Motions

 Motions from Emergency General Meeting on Health & Safety, Hybrid & Home Working, & Return to Campus 10th September 2021

Branch affiliation with COP26 Coalition

Proposer: Sophia Lycouris

Seconder: Vivek Santayana

The UCU Edinburgh branch notes that:

1. The climate crisis has reached an alarming state. Summer 2021 had an unprecedented number floods and fires in multiple locations around the

   world

2. The UN Climate Change Conference (COP26 https://ukcop26.org/) takes place in Glasgow (1 to 12 November 2021) where world leaders will

   discuss approaches regarding the current problematic developments

3. The COP26 Coalition is a UK-based civil society coalition of groups and individuals campaigning for climate justice during COP26. Coalition

   members include environment and development NGOs, trade unions, grassroots community campaigns, faith groups, youth groups, migrant

   and racial justice networks, as described in the Coalition website https://cop26coalition.org/.

4. The Edinburgh TUC encourages Edinburgh trade unions branches to affiliate with the COP26 Coalition.

The UCU Edinburgh General Meeting resolves

1. to follow the Edinburgh TUC advice and that Edinburgh UCU will affiliate with the COP26 Coalition.

Principles on work space

Proposer: Isabelle Darmon

Seconder: Sophia Woodman

This motion is a reminder, especially meant for the representatives of University management taking part in the Hybrid Working Framework process, that a stable and dedicated working space is part of the employment conditions expected by any person employed by the University of Edinburgh (as illustrated, for example, by the University’s ‘pre-employment checklist’ for managers receiving a new employee, dated November 2020), and that not satisfying this basic principle amounts to undermining staff’s working conditions. We are aware that for many staff this is already not the case at the moment. The University should work to change this and bring working conditions to adequate standards, instead of including staff’s homes as a potential extension of campus. The possibility to work from home part of the week may be a welcome opportunity beyond the lockdown period, but it should only be adopted for those staff who request it as part of more flexible working arrangements.

Call for UCU Scotland Special Congress on COVID-19

Proposer: Grant Buttars

Seconder: Vivek Santayana

This branch believes:

1. Covid remains one of the biggest threats to the wellbeing of staff and students.

2. Relevant decisions made at at UCU Scotland Congress in May 2021 are now several months old and might require refreshing and/or replacing.

3. UCU Scotland's response to Covid19, including its negotiations with the Scottish Government, should be directed from branches.

4. Taking key, informed and up-to-date decisions strengthens the hands of negotiators at both branch and UCU Scotland level.

This branch resolves:

1. To call on UCU Scotland to convene a special meeting of UCU Scotland Congress on the specific subject of Covid19

 Motions from Emergency General Meeting on USS Pensions & Four Fights, 8th September 2021

Calling on management to join joint statement to explore conditional indexation for USS

Proposer: Pieter Blue

Seconder: Sue Sierra

The branch notes:

1. The repeated series of cuts to the USS pension over the last decade.

2. Cambridge and Oxford UCU branches and management have signed a joint statement about exploring alternative scheme design, including condition indexation, to see whether there are mutually agreeable alternatives. This statement is available at http://www.ucu.cam.ac.uk/wpcontent/uploads/Cambridge-and-Oxford-joint-statement-Final.pdf

The branch believes that:

1. Conditional indexation would continue to provide collective protection. Those who die young continue to subsidise those who live longer, so no one outlives their pension. It would protect against market fluctuations at the time of retirement. It is likely to protect better against inflation than the 2.5% cap on inflation indexing under UUK’s recently imposed changes.

2. These complex issues require serious discussion before being brought to members to consider.

The branch resolves:

1. To call on the University of Edinburgh management to sign, jointly with our branch, the Cambridge-Oxford UCU-management joint statement. Appendix: The Cambridge and Oxford UCU branches have signed joint statements with their respective managements.

The statement is available online at: http://www.ucu.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Cambridge-and-Oxford-jointstatement-Final.pdf

 Motions from Annual General Meeting, 10th June 2021

Support for UCU’s five principles defending USS

Proposed by: Pieter Blue

Seconded by: Sue Sierra

The Branch notes:

1. There has been a repeated cycle since 2011 of the USS managers changing the method for valuing pension liabilities, declaring large deficits, and using these deficits as a justification to make the terms of our pension worse. We have responded to this with large-scale industrial action.

2. This cycle is detrimental to university staff and to our employer, and must stop.

3. Five principles were agreed by UCU’s elected negotiators and wider Superannuation Working Group and circulated in the USS branch briefing of 19 April 2021 https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/11469/USS-branch-briefing-Apr-21/pdf/USS_branch_briefing_19Apr21.pdf

These principles are:

a) Progressive contribution structures to enable more low paid staff to join and stay in USS.

b) An end to the downward spiral of contribution increases and cuts to retirement income.

c) The fund weighted towards return-seeking, ethical investments.

d) Commitments from employers on covenant support, governance reform, and lobbying for regulatory change.

e) Exploration of conditional benefits on terms acceptable to UCU members.

The Branch resolves:

1. to thank UCU pensions negotiator Sam Marsh for supporting the branch in presenting UCU’s five principles to University of Edinburgh management,

2. to encourage the branch committee to form a pensions working group, and

3. to endorse UCU’s five principles as a basis for negotiations that can provide a long-term solution to the USS dispute subject to any changes necessary to align with decisions taken at HESC on 2 June 2021 (outcome of HESC motions here: https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/11596/Higher-education-sector-conference-2021)

IHRA definition of antisemitism and the University of Edinburgh

Proposed by: Anthony Gorman

Seconded by: Nicola Perugini

This branch notes:

1. UCU’s opposition to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, affirmed most recently at UCU Scotland Congress 2021 ( https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/11508/UCU-Scotland-Congress-2021 )

2. UCU’s commitment to opposing antisemitism and all other forms of racism without exception, including anti-Palestinian racism perpetrated by the State of Israel, non-state groups and individuals;

3. The University of Edinburgh has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism at a meeting of the University Executive on 21 July 2020.

4. Our main concerns are two-fold:

a) The process by which the IHRA definition was adopted. There was no discussion at the Senate or the Court and no experts on Israel-Palestine, antisemitism, or racism were consulted – although the university employs many experts who could have done so. Nor was there any consultation with the campus trade unions.

b) The process by which antisemitic intent in relation to Israel-Palestine is to be determined, including the makeup of the committee that will decide this, the procedures of the committee, and the role and application of the IHRA definition in this process.

5. There is widespread opposition (across the UK, US, Canada and other parts of the world) to the use of the IHRA definition in a university context, especially as a disciplinary tool, including by its author Kenneth Stern, and by the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Baroness Falkner.

6. The IHRA definition has been deployed primarily to counter and censor in-class discussions and public debate critical of Israel’s racist policies and its breaches of international law, and undermine staff and student critical engagement on the question of human rights violations in Israel/Palestine.

7. On 11 January 2021, the University (Principal, Deputy Secretary Student Experience, and Head for Equality, Diversity Inclusion) received a letter signed by the UoE main experts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Middle Eastern studies, and the study of race and racialisation. This drew attention to the grave implications of the IHRA definition adoption for freedom of speech, in particular its interpretive guidance’s examples on Israel and its prohibition to express views critical of Israel’s state racist policies. The University responded with vague reassurances about the protection of freedom of speech, including the confusing explanation that the IHRA definition would be applied on a “case by case basis,” while refusing to engage with the key concerns raised on how discussions critical of Israel’s racist policies would be treated by applying the IHRA.

This branch believes that: 

1. Serious problems have been raised with the application of IHRA definition.

2. The application of the IHRA definition creates a conflict between the University struggle against antisemitism and that against anti-Palestinian racism (in fact it neutralises the latter), creating a dangerous “Palestinian exception” in the overall UoE approach to racism and discrimination.

3. The vote by the UCL Academic Board (12 Feb 2021) shows why wide-ranging and careful debate is essential in considering whether to adopt the IHRA definition, and regrets that this did not take place in Edinburgh where the definition was imposed by a decision of the University Executive; 

4. There is a fundamental contradiction between the implementation of the IHRA definition and the University obligation in law to uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech.

5. As it currently stands, University policy does not outline the procedures for deciding what constitutes antisemitic intent, i.e., who would sit on the committee, and what processes a member of staff would be able to access in order to dispute such a judgment.  

6. Adopting the IHRA definition without discussion sidesteps any concerns that Jewish staff and students might have concerning antisemitism, allowing the university to tick a procedural box rather than engage with the issue.

This branch resolves to:

1. Establish a dedicated working group, specifically to campaign for the University to reverse its adoption of the IHRA definition.

2. Invite colleagues from other UCU branches and outside UCU to speak about their campaigns against adopting the IHRA.

3. Seek clarification from University management on the following:

a) How was the IHRA decision passed, why did it not go to Senate, who was consulted, and why were experts whose teaching/research could conceivably be impacted by the IHRA definition not consulted?

b) How is antisemitic intent determined? Who defines it, who sits on the committee that decides this, and what is the procedure to oppose accusations of antisemitic intent based on the IHRA definition?

c) What does the “case by case approach” mentioned by the University in its response to its experts mean in practice? How would this approach work in cases of scholars, students, or guests critical of Israel’s state racist policies?

Branch Action on Palestine Solidarity and Ending Complicity in Israeli Attacks

Proposed by: Fred Carter

Seconded: María Elena Carpintero Torres-Quevedo

This branch notes that:

1. Over the past few weeks, Israel has significantly escalated its attacks against the Palestinian people, invading Al-Aqsa mosque and brutalising worshippers at prayer, unleashing settler violence on Palestinians throughout historical Palestine, escalating airstrikes in Gaza, and declaring martial law in several regions. Since the ceasefire last week, we have seen the continuation of settler violence and escalation of mass arrests.

2. Since the start of Israel’s latest escalation in violence, more than 258 Palestinians have been killed, 2,000 injured and more than 1,000 arrested throughout historic Palestine and in Palestinian refugee camps.

3. Palestinians have responded to Israel’s attacks with bravery and determination, building a youth-led movement to unite Palestinians across their homeland and in exile.

4. Palestinians declared a general strike on May 18th in order to challenge Israel’s escalating attacks, this is likely to be the first of many strike actions.

5. Palestinian unions have issued an urgent appeal and call to action asking their brothers and sisters in the international trade union movement to take immediate action to prevent further Israeli attacks.

6. UCU has passed multiple motions in support of the Palestinian struggle and continues to work with Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.

 This branch believes that:

1. These latest attacks are a continuation of more than 73 years of Israeli war crimes committed against the Palestinian people, including settler colonial occupation, violent displacement, and Apartheid.

2. Israel’s actions are enabled and facilitated by the impunity afforded by the international community, which provides the Israeli state with the weapons, capital, and legitimacy to maintain its illegal occupation.

3. As trade unionists we must always stand on the side of justice in struggles against colonial state violence, both in word and in deed.

4. Lobbying government and issuing statements must be coupled with trade union action, ensuring that we are practically contributing to Palestinian liberation.

This branch resolves:

1. to respond to the call to action from Palestinian trade unions by:

a) Actively partnering, as a branch, with Palestine solidarity campaigns and networks within UCU and the wider TU movement.

b) Issuing a public statement of solidarity with the Palestinian people, and expressing support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel to bring it in line with its obligations under international law.

c) Actively participating, as a branch, in future general strikes called by Palestinian trade unions by holding protests and vigils on these dates and promoting information through our networks.

d) Taking immediate and concrete steps to ensure that, as a union, we ourselves are not complicit in supporting and sustaining Israeli oppression, and to examine our investments including: 

i.      Working to divest our pension funds from firms complicit in the Israeli occupation.

ii.     Educating and supporting members to participate individually in BDS.

iii.   Pressuring the university to divest from Israeli companies in line with the aims of the BDS movement.

Motions from Emergency General Meeting, 13th January 2021

 Motion 2: Consultative Ballot for Industrial Action to End Unnecessary On-Campus Teaching and Services until it is Safe to Return

Proposer: Vivek Santayana

Seconder: Maria Carpintero Torres Quevedo, Larissa Nenning, Fred Carter, Cat Wayland

UCU Edinburgh:

Notes:

1. The current dispute with the University of Edinburgh Management on unnecessary on-campus activity and indicative vote taken at the Emergency General Meeting on 6 January regarding the next steps for the dispute,

2. The increase in Covid cases and the emergence of a new and more communicable variant of the virus,

3. Medical advice issued by bodies such as SAGE states that universities continue to pose a risk of spreading the virus,

4. The First Minister has confirmed that learning in all universities is online until at least the end of February, with some exceptions for Medicine and Nursing,

5. Universities UK and Universities Scotland have actively lobbied for the exemption of Universities from national public health measures ahead of the return to work in September,

6. Staff have been asked to work on campus at various stages of the COVID-19 pandemic despite valid concerns over the risk posed to them and the wider community;

Believes that:

1. The University Management’s response to the crisis continues to put the lives of staff and students at risk and is inadequate in resolving the current dispute,

2. The University of Edinburgh should be following not just the letter but the spirit of the guidance coming from the Scottish government and the scientific community; the university should not be looking for and exploiting loopholes,

3. Circumstances have changed significantly since the time of the petition with the emergence of the new Covid variant and the University must carry out updated risk assessments,

4. Members of staff who have caring responsibilities should be provided additional flexible support such as paid special leave (including those on guaranteed hours contracts), and should have their workloads adjusted accordingly as per the motion passed on 6th of January,

5. Members of staff who do not have the capacity or resources to work from home should be provided additional flexible support and should have their workloads adjusted accordingly or should be offered to be placed on the Job Retention Scheme at their full salary,

6. A consultative ballot for industrial action will further demonstrate the strength of feeling amongst the membership for the Branch’s demands of management, and will be indicative of the readiness for strike action for a future statutory ballot;

Resolves to:

1. Call on UoE Senior Management to end all unnecessary on-campus teaching and services (I.e., with the exception of clinical activities and placements for Medicine, Nursing, and Veterinary Medicine) online immediately and not to return to blended learning or on-campus support services until there has been at least a five week decline in infection rates and the R rate falls below 1,

2. Conduct a consultative ballot of its membership on whether they are ready to take industrial action and action short of strike in response to senior management failing to agree to this by the end of January 2021,

3. Mobilise a Get the Vote Out campaign to encourage members to vote in the ballot,

Take under advisement what additional support would be needed by the membership in the event of a future strike mandate.

 Motions from Emergency General Meeting, 16th September 2020

1. Face to face teaching only when alternatives are practically impossible until an assessment of the impact of students’ return to campus 

Proposer: Kevin McNicoll

Seconder: Grant Buttars

We note that:

1. UCU’s latest guidance supports a default position that all HE teaching provision should be through online/remote means except where this is practically impossible and that a safe return to campus should be when infection rates are stable and not rising.

2. That as of the 10th September, ‘Test One’ of the UCU’s ‘Five Tests’ (see appendix) has not been met in Scotland for three reasons:

   a.     The number of cases found at a regional level has not fallen but has grown consistently and is now doubling approximately every week and a half (see figure 1). This increase cannot be accounted for by changes in the number of tests conducted (see figure 2).

   b.     There is no sustained downward trend.

   c.     There is no evidence that the reproduction rate (R value) is falling or below 1. 

3. The UK’s Chief Medical Advisor said on the 31st July that “we have reached the limits of what we can do to open up society”.

4. That the Scottish Minister for Fair Employment agrees with the UCU’s position and says that it is the position of the Scottish Government that if you can work from home you should continue to do so.

5. That the employer has chosen a course of opening in line with the maximum extent of the law rather than basing this on the safety of staff.

6. That the Covid-19 pandemic is a disproportionate danger to BAME members of staff and its consequences have a disproportionate impact on women members.

7. That in a short period of time there will be many students moving to and around Scotland that may increase the spread of Covid-19 to an extent that will not become clear until some weeks after.

8. That Section 44 of the Employment Rights Acts 1996 protects employees from any detriment for refusal to work in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believes to be serious and imminent (see appendix).

   We resolve:

   1.     To declare an official dispute and begin meaningful negotiations with the employer to resolve outstanding health and safety concerns.

   2.     A resolution to these negotiations must at a minimum mean:

   a. A phased approach to face to face teaching similar to that in St Andrews that means that initially, face to face teaching will only take place if it is practically impossible to do remotely.

   b. That management confirm they will not bring disciplinary action against any staff member or student if they, on the grounds of safety, opt for online only teaching.

   3.     To inform all members of their legal rights regarding refusal to work under conditions in which they believe themselves to be in serious and imminent danger.

   4.     To give all necessary support to members who choose to refuse face to face teaching on the grounds of safety, including a template email they can send their line manager.

   Appendix to Motion 1

   Test One of UCU’s tests for safe returns to on-campus working in HE:

   Sustained reduction in numbers of Covid-19 cases and infection rates

   New cases of Covid-19 need to be low and falling, with a sustained downward trend and confidence that all new cases can be identified and responded to promptly. This applies at regional level, with reduced cases and a falling reproduction number or R value (below 1), confirmed region by region before decisions regarding reopening of university campuses are considered. There need to be extensive, reliable, and transparent systems operating for testing, contact tracing, and isolating those with Covid-19 symptoms, managed by appropriate level public health authorities.

Relevant extract from Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act

 (1)An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that—

…

(d) in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left (or proposed to leave) or (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work or any dangerous part of his place of work.

2. Proposal to protect the employment of casualised workers

Proposed by: Kevin McNicholl

Seconder: Larissa Nenning

We note that:

1. the University senior management has stated clearly that it considers the university as a community;

2. the University senior management has committed to trying to avoid compulsory redundancy or cuts to pay.

3. that proposed cuts are unnecessary given they are being implemented to increase reserves rather than to pay for increasing expenses.

 We have discussed recent changes with casualised staff and have discovered:

1. that some staff have been told to reduce the amount of time they spend on research so they can focus on teaching, and the fact that applications for student places has greatly increased indicates that the University senior management believes there will be more, not less, teaching work to do in the coming semester;

2. that reducing the number of Teaching Fellows and the amount of teaching for PhDs on hourly-paid, fixed-term contracts disproportionately affects early-career academic colleagues;

3. that early-career academic colleagues, including PGRs, are likely to possess protected characteristics in greater proportions that the securely employed cohort;

4. that any reduction of support for casualised workers (e.g. hourly-paid, fixed-term and other precariously-employed colleagues) has a consequence for the already unacceptably heavy workloads of securely employed colleagues.

 We ask:

1. for recognition that casualised workers (e.g. hourly-paid, fixed-term and other precariously-employed colleagues) are equally part of the university community;

2. that any training or support offered to salaried staff bearing on any aspect of the COVID-19 crisis must be made available to casualised workers, including training and guidance on online and dual-delivery teaching formats;

3. for a commitment that there will be no reduction in the financial resources supporting casualised workers and early-career academic colleagues, including PGRs, during or as a result of the COVID-19 crisis;

4. that PhD tutors will not face a loss of teaching;

5. that PhDs will not be disproportionately impacted by reductions in office space relative to other staff members;

6. that PhDs on scholarships that include a teaching component will not face increased teaching loads.

3. Motion to affiliate to Living Rent

Proposer: Maria Carpintero Torres-Quevedo

Seconder: Vivek Santayana

This branch/organisation/society etc. notes that:

1.     decent and affordable housing is a right that should be available to all;

2.     rents across cities in Scotland have been going up by approx. 5% in the private sector over the last eight years, pushing people into more desperate and precarious circumstances. In the public sector in Glasgow, rents have also increased above inflation; 72% of homes have disrepair issues[1] and  60% of private homes failed the Scottish Housing Quality Standards in 2010[2];

3.     the number of people living in the private-rented sector has doubled since 1989 and is expected to reach 25% by 2021[3];

4.     Living Rent, Scotland’s Tenants’ Union, has successfully campaigned and organised tenants since 2014 to fight for rent controls, quality homes, and greater security and flexibility of tenure, and supported public and private tenants to resist evictions, secure vital repairs, recover illegal fees and stolen deposits, and ensure that both private and social tenants have a voice for housing in Scotland.

We believe that:

1.     workers’ rights and housing rights are intimately linked; increasingly workers’ incomes are swallowed up by rent, leaving little to live on. Organising for more affordable housing advances workers’ interests;

2.     a collective and democratic organisation of tenants is the only way to achieve a fairer and more democratic housing system, which works for all.

3.     the political and advocacy work done by Living Rent will benefit members of the Branch, particularly those in precarious housing situations because of their employment conditions or facing evictions due to Covid, and are therefore aligned with the Branch’s objectives.

We resolve to:

1.     affiliate to Living Rent;

2.     support and mobilise for Living Rent events;

3.     give a financial contribution to Living Rent to sustain an independent, political and effective democratic tenants’ union. This will be £150 at the start of each academic year.

[1]              http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/12/1539/336000

[2]              http://statistics.gov.scot/data/shqs

[3]              https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/12/one-in-four-households-in-britain-will-rent-privately-by-end-of-2021-says-report