2026 NEC Election Recommendations

Please vote for the following candidates in the 2026 UCU NEC elections.

Remember: You must vote for both VP candidates – Mark Pendleton and Suzi Toole.

FE voting
Vice President (FE)Suzi Toole
Vice President (HE)Mark Pendleton
UK-elected FERav Lall
Maria Vasquez-Aguilar
Northwest FE *Andrew Oldham
London and the East FE *Mark Murphy
Averil Young
Women members FEMonica Lawson
Maxine Looby
Women members HEAnastasia Christou
Poppy Gerrard-Abbott
Gillian Jack
HE voting
Vice President (FE)Suzi Toole
Vice President (HE)Mark Pendleton
UK-elected HEMichael Abberton
Matthew Barnard
Anastasia Christou
Bianca de Haan
Gillian Jack
Alex Prichard
Northeast HE*Terry Murphy
London and the East HE*Michael Abberton
Anastasia Christou
Bianca de Haan
Women members FEMonica Lawson
Maxine Looby
Women members HEAnastasia Christou
Poppy Gerrard-Abbott
Gillian Jack

*members in that region only

Higher Education Committee Paper: Coordinating Lobbying and Campaigning in the UK Higher Education Crisis: Mapping Stakeholder Initiatives and Opportunities for UCU

The following paper was presented to UCU’s Higher Education Committee by J. Michelle Coghlan at it’s meeting on 10 October. HEC voted to accept this paper.

Bijan Parsia from UCU Commons also put forward a motion on branch-level political campaigning based on this paper that passed near unanimously at the same HEC meeting.


Introduction

UCU launched its Stop the Cuts campaign in March 2025 to mobilise staff and students against redundancies and closures and to demand urgent government action on catastrophic cuts across the sector. But in part because of the scale of the crisis of a HE sector in “freefall,” a range of other stakeholders–including Universities UK (UUK), the British Academy, the Independent Social Research Foundation (ISRF), the Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU), and various think tanks—have also begun lobbying, publishing data, and attempting to shape the public narrative on this crisis and where we go from here. No single voice has yet articulated a comprehensive solution and most lobbying initiatives are individual rather than collective stakeholder efforts. 

UCU’s Stop the Cuts campaign is an important intervention for structural reform of HE funding, but there is scope to do more: to coordinate with allies, to contribute unique local data, and to develop a narrative that speaks to both economic and intrinsic values of higher education.

This paper maps those initiatives with two goals in mind: 

  • To provide UCU’s Higher Education Committee (HEC) with a clear overview of the current HE lobbying landscape.
  • To ask how UCU might coordinate and synergise its industrial campaigning with wider sector lobbying, and what distinctive evidence the union can contribute — particularly at branch and local levels — to strengthen arguments about the impacts of these cuts on local communities, widening participation efforts, and regions. 

1. The Scale of the Crisis

Evidence of systemic fragility is mounting:

  • Financial decline: Universities UK (June 2025) projects widespread deficits across the sector, with four in ten institutions facing acute financial challenges. The Guardian (May 2025) reported that universities’ income had fallen for a third consecutive year.
  • Redundancies and closures: QMUL UCU maintains a live tracker of restructures, redundancies, and course closures across the UK. Patterns show disproportionate impacts on arts, humanities, and post-1992 institutions.
  • Productivity and inequality: HEPI (February 2024), the UK’s only independent think tank devoted to education, released a report linking the availability of HE provision to local skill levels and productivity, warning that further cuts will exacerbate entrenched regional inequality.
  • Media consensus: Recent coverage in the Financial Times, BBC, TimesLRB stresses both the scale of financial decline and the erosion of the cultural and democratic role of universities.

The sector is thus confronting both economic and civic-cultural crises: financial unsustainability alongside the weakening of universities as public institutions.

2. Stakeholder Data and Evidence Initiatives

Several organisations are producing evidence bases that attempt to shape UK policy debates by highlighting the societal impacts of these cuts to our sector (or the direct correlation between funding cuts and current government policy):

  • HEPI (2024): Explored the association between HE provision, skills, and productivity, presenting universities as a lever for inclusive growth.
  • British Academy (2024): Launched an interactive map of “cold spots” in SHAPE subjects (social sciences, humanities, and arts), highlighting regional inequalities in provision.
  • UUK (2025): Modelled the financial impact of current government policy decisions, demonstrating the systemic nature of the crisis.
  • QMUL UCU Tracker (2025): Documents live cases of restructures, redundancies, and closures across the sector.
  • School of Advanced Study Humanities Summits (2025): Gathered funders, professional associations, and faculty leaders to call for stronger lobbying and a reframing of the public case for the humanities (and HE) as a public good.

Implication for UCU:

Much of this data comes from think tanks, funders, or institutional associations. UCU, by contrast, holds granular information at branch level — where courses are closing, which communities are losing access, how staff and students are affected. A central strategic question is therefore: what additional local data can UCU provide?

Beyond documenting course closures and redundancies, UCU is uniquely positioned to evidence at branch- and regional-level:

  • Widening participation gaps emerging in different regions.
  • Economic effects on local communities and cities where universities are major employers.
  • Knock-on impacts of restructures and job losses for civic life, public services, and graduate pipelines.

Developing this evidence base would enable UCU to complement and extend the data produced by other sector stakeholders, while asserting the union’s role as the organisation best placed to demonstrate the human and community-level consequences of these cuts.

3. Stakeholder Lobbying and Advocacy

3.1 Independent Social Research Foundation (ISRF)

In July 2025 the ISRF published A New Regulatory Framework for University Cuts, proposing mechanisms to govern and mitigate the impact of redundancies and closures.

3.2 British Academy

In July 2025, the incoming President of the British Academy publicly urged the Prime Minister to “strengthen and champion” UK universities. The Academy has become increasingly vocal in defending the cultural and civic value of the humanities and social sciences, while also making growth-related arguments.

3.3 Council for the Defence of British Universities (CDBU)

Founded in 2012, the CDBU defends institutional autonomy, academic freedom, inclusive access, and the recognition of HE as a public good. In 2024 it published University Governance: Views from the Inside (Steven Jones and Diane Harris), based on interviews across 41 institutions. In May 2025 it launched The CDBU Code of Ethical University Governance, which calls for governors to act as ambassadors for the sector and to embed higher education’s public mission in governance practice.

Notably, UCU has already begun engaging with the CDBU: Steven Jones, lead author of the governance report, has been invited to speak at UCU HE policy events. This indicates scope for deeper collaboration, particularly around shared concerns with governance, accountability, and the erosion of academic values under managerialism.

3.4 Humanities Summits

The 2025 Summits convened by the School of Advanced Study foregrounded the lack of coherent lobbying across the sector. James Coe (Director, Counterculture Scotland) argued that while creative industries produce growth, they also carry intrinsic civic value — and that both sides of that case must be articulated to demonstrate what the arts (and HE) brings to working-class communities if we want to shift the political conversation on HE as a public good. 

4. Recent Media and Political Coverage

In part because of its scale, the HE crisis is increasingly framed in mainstream media outlets as structural and urgent:

  • Financial Times (March, July 2025): “Academic recession” and long-term decline.
  • BBC (March 2025): “Four in ten universities face financial challenges.”
  • The Times (May 2025): “University crisis demands a complete reboot.”
  • Guardian (May 2025): “Universities’ income falls for third consecutive year.”
  • London Review of Books / History Workshop (2025): Academic commentary stressing cultural stakes and the erosion of trust.
  • Parliamentary concern: Education Committee Chair Helen Hayes (Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood) warned in March 2025 of a “crunch point,” emphasising the sector could not weather further cuts. 

This coverage amplifies the urgency of system HE funding reform but has yet to translate into either a coherent government response or coordinated lobbying effort across the sector.

5. Strategic Implications for UCU

5.1 Visibility and Leadership

There is an opportunity to broaden the union’s lobbying profile by engaging proactively with stakeholders like the British Academy, ISRF, and CDBU.

5.2 Narrative and Messaging

Stakeholders consistently stress that economic arguments alone are insufficient. The case for HE must combine its role in inclusive growth with its intrinsic civic, cultural, and intellectual value. UCU can play a key role in developing and amplifying that narrative, especially by connecting it to the lived experiences of staff and students. 

5.3 Coalitions and Partnerships

Potential alliances include:

  • British Academy: shared interest in regional access and defending SHAPE subjects.
  • CDBU: shared concern with governance, managerialism, and public accountability.
  • ISRF: policy-oriented framework proposals.
  • Humanities Summits network: collective lobbying base.

5.4 Data and Evidence

A pressing question for UCU is: what wider local data can branches supply to strengthen lobbying beyond documenting redundancies? 

  • Mapping widening participation gaps that result from course closures.
  • Evidencing the economic impact of job losses and restructures on cities and regions.
  • Tracking knock-on effects on local schools, employers[1], and civic life.

This type of data could help to evidence the scale of the crisis but also amplify the urgency of the need for a system overhaul of UK HE funding as well as making the case for HE as a social good. 

5.5 Integrating Campaigning and Lobbying

In this new landscape, UCU has the opportunity to integrate its campaigning energy with proactive lobbying for long-term funding reform, ensuring that UCU is not just fighting redundancies but shaping the sector’s future.

J Michelle Coghlan (Sept 2025)


[1] For example, a HEPI/Kaplan study from June 2024 determined the economic effect of overseas students at a constituency level (both gross and net of increased costs of services). Similar data for total 

economic effect would form a good talking point for MP surgeries, local civic groups​​, and so on. 

Posts elected at Congress – Voting Recommendations

Several key UCU roles are elected at Congress, by Congress delegates. Please remember to vote if you’re a delegate, and please support the following candidates. This is a cross-factional list, including members of the Campaign for UCU Democracy, UCU Commons and independent members.

Conduct of Members Committee

  1. Sophia Woodman
  2. Themesa Neckles
  3. Joshua Spears
  4. Julie Milner
  5. Andrew Oldham
  6. Suzi Toole
  7. Ann Gow
  8. Janet Farrar
  9. Jak Peake
  10. Umran Ali
  11. Pat Roche
  12. Philippa Browning
  13. Denis Nicole

Please vote for the candidates in the order of preference listed above

Congress Business Committee

FE Business Committee

  1. Julie Milner
  2. Pat Roche

HE Business Committee

  1. David Bretherton

Please vote for the candidates in the order of preference listed above

FE Pay and Conditions Negotiators

  1. Mark Murphy
  2. Stuart Bond
  3. Helen Kelsall

Please vote for the candidates in the order of preference listed above

HE Pay and Conditions Negotiators (New JNCHES)

  1. Ben Pope
  2. Umran Ali
  3. Caroline Proctor
  4. Robyn Orfitelli

Please vote for the candidates in the order of preference listed above

HE USS Pension Negotiators

  1. Mark Pendleton
  2. Jackie Grant
  3. Mattew Inglis
  4. Sarah Joss

Please vote for the candidates in the order of preference listed above

Voting on HESC 2025 Motions

The following is a list of key Higher Education Sector Conference (HESC) motions, with commentary from the Campaign for UCU Democracy and a suggestion on how vote on these motions.

There are many motions not listed here. In these cases we encourage degelates to listen to the debates and decide on the strength of the arguments.

MotionSupport / OpposeNotes
HE2 Composite: Rebuilding the fight over pay and jobsOpposeCampaign for UCU Democracy (UCUD) believe that it is both legally and tactically problematic to try and take UK-wide industrial action to fight redundancies. Many branches are already engaged in local action, and have had successes in doing so. Attempting to call UK-wide action will undermine the ability of local branches to fight on their own terms.    
HE3 Pay and security
HE4 Fight the Funding Crisis in Higher Education
HE5 Composite: Collectivise the fight against cuts in HE
HE11 Protect casualised staff amid budget cuts and redundanciesSupportCasualisation is an issue of high importance, and casualised staff are particularly impacted during periods of redundancy.
HE15 Securing financial security and effective governance in higher educationSupportGovernance reform is essential if we are to ensure our universities are accountably managed.
HE16 Reclaiming HE as a common good needs agile strategySupportIt is important that we prioritise student number controls, in order to build a more stable sector.
HE18 Improving USS member benefitsSupport Amendment 18A.1 Oppose the motion, even if amended.The UCU Superannuation Working Group is still investigating the merits of Conditional Indexation (CI), and it would be premature to oppose CI before this work has been completed.

Voting on FESC 2025 Motions

The following is a list of key Further Education Sector Conference (FESC) motions, with commentary from the Campaign for UCU Democracy and a suggestion on how vote on these motions.

     For/Against/AbstainReason
 FE1 FE Pay      For
FE2 Build support for nationally coordinated action 2025/26 ForSupports branches 
FE2A.1 Further education committee Branch decision 
FE3 The New Deal for FE   AgainstAggregated ballot
FE4 FE pay and bargaining Against Ballot before the summer – how??
FE5 After the spending review prepare national action Against Impractical – not building from branches
FE6 Pay Parity with School Teachers   AgainstNational strike action impractical for September
FE7 Closing the Pay Gap in FE For
FE8 Renewed importance of national action AgainstAggregated ballot
FE9 FE Pay campaign – Call for escalation AgainstIt’s unclear – lack focus 
FE10 FE Funding Now ForNo commitments to action in this motion 
FE11 Holiday entitlements of staff and returning in August For 
FE12 Deficit budgets For  
FE13 Climate action in FE ForCampaigning 
FE14  Best deal for members from the new prison education contract For 
FE15 Protect casualised staff amid budget cuts and redundancies For 
FE16 Recruitment and retention of casualised members in further education  For 
FE17 Composite: Campaign to reverse cuts to the adult skills fund    For 
FE18  Composite: To seek realistic funding for ACE from the Labour Government For 
FE19 Fair Pay for Institutes of Adult Learning   For 
FE20 FE Staff Safety in the age of AI   For 
FE21 Working towards tackling workload   For 
FE22 Stop the erosion of hours for delivery of FE programmes  For 
FE23  Disclosure of relevant and confidential background information with staff For 
FE24 Renewing UCU’s Objection to OFSTED in FE For 
FE25 Resisting Reform UK’s racist ideology in education  For 
FE26 Building anti-racist colleges  Not sure – nice idea but workloadWorkload issues
FE27 Combatting far right in FE  ForWorkload issues
FE28 Women and the new deal for FE ForIt’s up to you
FE29 Protecting migrant workers: Fair visa support and workplace rights in FE   For 
FE30 Recruitment and retention of disabled workers in the FE sector For 
FE31 Increasing the visibility of young LGBT+ people in FE For 
FE32 Equality data in FE ForWorkload implications for regional staff
FE33 FE college pay: Investigate senior management excess salaries  For 
FE34 End VAT inequality for FE colleges  For 
FE35 Palestine and the war in Gaza – freedom to discuss             Personal choice 
FE36 Participation in regional FE committees For 
FE37 FE conference democracy  Against Branch independence 

Voting on 2025 Congress motions

The following is a list of key Congress motions, with commentary from the Campaign for UCU Democracy and a suggestion on how vote on these motions.

UCU Congress 2025 – Saturday 24th of May

Late Motion 16 (No Confidence in the General Secretary) has been ruled out of order. Please do not suppport any motions to have it ruled back onto the agenda.

MotionSupport / OpposeNotes
32 Special Congress on UCU Democracy SupportWhile the Campaign for UCU Democracy (UCUD) do not necessarily support the recommendations of the 2018 Democracy Commission, we do think that there is a need for UCU members to discuss and possibly amend our democratic structures, so welcome calls for a special congress on this issue.
34 Rule Change: TransparencyOpposePassing this motion would allow employers to demand previously confidential information from UCU using the Freedom of Information Act. 
35 Rule Change: Recall of Congress and/or Sector ConferencesOpposePassing this motion would force UCU staff to make up work lost to industrial action, if they went on strike during Congress. 

UCU Congress 2025 – Monday 26th of May

MotionSupport / OpposeNotes
52 Conference on political BlacknessSupportThe Campaign for UCU Democracy believe that this conference would be a vitally important opportunity to focus on the racism being experienced by Black members.  
63 Enough is enough! Post-16 education needs new political representationOpposeUCU is currently independent of all political parties, and should not compromise this independence by selectively inviting some MPs to address NEC.

2025 NEC Voting Recommendations

Below is a list of candidates who are standing for election to UCU’s NEC. Some are members of the Campaign for UCU Democracy, some are independents, and some are members of UCU Commons. We believe that these are all people who would make a positive contribution to the work of the union, and that their views broadly align with our own. We strongly encourage you to vote for these candidates, and these candidates alone. We do not recommend voting for any candidates who are not listed here.

You will note that in some elections we are suggesting that you preference specific candidates. In other elections we haven’t done this, but ask that you vote for all of the listed candidates, following your own order of preference.

Voting is by post, and ballots will open on 27 January 2025 and close on 3 March 2025. If you haven’t been sent a ballot paper, please contact UCU’s Democratic Services team.

Trustee (3 seats)Preference
Dr Angela Roger (University of Dundee)
Dr Joanna De Groot (University of York)2
Adam Ozanne (University of Manchester)3
Vice president from the higher education sector,  becoming president 2027-28
Dyfrig Jones (Bangor University) 
Honorary Treasurer
Andrew Feeney (Northumbria University) 
Midlands FE (1 seat)
Alison Greaves (Coventry College)
North West HE (2 seats)Preference
Dr J. Michelle Coghlan (University of Manchester)1
Dr Matthew Barnard (Manchester Metropolitan University)2
North West FE (1 seat)
Mr Stuart David Bond (Runshaw College)
President of UCU Scotland (1 seat)
Christopher O’Donnell (University of the West of Scotland)
Honorary Secretary of UCU Scotland (1 seat)
Ann Gow (University of Glasgow)
South HE (4 seats to include at least one woman)Preference
Denis A Nicole University of Southampton1
David Bretherton University of Southampton2
Jackie Grant University of Sussex3
South FE (1 seat)
Richard Coyle (Mid Kent College)
UK-elected members HE (3 seats)Preference
Mark Pendleton (University of Sheffield)1
Adam Hansen (Northumbria University)2
Sophia Woodman (University of Edinburgh3
UK-elected members FE (2 seats)Preference
Josh Spears (Darlington College)1
Linda Littler (Luminate Education Group – Leeds City College)2
Representatives of disabled members (1 seat HE)
Bijan Parsia (University of Manchester)
Representatives of LGBT+ members (1 seat HE)
Dr Matilda Fitzmaurice (Lancaster University)
Representatives of Black members (2 seats to include at least one woman)
Pauline Rattery (Novus) [woman]
Dr Victoria Showunmi (University College London) [woman]
Representatives of migrant members (1 seat)
Ariane Bogain (Northumbria University)
Bruno Ferreira (Ealing Hammersmith and West London College)
Representatives of casually employed members (1 seat FE)
Andrew Ward (Barking and Dagenham College)

Want to make a difference to UCU? Then stand for election to NEC – nominations are now open!

As the Autumn of 2024 closes in, UCU is gearing up for another crucial round of elections to fill several seats on our National Executive Committee (NEC). These elections represent a vital opportunity for members to have a direct say in the direction of our union and to ensure it remains representative of its diverse membership. While the elections themselves won’t take place until February 2025, the window for submitting nominations is closing rapidly, with papers having to be submitted before the 11th of November. If you have ever wanted to take a more active role in UCU’s decision-making, now could be an opportunity to make a real difference. The Campaign for UCU Democracy want to encourage more members to stand for election, to increase the choice of candidates, and to try and ensure that our democratic structures better represent the views of the membership. 

The Importance of Contested Elections

While we have seen some fiercely contested elections recently, there have been years where relatively few – if any – candidates have put their names forward in some seats. A few members of NEC have been elected unopposed, while others have won elections that are barely competitive – five candidates competing for four seats, for example. This isn’t a sign of a healthy internal democracy.

A number of UCU members came together a few years ago to establish the Campaign for UCU Democracy because we’re frustrated that our democratic structures do a poor job of reflecting the views of our membership. The hard left – in the form of UCU Left and their allies – has dominated the union for a number of years now. We could engage in a long, drawn-out analysis of why this is the case, but too often they form the majority simply because they field more candidates than everyone else. We need more candidates from the mainstream left, to provide members with a meaningful choice at election time.

Properly contested elections foster accountability, engagement, and transparency—ensuring that those in leadership positions command the support of their members. For the UCU to be its strongest, it needs representatives who have been elected through a competitive democratic process which present members with a meaningful choice between different candidates.

The Campaign for UCU Democracy is particularly keen to encourage members to stand for election in the English regions, as these seats have historically seen less competitive elections. This time, members from the North West, the Midlands and the South of England will be electing representatives to the NEC –  so if you’re an UCU member in one of these regions, then please consider putting yourself forward for election. 

(If you’re not sure which region you’re in, please see the table at the bottom of the page)

Why You Should Stand

The NEC plays a critical role in shaping the union’s strategies and policies on everything from pay negotiations and pensions to academic freedom and working conditions. By standing for the NEC, you have the chance to make a real difference to the lives of union members across the country.

Some members may be hesitant to stand, worrying that the role will be too time-consuming or burdensome. However, being on the NEC is more manageable than you might think. Meetings take place approximately every eight weeks and are conducted in a hybrid format, allowing you to attend either in person or remotely. This flexibility helps ensure that NEC service can fit around your other professional and personal commitments.

We’re Here to Support You

If you’re considering standing but are unsure of what the role entails or whether it’s the right fit for you, don’t hesitate to reach out. The Campaign for UCU Democracy is more than happy to facilitate conversations with current NEC members, who can share their experiences and offer advice. Whether you’re curious about the workload, the nature of the discussions, or the overall impact you can make as an NEC member, there are people willing to help you understand the role more fully.

Take the Leap!

At the heart of a healthy, vibrant union is the involvement and engagement of its members. If you’re even slightly tempted to stand for election, now is the time to act. Whether you have years of experience in union activism or are relatively new to the scene, the UCU needs a broad and diverse range of voices on its NEC. By standing for election, you can help ensure that our union remains democratic, representative, and strong in the face of the challenges ahead.

So, if you’ve been considering it, or even if the thought has just crossed your mind—go for it! Stand for election, and help shape the future of our union.

NEC election constituencyRegional Committees
Midlands East Midlands, West Midlands (excluding 6 institutions that sit in the Southconstituency, see below) 
London and East London (excluding Royal Holloway), Eastern & Home Counties (excluding 5 institutions in that sit in the Southconstituency, see below)  
South South, South East, South West, plus (from Eastern & Home Counties) Buckinghamshire New University, Open University, Buckinghamshire college Group, Buckinghamshire ACE, Milton Keynes College; (from London) Royal Holloway; (from West Midlands) Royal Agricultural College, University of Gloucester, Cirencester College, South Gloucestershire and Stroud College, Gloucestershire College, Hartpury College  
North East Northern, Yorkshire & Humberside 
North WestNorth West  

Yet more reasons why you should vote in these elections – Feb 2024

The fun never stops in FE!

Below is the text of an email sent out earlier this week to many FE branches in England  – you lucky, lucky people in Scotland and Wales are well out of this particular fiasco. Not all the signatories are (can you be a member of a faction lite?) aligned with UCUD but we all stand together in the face of some ‘challenging’ decisions made by the FEC. 

UCULeft dominates the FEC at the moment and the strategies outlined by Adam Ozanne and John Kelly in this document  The Trotskyist Politics of ucu Left  are on full display in some of the recent decisions taken by the FEC. 

We have fought this battle before; national bargaining would be brilliant but striking to that end is impractical and in all probability illegal!

Have a read and then for the love of God vote in these elections – Feb 2024!

Text of Email

We are writing to you as current members of UCU’s UK Further Education Committee (FEC), as FE candidates in the current National Executive Committee (NEC) elections, as activists and reps. We need your help to win. 

The issue we face is not about personalities or political purity, is not about fine words and fancy speeches, the motion we ask you to pass  is about the application of common sense – what is trade unionism if it is not about practical and common-sense ways to improve our working conditions? We need a way forward that will work and not just appeal to our need to do ‘something’.  We need strategy and focus and crucially we need to be clever to win. But most of all this is about logical arguments. 

Background  

At the FEC meeting last Friday, 2 February, it was decided by the UCU Left (UCUL) majority to move to a national aggregated ballot in England before the summer break and to commence strike action in September over three demands (pay, workload and binding national bargaining).  

UCUL FEC members ignored advice from senior officials as to legal risks involved, failed to consider branch exclusion criteria, and dismissed a comprehensive committee report laying out a clear and coherent FE strategy. A detailed summary of the issues described is attached.

Consequences

There are potential serious consequences to these FEC decisions, branches with low membership, low capacity, and low support for strike action will all be balloted. UCU will be forced to disclose low membership density and low support for the strike to those employers. This will set back UCU organising efforts in FE and damage UCU’s leverage and power in the FE sector.  

These FEC decisions go directly against decisions taken, by you, at the Special FE Sector Conference (SFESC) in April 2023, which had the biggest ever spread of FE delegates. It was agreed that members and branches must be consulted before a move to an aggregate ballot, and to maintain the maximum degree of branch autonomy in national campaigns. 

We now urgently need a fresh SFESC, as soon as possible, to review the decisions made at FEC and to debate and agree a strategy for FE. And for that we will need your support. 

Call to action: 

The arguments are clear. In UCU we employ experts, people with legal knowledge and years of practical experience. Their advice is clear: listen to it. UCUleft too often rush in with passion and rhetoric and this results in confusion and setbacks. We want to win.  

Help us win by holding a quorate branch meeting of your members ASAP with a view to requisitioning a special sector conference. This is our sector and we do not want a small group taking our members into something they are not ready for. 

We attach a model branch motion to be discussed and hopefully passed at the meeting. Do get in touch if you want us to come and address the meeting and use the detailed report attached as needed. 

Once we have 20 FE branches officially requisitioning a Special FE sector conference, it will be scheduled, and we can debate these key issues together. 

This means that the branch meeting needs to be held by Thu 29th February at the latest. 

As outlined in the report to FEC, the UCU demand for binding national bargaining is one which will take several years to achieve. It will require much greater levels of support from members and branches, targeted organising work, building upon the success of the Respect FE campaign model used for the past few years. 

We are not giving up on national bargaining – far from it. The motion is simply asking for time to build for success. We want to win an aggregate ballot, not rush into one which will undermine our ability to achieve meaningful sectoral bargaining. Help us to win. 

Helen Kelsall – UCU FEC

Chair Trafford and Stockport College Group

  • I’ve only included my name as I haven’t had to time to check with others

This is the motion we are asking branches to pass

Requisition of an online Special FESC

This branch notes:

1. The willingness of members to fight on pay, workloads, and national bargaining.

2. The success of the Respect FE strategy coordinating branches in dispute.

3. This branch’s willingness to campaign and take action in support of national and local demands.

4. The new FEC strategy of ‘levelling up the sector’ and move to a national aggregate ballot.

5. The lack of debate of, detail and branch involvement in, that strategy.

This branch believes:

1. Branches are essential to the proper functioning of UCU democracy and decision making.

2. Strategy should be debated and democratically agreed by branches.

3. A Special FESC is needed as soon as possible.

This branch resolves:

To requisition a Special FESC under rule 16.11, online, to debate FEC’s ‘levelling up the

sector’ strategy and decide next steps, including whether to move to an aggregate ballot.

143 words

We also provided this document to give additional information:

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE SPECIAL FEC MEETING FRIDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2024

Motion and amendments from UCU Left faction carried – national aggregated ballot before the summer break and strike action in September over three demands (Pay, workload and binding national bargaining). 

Legal Advice Ignored

FEC majority (UCU Left faction) ignored advice from senior lay officers and officials as to legal risks involved:

  • UCU has not organised an aggregate ballot on national binding negotiating agreement before. 
  • Initial advice is it will be illegal to have an aggregate ballot on what FEC wants.
  • Can’t have a dispute with AoC, DfE or UK government. 
  • Disputes must be with each employer. 
  • Need specific advice on grounds of dispute.
  • Open to challenge by employers saying we’ve met some of your demands.
  • If get it wrong the whole ballot is in danger.

Plans are Unclear

FEC majority (UCU Left faction) did not confirm branch exclusion criteria. 

FEC majority (UCU Left faction) did not confirm any way to test support for an aggregate ballot with members before calling it despite 2023 special FE sector conference (SFESC) policy:

Motion 3 resolved a consultation of members before moving to an aggregate ballot.

Motion 4 resolved a consultation of branches and members before moving away from Respect FE.

Motion 5 resolved no aggregated ballot until the above campaign has been given sufficient time and resources to achieve its aim, a minimum of at least 1 year and this decision has been put to a sector conference.

Motion 7 resolved the maximum degree of branch autonomy in national campaigns. 

FEC majority (UCU Left faction) did not agree to call a SFESC in 2024 to debate and agree the new strategy. 

Advice from Head of FE Ignored

In his report, the Head of FE recommended to FEC they call a Special FESC in April 2024 to debate either a New Deal for FE or levelling up the Sector. By majority the FEC voted against calling a SFESC to debate either strategy. This runs counter to Special FESC policy from April 2023. 

UCU Head of FE recommendations (except 4) fell. Recommendations in Head of FE report is a summary of a larger strategy document which builds on existing Respect FE campaign, policy, feedback from branches, and the recent FE reps survey. Key themes from FE reps survey were:

  1. Reps consider it very important UCU builds branch capacity, recruitment, and density.
  2. Regarding the prioritisation of the three-core industrial and campaign demands, reps prioritized: 
  1. Workload 
  2. Pay 
  3. National Bargaining 
  4. Regarding how close the union is to winning on the core demands, it’s an even split, with only a minority of reps saying we near securing the demands. 
  5. There is very strong support for branch autonomy and the capacity to make local deals.
  6. On the question of how members (in the coming pay round) are likely to react to pay offers similar to this year, 60% say their members will accept. 
  7. Regarding confidence levels of winning an aggregate ballot on national bargaining, it’s split with no clear majority either way.  

The Head of FE reported that analysis from branch feedback, the reps survey and the two sector conferences in 2023 indicate approximately 40 branches want to move to an aggregate ballot at this time. There are approx. 220 colleges in England and 150 members of the AoC. 32 branches were successful in beating the 50% ballot threshold in autumn 2023. There is no critical mass of branches at this time. 

IMPACT

FEC majority (UCU Left faction) decided on a major change to the strategy (aggregate ballot, no exclusions, no consultation with members) against advice from senior lay officers, officials; previous policy; and FE reps survey feedback. 

FEC majority (UCU Left faction) changed the campaign name from the well-known ‘Respect FE” to the slogan-heavy ‘levelling up the sector: leave no one behind’.

If implemented, this new untested strategy, would prevent FE branches from negotiating and settling pay and conditions deals locally with their employers in 2024/25. All branches would be forced into a single national dispute with no exit strategy set out. The FEC would then decide on the running of the dispute and settlement instead of branches and members contrary to policy. This is a top-down approach instead of a member-led approach. 

There has been no branch involvement in the decision to call for a new strategy and aggregate ballot in 2024. There has been a complete lack of debate and a lack of detail on the new strategy. 

Branches with low membership, low capacity, and low support for strike action will still be balloted, with UCU forced to disclose low membership density and low support for the strike to those employers. This will set back UCU organising efforts in FE and damage UCU’s leverage and power in the FE sector. 

UCU would have lost a national aggregate ballot in 2023 based on recent ballot figures for the 2023/24 campaign, despite more central union resourcing than ever before dedicated to it. 

Including all branches in a 2024 national aggregate ballot, and not running any consultation with members, makes it even more likely UCU would lose this aggregate ballot and set back the progress made by UCU. 

KEEP CURRENT STRATEGY

The UCU demand for binding national bargaining is one which will take several years to achieve for the reasons set out in the Head of FE strategy document. It will require much greater levels of support from members and branches, targeted organising work, building upon the success of the respect FE campaign model used for the past few years. It will also require a flexible approach, in line with policy, to enable branches to continue to negotiate and deliver deals for their members locally in the meantime.

The Respect FE campaign has worked and gets stronger and larger every year. Members are willing to campaign, and take action on pay, workloads and national bargaining based on national and local demands. The alternative is not giving up on national bargaining, it is simply asking for time to build to make it successful. We want to win an aggregate ballot when we hold one, not just posture about it in a way that will undermine our ability to achieve it. 

HEAD OF FE STRATEGY DOCUMENT SUMMARY

  1. This paper sets out the basis for a New Deal for FE. The New Deal brings together an industrial, political, organising and comms strategy, it builds on the experiences of Respect FE and the many local successful campaigns in the past few years. 
  2. The New Deal has branches at its heart and is built on developing a joined-up strategy that will take the union forward to maximise the opportunities for winning an aggregate ballot over the next two years. The aim is to put UCU into a position where we are confident that there is a high prospect of success and fundamental change.

  3. Politically, the current divisive UK government has run out of ideas and the mood in the country is one of change. Labour has the most realistic prospect of winning a House of Commons majority and securing our campaign objectives of a New Deal for FE. We will influence their manifesto and present a cogent case for supporting fundamental change in FE. That starts with closing the pay gap with teachers, a minimum national starting salary of £30K, simplifying and increasing FE funding, and looking closely at an existing post 16 national agreements like the Red Book in sixth form. Fully funded and binding national bargaining is the aim of this political work. 
  • Our industrial demands resonant, are relevant and are the basis on which members can unite and the union can build. However, we must recognise that members want to address years of pay austerity and unmanageable workloads as a priority. We know also that the AoC is fickle and relatively powerless. We need to force sufficient numbers of employers to enable the change that’s needed at national level and that will not be via the AoC or the NJF in its current form. 
  • The union in FE is building and going from strength to strength but we have not developed, aligned, or embedded a strategy that can win. 
  • Our organisational capacity at branch level is not consistent. Our membership peaks and troughs and is widely spread. Our rep’s network is variable. We need to implement a growth plan for more reps, more training and development, more members, more density and more local campaigning and wins. 
  • We need a road map to national bargaining that goes at the pace a significant majority of branches can move at and which joins up the various strands that make up a New Deal for FE. Analysis of voting patterns at FE sector conferences, feedback from branch briefings and the recent FE reps survey, indicate there are currently around 40 branches that support a move to an aggregate ballot on national bargaining now. By any objective indicator that is not sufficient to secure the union’s strategic ambitions. But it is a good place to start. 
  • There are unavoidable legal challenges in establishing a national aggregate ballot on binding national bargaining. We can’t have a dispute with the UK government, the DfE or the AoC. The grounds of the dispute will need to be legally tight and the demands on the employer’s deliverable and not subject to successful challenge. Getting this wrong will take us backwards. 
  • My view is that the union is not currently able to move to a national aggregate ballot with a realistic prospect of success. Doing so too soon will undermine rather than improve our chances of securing fundamental change. We need to build and articulate a new strategy based around a New Deal for FE. 
  1. I recommend FEC calls a Special FESC at the end of April/beginning of May to consider branch feedback and build the New Deal for FE strategy and campaign. 

REPS’ SURVEY SUMMARY RESULTS

  • Reps consider it very important UCU builds branch capacity, recruitment, and density.
  • Regarding the prioritisation of the three-core industrial and campaign demands, reps prioritised: 
  • Workload 
  • Pay 
  • National Bargaining 
  • Regarding how close the union is to winning on the core demands, it’s an even split, with only a minority of reps saying we near securing the demands. 
  • There is very strong support for branch autonomy and the capacity to make local deals.
  • On the question of how members in the coming pay round are likely to react to pay offers similar to this year, 60% say their members will accept. 
  • Regarding confidence levels of winning an aggregate ballot on national bargaining, it’s split with no clear majority either way.  

NEXT STEPS

  • Branches are essential to the proper functioning of UCU democracy and decision making. 
  • We need a member-led, bottom up, organising approach and branches must demand to be consulted and make the final decisions on strategy.
  • Strategy should be debated and democratically agreed by branches. 
  • A special FE Sector Conference must take place as soon as possible. 

Voting recommendations for UCU elections 2024

The Campaign for UCU Democracy (UCUD) wants the union to take democratic decisions that reflect the views of the broad membership, rather than those of a small group of activists who attend meetings.

2024 is an important election year for the union, where we will have the opportunity to elect a General Secretary (GS), a new Vice President for FE, a new Trustee, and a number of new NEC members. 

UCUD is endorsing Jo Grady as General Secretary and David Hunter as Vice President for FE. 

We want to see UCU develop into an effective fighting force. The decisions taken by the leadership must have the support of a majority of the members, as well as the practical resources to back them. Wishful thinking won’t win any disputes. 

If you want to work towards a strong, unified, and pragmatic trade union, then we encourage you to vote for the following candidates in the upcoming elections. Some are members of the Campaign for UCU Democracy, some are members of UCU Commons, and some are independent candidates. Together, we believe that they are the best people to be leading the union into 2024 and beyond.

Candidates are presented in alphabetical order. We encourage you to vote for these candidates, and these candidates alone. Where there are more candidates than seats, we have indicated our preferred candidates. 

Trustee
Dr Steve Sangwine 
General Secretary
Dr Jo Grady 
Vice President from the further education sector
David Hunter 
Geographically-elected members of the National Executive Committee
Wales HE
Estelle Hart 
North East HE 
Andrew Feeney (Preferred candidate)
Mark Taylor-Batty 
North East FE 
Johnathan Leng 
London and the East HE 
Michael Abberton (Preferred candidate)
Robin Clarke 
Alison Hawkings 
Nico Rosetti 
London and the East FE 
Bruno Ferreira 
UK-elected members HE 
Michael Abberton (Preferred candidate)
Robin Clarke 
Andrew Feeney (Preferred candidate)
Ann Gow (Preferred candidate)
Dr Christopher O’Donnell 
Alex Prichard 
Mark Taylor-Batty 
Sophia Woodman 
UK-elected members FE 
Janet Farrar (Preferred candidate)
Nicholas Mark Smith 
Representatives of women members
Higher education
Laura Chuhan Campbell 
Jo Edge
Ann Gow (Preferred candidate)
Further education
Pauline Rattery 
Suzi Toole