly UCU meeting, and have led a number of staff to write to John Brady, Director of HR, expressing their unhappiness at this: thanks for this, and for copying me in.
I stand by the reply I sent to John Brady after he announced the 1/260th deduction:
‘We are disappointed that the University have decided to deduct 1/260th of salary for every strike day, instead of 1/365th. Where salary is paid monthly there is a legal assumption that pay accrues from day to day, giving a 1/365 the deduction, unless the contract of employment stipulates the employee’s working week (e.g. Monday – Friday), in which a 1/260th deduction may be allowed. We believe that the open-ended contract which most UCU members have is to the benefit of both staff and management, and thus a 1/365th deduction is applicable here, as has been agreed with school-teachers (paragraph 3.2 of Section 3 of the Burgundy Book), has already been adopted by some universities, e.g. Edinburgh, in the current dispute, and has been adopted by Reading in the past. If a 1/260th deduction was applied it could suggest that a stipulated working week had been defined by this university, which could be construed as a change to our contracts. We do not think that the consequences of this would be to anyone’s benefit, and thus urge you to reconsider your proposal and deduct 1/365th salary instead. ‘
His reply to me was:
‘In respect of pay deduction, I believe the University is entitled to deduct at the suggested level, and that this in line with the position being taken by the majority of institutions. I do not agree that it impacts on contractual arrangements. You should also note that this is the rate at which we pay for accrued leave, for example, when someone leaves service. I should also point you to UCU’s own advice to members, as follows:
HOW MUCH MONEY WILL I LOSE?
You should expect to have a day’s salary deducted for taking part in the strike. The employers’ are also threatening to make 100% deductions for action short of a strike. In general, we would not expect any employer to deduct more than 1/260th of your annual salary for each day of action. Any loss greater than this may be challenged by the union.’
And similar replies have been sent to those individuals who wrote to him later. Of course, the UCU advice does not say that universities should deduct at 1/260th, only that a rate greater than that is likely to be illegal.
It is incontrovertible that going on strike can lead to pay being lost for that day (although this also suggests that the activities that were going to be carried out on those strike days have also been ‘lost’ and should not be made up afterwards, unless some other activity is sacrificed in their place), but why the change to 1/260th? After all, this University has in the past deducted 1/365th. To me, the answers we have been given can be summarised as ‘because we can’. This is a micro example of a larger macro problem in HE: university representatives failing to engage in meaningful negotiation over USS reforms ‘because we can’; and failing to negotiate over job security, yes, ‘because we can’.
Tomorrow we can show to our displeasure in this by taking industrial action. Let’s make the most of this opportunity: because we can!
Paul
