NATFHE members are in dispute with London Metropolitan University over new contracts. The letter below - which they have sent to MPs - explains the details of the dispute.
2nd July 2004
Dear MP
London Metropolitan University: NATFHE dispute
I am writing to draw to your attention the current disturbing state of industrial relations at London Metropolitan University and the likely impact on student learning and student degree awards, academic staff, and the long term mission of the University After several months of a worsening dispute, we write to ask if you able to play a positive role in ending this dispute.
387 lecturers face dismissal on September 1st. They face dismissal because the University has decided that, whatever the cost, it must impose a new contract on academic staff formerly employed by London Guildhall University prior to its merger in 2002 with the University of North London to form London Metropolitan University.
The dispute is now affecting the wider community as well as staff directly employed:
• Academic staff jobs are seriously at risk because academic staff will not agree to the new imposed contract. The threat to dismiss staff unless they sign the new contract is what has triggered the dispute.
• The dispute is undermining the morale of academic staff across the institution and is damaging the University’s reputation within the entire UK academic community – London Met is the only UK university to have faced two academic boycotts within a period of five years
• Serious question marks are being raised by the higher education press about the standards of the University’s degrees because of the extraordinary decision by the University on July 22nd 2004 to abandon external validation of student degrees, due to support for the dispute from external examiners employed by other universities, many of whom are not even NATFHE members.
NATFHE remains available to immediately commence negotiations without preconditions as soon as the dismissal notices are withdrawn. It may be that you can in some way assist in ensuring a speedy outcome to this dispute. The attached briefing note summarises the key issues. If you would like further information please don’t hesitate to contact this office.
Yours sincerely
Jenny Golden
Enc
Background briefing – London Metropolitan University dispute with academic staff members of NATFHE.
Key dates
1st August 2002: London Metropolitan University created through merger of London Guildhall University and the University of North London
1st April 2004: Brian Roper, ex Vice Chancellor of University of North London becomes Vice Chancellor of London Metropolitan University
2nd April 2004: Staff formerly employed by London Guildhall University sent notice of dismissal to take effect on September 1sst unless they accept University of North London contract
June 2004: Staff from both campuses unite to stop work in protest at notice of dismissals and urge negotiations to reach an agreement
1st September 2004: 387 academic staff face dismissal
What is the background to the current dispute?
London Metropolitan University (Londonmet) is a new university formed on 1st August 2002 as a result of the merger of London Guildhall University (LGU) and the University of North London (UNL). It is currently the largest unitary university in London comprising roughly 25,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students.
On April 1st 2004 Brian Roper (ex Vice Chancellor of UNL) became Vice Chancellor for London Metropolitan University. One day later, on April 2nd 2004, ex-LGU academic staff were sent a notice of dismissal to take effect on September 1st 2004 unless they accept the contractual terms of the ex-North London staff.
NATFHE, the sole recognised union for academic staff in both previous universities, and in LMU, regards the notice of dismissal as a quite inappropriate means for any Vice Chancellor to use to impose a new contract on his academic work force and a violation of all good employment practices.
The action of the University management is directly contrary to assurances, given to LGU staff prior to the merger, that the LGU contract would be the default contract post-merger.
Is an agreed solution possible?
We believe so. Previous offers of the ex-UNL contract to the ex-LGU staff have been repeatedly rejected by all the individual 387 staff and by NATFHE on the grounds that the ex-UNL contract provides inferior terms and conditions primarily related to issues of academic freedom, teaching conditions and scholastic research. NATFHE believes the new contract for the University should:
• Ensure appropriate and equitably distributed workloads
• Provide appropriate limits on excessive evening and weekend working
• Ensure holiday entitlements are safeguarded
• Provide an appropriate and fair reward system for lecturers reflecting good national practice
• Ensure lecturers are enabled to use their professional judgement in organising their scholarly activity
It was the hope and expectation of NATFHE that a new contract for the new university could be negotiated with the university to the mutual benefit of staff, students and management. That would require NATFHE and the University to agree to move away from both the UNL and LGU contracts. We have done that. We still believe that a negotiated settlement is entirely possible and must happen. However, for that to happen the University needs to accept that the UNL contract is not the start and finish of the negotiations.
How did the dispute start?
On April 2nd 2004, LMU wrote to all ex-LGU academic staff requiring them to move to the contract of employment used by UNL. This latter contract, which the University describes as “the preferred contract” was a compromise arising from a previous bitter dispute in 1999 in which management’s original proposals were described by no less than the Times Higher Education Supplement as “the contract from hell”. In a number of important aspects it is a worse contract than that used as LGU. Staff were quite prepared to see a new “third” contract agreed but not to have the UNL contract imposed.
For two years following the merger, the University insisted it would only discuss the UNL contract and no other. NATFHE’s view was that a new university should do what other universities do after a merger – agree a new contract based on elements of both contracts.
The University wrote to ex LGU staff on 2nd April 2004 as follows:
“I am writing to you to give notice that your employment by the University on your current contract will come to an end on 31st August 2004…..In order that the position should be clear, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms of the preferred contract if you continue to work after 1st September 2004, unless you write to me confirming that you do not accept the new contract. If I do hear from you to that effect your employment will terminate on 31st August 2004.”
Both prior to, and since, the letter of dismissal of April 2nd 2004, NATFHE have made every effort to find a way of resolving the dispute without resort to industrial action. We remain committed to a third, new contract, agreed on the basis of partnership and collegiality. We have made no preconditions for the negotiations other than the withdrawl of the dismissal notices, and have suggested a fixed timetable, including ACAS conciliation if necessary, to ensure a successful conclusion.
Unfortunately, both prior to, and since April 2nd 2004, management have not been willing to listen to staff views. The University’s threat to sack staff unless the new contract was agreed, dismayed staff across the entire University. The response was to ballot on industrial action and warn of an academic boycott by the whole academic community.
So strong were feelings that staff across both campuses were balloted, and the result in favour of industrial action unless the dismissal notices were withdrawn was endorsed across both campuses.
To date the action taken has included a one day strike overwhemingly supported by academic staff, and action short of a strike comprising non-co-operation with the internal appointment of student personal academic advisers (these appointments were intended to take effect at the beginning of the academic year 2004-5).
Isn’t the university now saying that it doesn’t really intend to dismiss any academic staff who don’t agree the new contract?
We don’t know. After NATFHE sought clarification as to whether staff would really be dismissed on the basis of the 2nd April letter, the Vice Chancellor wrote to NATFHE on 7th April 2004 to state:
“The letter (of 2nd April)…..makes it clear that if an individual does not accept the new terms they must notify the University before 31st August as, in those circumstances, their employment will come to an end at that time.”
On 29th April 2004, Brian Roper again wrote to NATFHE:
“The members of the academic staff who received the letter can be under no illusion that their existing contract of employment comes to an end on 31st August. They have been given notice of termination of that contract.”
However, in a letter to external examiners of 15th July 2004, in an attempt to persuade them to cease their academic boycott of the university, the Vice Chancellor wrote to them stating that:
“I feel you may have been wrongly informed about the dispute. It has been suggested that the University is planning to dismiss academic staff. This is not true and the recently approved budget for the university for 2004-05 has made no provision for compulsory redundancy.”
NATFHE immediately wrote to the Vice Chancellor welcoming this statement and making it clear that if he would write to NATFHE members giving the same assurance and withdrawing the letter of dismissal, we would immediately halt our industrial action and academic boycott, and meaningful negotiations (to an urgent timetable with ACAS involvement) could start at once.
Unfortunately the university replied by refusing to do so. It claimed it needed a more detailed critique of the UNL contract prior to withdrawing the dismissal notices, and needed an assurance that the talks were likely to be successful. On 19th July the University wrote
“We need to understand the concerns NATFHE has with the preferred (UNL) contract before any such discussions can take place. We do not consider that there are any grounds at the present time to withdraw the letter of 2nd April.”
Despite NATFHE’s view being that both the UNL and LGU contracts should be considered in the negotiations, we provided the University, at their request, with a set of key concerns with the UNL contract to be addressed in the talks. The response was further correspondence saying this was still not sufficient to start the talks.
Couldn’t NATFHE go just that bit further to break the logjam?
We did. Not only did we offer time limited talks, and ACAS conciliation, we then offered to hold the first meeting to agree the timetable, process and agenda, whilst the dismissal notices were still in place. Unfortunately even this offer was rejected on 21st July:
“For clarification, our position is that we need a detailed mapping of NATFHE’s concerns in respect of the preferred (UNL) contract and a further clarification of what the issues are in respect of the view expressed re style, approach and culture, so that we can then assess the likelihood of negotiations on a new contract being successful. When we have this information we can then give consideration to withdrawing the 2nd April letter.”
As we pointed out in reply, the only way to see if the talks would be successful if for them to take place. We are at a loss to know what else we can reasonably do beyond proposing time-limited talks with a trigger for ACAS conciliation to resolve any outstanding issues. We remain available to start them, as long as 387 members of staff are not facing imminent dismissal. Since Brian Roper claims he has no intention of dismissing these staff, we simply can’t understand why he does not remove the legal notice dismissing them.
Isn’t your action really just hurting the students of London Met?
We have tried to ensure that the impact on student experience has been minimal. However we have also felt it necessary to impose external pressure by way of an academic boycott against London Metropolitan University. The combined effect of the internal and external action is beginning to have effect on current and future students in two ways.
Firstly, the academic boycott has led to external examiners suspending their duties. In response, the release of unconfirmed marks for certain modules and courses is being delayed. NATFHE regrets this. It is our view that provisional results and provisional indication of degree achievement can be released. Members are also being encouraged where requested to supply student references in the normal way. However, as a consequence of management policy (possibly intended to alienate students from staff) some current students certainly are experiencing difficulties.
If the dispute remains unsettled by September 1st 2004 and academic staff were to be dismissed, the impact on the experience of continuing or future students would be dramatic. It will be impossible to run a new undergraduate and post-graduate programme if a sizeable number of staff were to be dismissed. The industrial action that would inevitably follow such dismissals will arise at the point of student enrolment with the inevitability of chaos in the first weeks of a new academic year.
It is not NATFHE’s wish either to delay current finalists from obtaining their degrees or to resort to industrial action in September 2004. We do not wish to work at or teach students at a failing institution. Many of the staff threatened with dismissal have taught in the institution for many years and have worked hard to build its success. We wish to continue doing so.
Doesn’t the University say that the reason for insisting on all staff adopting the UNL contract is to improve the quality of teaching and learning?
It does. On 2nd April the University wrote to state, “the Board of Governors has now determined that it is not in the longer term interests of the university for there to be members of staff who are not employed on the preferred contract.”
No further explanation was given at the time, but on 19th July 2004, in response to a threat of legal proceedings if the reason for the need to change contracts was not provided, the University wrote to some members of staff to explain:
“The reason for the termination of your contract is the University’s need to have a consistent framework for delivering its academic programmes and to ensure a uniform student experience. The university is also facing an institutional audit by the QAA in 2005. That requirement is not met by having academic staff employed on a number of
different contracts.”
This is a curious explanation for two reasons. First, and most importantly, it is hard to reconcile the commitment to quality as the driver for the new contract and the threatened dismissals, with the astonishing decision by the Deputy Vice Chancellor, Dr Aylett, to write to external examiners on 22nd July 2004 to explain
“We have not received confirmation from you that the marking standards for which you are responsible are within the normal expectations. Unless we hear from you to the contrary by 12 noon on Wednesday 28th August 2004, we will assume that you have confirmed that the range of marks given by internal examiners to students fairly reflect the standards of those students’ performance, having regard to standards elsewhere in UK higher education.”
At a stroke the University has thereby threatened to undermine the standing of London Metropolitan University degrees, and incidentally to strip away a central defence to any regrading appeals by students since there will not have been external moderation of grades.
Secondly, the University has actually increased the number of different contracts it has offered to academic staff – to Academic Leaders, Associate Heads of departments, Professors, Heads of Research Institutes, and Heads of Departments. It is difficult to square this with the insistence on a uniform contract for academic staff.
Presumably, the Quality Assurance Agency, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, parents and students, and indeed the Secretary of State for Education might want urgent clarification as to why, in the name of raising quality, the University has undermined it.
What will happen on 1st September?
On 1st September we expect the large majority of academic staff threatened with dismissal to turn up for work, making it clear that they remain on their previous contracts of employment, available and willing to work.
The University has said it has no intention of sacking them, so we expect there to be no dismissals. However, since the formal notices of dismissal remain in place, we cannot be certain of this.
Until then, NATFHE remains available to start negotiations subject only to the University withdrawing the dismissal letters. Our offer for time limited talks, without preconditions, and with ACAS involvement remains. We wish to move forward and agreed a new contract. We are not willing, however, to allow management by dictat and dismissal to become an accepted approach to employment relations at Londonmet.
We invite you to consider the following questions:
• As the university has told external examiners and NATFHE officials that it has no intention of dismissing 387 staff, why will it not immediately write to those staff to say so, thus withdrawing the legal threat of dismissal, and enabling talks to start at once?
• Was the decision to write to external examiners on 22nd July cleared with the QAA, with HEFCE and with the Board of Governors?
• What specific aspects of ‘student experience’ would be improved by the imposition of the ex-UNL contract on ex-LGU staff? What evidence is there that the student experience of ex-UNL students was better than that of ex-LGU students as a consequence of the two groups of academic staff being on different contracts?
• Is the above reflected in terms of retention, progression or achievement of students either by comparing records of student experience at the previous institutions or by reference to comparing the current heritage models of teaching and degree delivery within London Metropolitan University?
Further information from NATFHE's website
or from Steve Cushion on s.cushion@londonmet.ac.uk or Jenny Golden on jgolden@natfhe.org.uk
