Information for Students on USS strike

Why Are Your Lecturers Striking?

What is the strike about? Newcastle University’s management wants to make a massive change to the pension scheme for all academic staff and academic-related staff (e.g. librarians, student counsellors, IT staff, etc.).

What is a pension? A pension is deferred pay for one’s retirement. Previously, lecturers put in 8% of their salaries, and the employer put in 18%. Lecturers would get a pension related to the average salary earned over one’s career. Academics spend far more time in education before getting a job with a pension – usually in one’s mid-30s – so we pay a lot now to make sure we just have enough to live on when we retire.

What’s the problem with the pension offer at the moment? Since 2009, academic pay has NOT kept pace with inflation, so your lecturers’ real wages have declined by close to 15%. Newcastle University management (along with many other Russell Group institutions) want to change the USS pension scheme so there is no guarantee of how much we will get: the change is likely to reduce the value of your lecturers’ pensions to below subsistence levels.  This is a huge blow to our futures – but more importantly, to the value of the work that we, as teachers and researchers, and you, as students, are doing together.

Why should you care? We know that you have incurred a large debt to attend university. Many of us fought against tuition fees. The tuition fees you pay are not used to pay those teaching you (which was promised) nor has it been going into pensions.

How has UCU responded to these proposed changes? The UCU (University and College Union) opposes the pension changes and has called a strike.  The UCU is the bargaining agent for pensions for academics and academic-related staff at Newcastle University, whether they are members or not. The UCU has presented alternatives to the employers’ plans (suggesting that staff contribute a bit more, employers contribute a bit more, and staff get a bit less). The employers have refused to budge an inch and the UCU held a ballot for industrial action: at Newcastle University, 62.1% of our members voted. 90% of us voted in favour of a strike. Read more here:

How does industrial action affect you? We love teaching and working with students. We do not take strike action lightly. The UCU has called for 14 days of strike action across 4 weeks, starting 22 & 23 Feb.

  • During this time, UCU members won’t be: teaching, holding office hours, marking, answering emails,
  • The work missed in this period, including teaching, will not be rescheduled—it will just be gone.
  • Action short of a strike begins 22 Feb: this means working to contract, i.e., only working the 40 hours per week in our contracts (most academics work 60+ hours because they love teaching and researching).
  • There is the possibility of a marking boycott.

How can students help? We will set up an alternative programme of talks where we can together discuss and argue about fees, pay and radical ideas in the modern university. We want you to be part of these debates. If YOU want to help us stop these hugely damaging changes to higher education, here are some ideas:

Posted in News | Leave a comment

Newcastle University Executive Board response to UCU report “Moving Forward from Raising the Bar”

Executive Board response to the Newcastle UCU Branch paper “Moving Forward from Raising the Bar:  A report on lessons learnt for Newcastle University”


  • Each academic unit should identify its own needs to create the most conducive environment for research improvement.

Executive Board are happy to agree to this recommendation.  This already happens as part of the annual unit strategic planning meetings which are held at the beginning of the calendar year to review each unit’s academic performance.  As the UCU paper notes “Each unit must be accountable, both internally and to the rest of the university, for what it is doing to improve (where necessary) its research culture.” (p.16).These meetings explore the unit’s environment and culture and discuss the necessary forward planning required to improve both research and teaching performance.  The outcomes of these meetings are then discussed with EB in an away day format and feed into the University’s overall approach to improving research and teaching performance which is led by the relevant PVCs and coordinated by the relevant University Committees.

  • Fully implement the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which Newcastle proved a world-leader in by signing in May 2017.

Executive Board fully support this recommendation.  This will be monitored by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research Strategy and Resources and University Research Committee.

  • Restore trust in the PDR system by negotiating it with the unions.

The annual appraisal system is currently being fully revised as part of an overall review of our HR procedures.  UCU will be involved in the development of the new system.

  • Improve communication and listening by:
    1. Expanding Professorial Fora to encompass the entire research community.

As we discussed informally, this is extremely difficult but I will continue to run Town Halls, produce regular monthly newsletters and invite all eligible staff to the annual Academic Board meeting.  As you know we have also recently had focus groups to examine aspects of our developing research strategy and researchers across all faculties and all grades were invited to these.

  1. Opening space on staff home page to recognised trade unions.

The new intranet will have the facility to create a closed collaboration space for UCU members.

  1. Promoting better consultation with Heads of Academic Units.

As we discussed, I now meet on at least a biannual basis one to one with the Heads of Academic Units and we have added an Away Day to the normal Heads of Unit Fora which is aimed at further improving liaison between myself, Executive Board and Heads of Academic Units.


  1. Improving operation of key governance bodies.

It is my belief that this is now less of an issue since Senate now includes a diverse range of members who, over the past nine months, have shown great interest in the business of the University with numerous constructive debates on a wide variety of issues. I know that there are UCU members on Senate in an individual capacity which should give you further reassurance that this key governing body is performing its duties appropriately.

  • Senior managers should review relevant academic literature before embarking on changes

Recommendation accepted.

  • Establish an interdisciplinary Newcastle Centre for Critical University Studies

As we discussed informally, those individuals interested in critical university studies should, in the first instance, form themselves into a research grouping. If this subsequently grew into sufficient critical mass with evidence of excellence in the field, it could, at a later date, make a case for formal University Research Centre status.


Professor Chris Day

Vice-Chancellor & President

 28 September 2017

Posted in News | Leave a comment



Written by Newcastle UCU branch, May 2017

“The art of leadership is not to spend your time measuring, evaluating. It’s all about selecting the person. And if you believe you selected the right person, then you give that person the freedom, the authority, the delegation to innovate.” ~ Accenture CEO, Pierre Nanterme, in announcing abolition of annual performance reviews, 2015.






























The Raising the Bar dispute was a painful process, but from it a consensus emerged, summed up in the AFRI[1] agreement that ended the dispute in June 2016. This is: that Newcastle University exists ‘for the public benefit, to advance education, learning and research’ (Statutes), and there is a shared desire to see it fulfil that purpose by producing world leading research. Our collective task is to find the strategy that best achieves this shared purpose, in the context of funding structures which mean that we have to be seen to perform well in certain key but flawed metric exercises; and improving research performance to this end this must be done by a process that is bottom-up, “collaborative” and “non-coercive.” This consensus provides an ideal basis on which to move forwards.

Academic staff are intrinsically motivated to perform well. A substantive body of research (evidenced by the recent Newcastle experience) shows that attempts to extrinsically motivate those who are already intrinsically motivated, is counterproductive because it actually produces a reduction in overall motivation and job satisfaction.[2] Assuming this, the key performance management question facing the university is, ‘how can managers help staff do the right job, well?’

The key recommendation we make is that rather than trying to follow the crowd by playing the system in the increasingly-difficult attempt to rise up league tables, the Newcastle identity and narrative should be marked by the production of a genuinely collegial, supportive, respectful, non-coercive, ambitious, bottom-up and sustainable culture where staff wellbeing is prioritised and in which academics are trusted to be given the freedom, resources, support and autonomy to innovate and be creative. Such an environment, increasingly rare in the academy and thus of tremendous value in terms of building Newcastle’s international profile and reputation, would increase staff happiness and thus productivity, facilitating the recruitment and retention of the brightest and best. This environment and approach would be our unique differentiator and fashioning it should be the key to our values, vision and strategy moving forwards. We should seek to build our external profile and reputation around it, explicitly positioning ourselves as a sector leader in this regard.

To further this, we submit the following proposals:

  • Each academic unit should identify its own needs to create the most conducive environment for research improvement.
  • Fully implement the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which Newcastle proved a world-leader in by signing in May 2017.
  • Restore trust in the PDR system by negotiating it with the unions.
  • Improve communication and listening by:
    1. Expanding Professorial forums to encompass the entire research community.
    2. Opening space on staff home page to recognised trade unions.
    3. Promoting better consultation with Heads of Academic Units.
    4. Improving operation of key governance bodies.
  • Senior managers should review relevant academic literature before embarking on changes.
  • Establish an interdisciplinary Newcastle Centre for Critical University Studies.


Newcastle University exists ‘for the public benefit, to advance education, learning and research’ (Statutes). Because the funding and policy environments in which higher education occurs has changed dramatically in recent years, securing the necessary resources to achieve this increasingly depends on performing well in various metric-gathering exercises. As these metric exercises are flawed and problematic,[3] and require fundamental changes to the nature and practice of academic labour, this raises a series of questions about how we succeed in this environment whilst remaining true to our vocation. Raising the Bar (RTB), and in particular its Research and Performance Expectations (RiPE), was Newcastle University’s Senior Management’s attempt to answer these questions between 2013 and 2016.

Although RTB came to mean many different things, its primary answer to the above questions was to attempt to ‘game’ key metric exercises of the REF and international reputational league tables by a two-fold approach: firstly, to target substantial additional resources at those Units of Assessment deemed best-placed to rise up the tables, and secondly to introduce an Outcomes-Based Management (OBPM) system which attempted to embed a range of RiPE targets in personnel management. Although the first element of RTB was divisive, it was this second aspect of RTB that was the most controversial, leading to widespread divisive unhappiness, upset and opposition, culminating in industrial action taken by the University and College Union in June 2016. The matter was resolved by the Academic Framework for Research Improvement (AFRI) agreement between the UCU and management, which ended the industrial action and saw the withdrawal of RiPE and the RTB terminology and set out principles to guide the university in moving forwards in a more collaborative, bottom-up approach to improving research. The dispute attracted widespread local, national and international attention, both during the dispute and subsequently.

The report submits that the RTB dispute was a collective failure for which responsibility must be widely shared across the university. RTB was not primarily a problem of communication or of different cultures between faculties: it was intrinsically flawed. RTB was also a failed branding exercise and created tremendous upset and unhappiness in many units across the institution, including in units deemed to be performing well by key metrics indicators. The report calls for a new way of thinking about the identity and direction of Newcastle. The dignified nature of the debate means that damage should be limited, and there are many silver linings – not least a new consensus about how to think about metric exercises, a renewal of academic citizenship, and an exciting opportunity to locate Newcastle firmly within national and international contexts as a beacon of collegial, supportive and dynamic research environments. This is encapsulated in what should be recognised as the ground-breaking AFRI outcome of the RTB dispute, and its follow-up in the University’s May 2017 signing of DORA.


This report was written by the Research Culture Working Group (UCU Newcastle Branch). Its purpose is primarily internal to Newcastle: to understand what the institution can usefully learn from the RTB dispute, and how we can move forwards strongly as a dynamic collective.

It is based on two data sources:

  • archives of minutes, Powerpoint presentations, and emails of the university Executive Board (EB), RTB Steering Group, Senate, Council, UCU and other relevant sources.
  • anonymised interviews conducted across all three faculties between October 2016 and March 2017 with 20 employees: middle managers[4] (Heads of Academic Units, and Deans, forming over half of all interviewees); senior managers (on Executive Board); senior members of lay bodies (Council and Court); and other senior academics in the university. Interviewees were asked to narrate their understanding and experience of the origins of RiPE/RTB, the ensuing dispute, its withdrawal, and what follows for the university as a result.


These texts and transcripts were read to reconstruct (1) a brief outline of the RTB dispute, and (2) to find major points of agreement and disagreement between interviewees. Nine major recurring themes are identified in the data as findings; the six recommendations which follow are the UCU’s suggestions in response.

All sources are anonymised by descriptions agreed with respondents. Dates of interviews are withheld to protect anonymity. Due to the low numbers of female colleagues in that position, to protect those interviewed HoAU are referred to by masculine pronouns; and all EB staff are referred to by feminine pronouns, regardless of sex/gender. Some middle managers were comfortable with their faculty being identified, others were not.


Raising the Bar was first mentioned in the university EB minutes in July 2013, referring to plans to increase the size of university. In April 2014, the then Vice-Chancellor, Chris Brink, presented RTB to Council with the aim of having “ at least 10 subjects (Units of Assessment) which are ranked top 50 in the world.” In January 2015, an RTB Steering Group was established, which focussed RTB on a two-fold carrot-and-stick approach to improving performance, by (i) managing individual performance through the use of “specific numerical targets” and (ii) the development of a Research Excellence Support Framework to “help staff enhance their performance.”[5] On July 7 2015 Senate approved the principle (but not details) of faculty-specific sets of targets which were eventually called the Research and Performance Expectations (RiPE).

In October 2015, at a meeting all Heads of Academic Units (HoAU) were instructed immediately to “[e]mbed research expectation for Faculty in all academic recruitment” and implement RTB through the PDR (Performance and Development Review) process. This would involve a rapid assessment of each staff member through a traffic light system. Those flagged “red” would be subject to an “action plan for improvement” identifying appropriate “support and development” monitored by monthly reports, and leading to the commencement of “capability procedure[s]”[6] should progress prove inadequate.

Management insisted that this coercive element was a last resort, and not the purpose of RTB. But this coercive potential of RiPE came to make RTB synonymous with RiPE: RTB’s carrot and stick approach came to be widely perceived as primarily a stick. Tremendous unhappiness, upset and unease amongst staff increased, and, citing anonymous case-work, the UCU claimed that RTB was leading to a culture of bullying, and asked the VC to withdraw RiPE and discuss how we could improve research in a more collegial way. Groups of academics (at school/ unit level) sent letters to their Pro-Vice-Chancellors expressing disquiet, and a similar letter signed eventually by 100 professors (more thana quarter of the professoriate at the time) was delivered to the VC. Behind the scenes, HoAU increasingly conveyed the disquiet of their staff to senior managers. A UCU branch meeting on 28th October 2015 approved an indicative ballot to see whether members would be willing to undertake industrial action: in February 2016, the branch indicated its willingness to consider industrial action.

The level and breadth of unhappiness over RTB took senior managers by surprise. They responded with a series of town hall events, a letter from Chris Brink to all staff, and a meeting with representatives of signatories of the professors’ letter in January. The main message was that management had poorly communicated RTB – which was most expressly not about targets or changes to the PDR system – and that the VC recognised he needed to engage more clearly with those people doing research.

At the same time, management sought to formally engage UCU in discussion about RTB, and in March drew up a Memorandum of Understanding with UCU negotiators. The Branch Committee and branch meeting on March 3 rejected both this MOU and, on May 23,  a subsequent one negotiated by ACAS, voting eventually to take Action Short of a Strike (ASOS) in the form of a marking boycott, authorised to begin on June 3. This would disrupt graduation of final-year students, so was a serious step. In spite of this, the VC indicated at a meeting of Academic Board on May 25 that RTB would not be withdrawn, and the management wrote to staff threatening to deduct pay at a rate of 100% for non-completion of marking duties.[7]

In the week that the industrial action began, the UCU Congress passed a solidarity motion recognising the Newcastle issue as “a local dispute of national significance.”[8] Newcastle UCU wrote to the VC offering an alternative to RTB, entitled Improving Research Together (IRT) and launched a petition on the campaigning website (‘Say no to coercive performance management at Newcastle University’). The campaign attracted international attention.[9] In response to the industrial action, the VC called an emergency Heads of Academic Meeting on Friday June 3,[10] the day the industrial action began, where HoAU supported the withdrawal of RTB. On Monday June 6, in negotiations with the UCU, management agreed to abandon RiPE and to ditch the RTB terminology. Instead, drawing on the approach suggested in IRT, management and union agreed to “develop a coming understanding and collegial approach to improving research,”[11] in a document entitled the Academic Framework for Research Improvement (AFRI).






There was broad agreement amongst interviewees that by summer 2016 what became known as the RTB dispute had become what one EB member described as “so toxic” that withdrawing it was the proper move.

HoAU drew attention to specific harms that contributed to this toxicity. Many of them reported concerns, fears and worries amongst their staff over future employment and promotion prospects. One FMS HoAU reflecting on RTB said “there is no trust at all at the moment between staff and university leadership.” Another said it damaged the university’s reputation, by “giving the impression that we are a hostile place.” Describing the serious individual and group-demotivating effect of a rising star in his field not quite fulfilling the RTB requirements, one FMS HoAU said “RTB gave the feeling of a very cold system – missing the human factor behind it – not looking at the large numbers of contributions that have a value that is not valued.” A different HoAU noted that RTB was “severely flawed” because “it did not recognise contributions in the round.”

It was divisive at a number of levels, enforcing comparisons between individuals and units which were exacerbated by RTB’s stated aim of rewarding certain individuals and supporting a chosen number of ‘excellent’ units at the relative expense of the rest. An FMS HoAU said that “[t]he good thing about academia, in contrast to industry, is that basically everyone is motivated and wants to work well in research.” This supports the majority view in the scholarly literature that OBPM does not work in the public sector where staff typically work for less money but are more likely to be motivated by a sense of vocation, so respond to different sets of incentives and work optimally in a high-trust environment.[12]

An EB member acknowledged that in spite of the VC’s attempts to communicate what he saw as the necessary and positive nature of RTB, “the brand had become so contaminated” it needed to be abandoned.



Although there was agreement that Chris Brink made the right decision for the good of the University in withdrawing RTB, there is disagreement on what went wrong. Senior management saw RTB as poorly-understood but benignly-conceived ‘carrot,’ whereas middle management as an ill-conceived ‘carrot and stick.’

Most senior managers (members of Executive Board) identified communication as the problem. They argued that RTB was primarily about offering incentives to undertake the improvements that they saw as necessitated by funding frameworks, but that it was misunderstood or wilfully misrepresented. As one EB member put it, the intention was “an admirable one… but I don’t think communications was handled seriously, there wasn’t a communications plan in place.” In particular, she thought RTB “was a clumsy title and not properly thought through in its connotations,” which another EB member elaborated that “it became understood as a high jumper raising the bar until it is not possible to jump higher.”  A different EB member blamed the UCU for its message that RTB was about “targets” rather than recognising also “the wider support” in terms of financial research support availability.

In sharp contrast, middle managers described a more fundamental issue: the entire top-down “process of conception and implementation was the problem,” as one FMS HoAU put it. They commonly saw it as a top-down, blunt instrument that was inappropriate for different schools for different pragmatic reasons. As one HaSS middle manager put it, RTB “reflects a view of the university as a machine: just tell people what to do and they’ll do it.” A recurring, although not universal, theme among middle managers was that RTB was in part intended to engender redundancies in what one PVC apparently referred to euphemistically as “the tail”: [RTB] “was sold as making research better, but I think it was about trying to get rid of some people” reported one middle manager.  But the most common theme, as a HaSS HoAU put it simply, was “top down doesn’t work” – because HoAU understood their staff best and knew how to motivate them best.

However even post-RTB it is unclear whether senior managers and middle managers understand the same thing by the term “top down.” For example, one EB member said, in retrospect, “if we could have driven it from bottom up it would have been better.” She apparently understood “bottom-up” as what she explained as “employee engagement” – trying to persuade academics to buy into something still devised from the top. This is not what middle managers saw the problem as (see next section).



Some EB and senior lay respondents stated that they had not understood what one EB member described as the “key difference” between different faculties: she claimed the RiPE approach “was like water off a duck’s back” for most in FMS, but presented problems for the other faculties, especially HaSS. However, interview data from middle managers challenges this view.

Not a single HoAU we interviewed in any faculty disagreed with the aim of improving research to do better in league tables: most criticised it for what they saw as its broad-brush, top-down approach as being not only “crude” (FMS HoAU) but in some ways counter-productive and even harmful. One HoAU said he thought the aim “was a good move for the university”, yet because of the way it was undertaken “No good school in SAgE wanted it.”

A middle manager explained that although “the idea behind RTB was less alien and confrontational” to staff in his faculty, he berated its “fundamental problems.” These included “trying to drive in a top-down process without adequate consultation and buy-in,” the false assumption that there is a significant problem of “lazy PIs in my institute,” the way RTB “demoralised” people going through a fallow period in grant success, and its danger of “disincentivising new, innovative teaching methods.”

One SAgE HoAU spoke of “lots of push-back” from his counterparts. Another SAgE HoAU said he had told a joint meeting of Senate and Council in late 2015 that “If you want to improve the performance of an organisation, the worst thing you can do is damage staff morale”; and he told his PVC and Dean of Research that “You are branding two thirds of my academic staff as failures,” on being shown a table of how many staff met a target figure for funding. A HoAU who described himself as “more on the pro-RTB side” nonetheless agreed with its withdrawal because “scientists and researchers are self-motivated, we can’t impose things on them.” HoAU became increasingly critical of RTB behind the scenes. This was as much or more for pragmatic than principled reasons.

Strikingly, a number of HoAU, across all faculties, described an almost identical approach to tackling the few academics whose performance is deemed to be in need of intervention. As one HoAU explained, “I work hard with the few who are struggling to help them get better,” ensuring all those in his unit who were not submitted to REF 2014 “have done well in their career progression since”: an approach based on personal relationships, care, and individualised assistance including freeing them up more time for research – in contrast to RTB. An FMS HoAU spoke of creative, supportive mentoring networks he had created. Most HoAU would agree with a comment made by one of their number who said: “no one cares more about our staff than we do, we know them” so university academic leaders or managers should work with heads of academic unit, not over their heads.



A theme which emerged in a number of interviews with both middle and senior managers, and also senior lay members of the university was that RTB misread Newcastle University’s unique culture – based on its relative geographical isolation.

One HoAU said that “draconian” measures used elsewhere would not work in Newcastle: “Not only is it inherently wrong, but inherently non-Newcastle.” He explained that “people here tend to look after each other” because the North East’s culture is about “let’s see how we can help each other” – but RiPE was seen as “threatening.”

A senior lay member of the university explained the reason for this culture in the region’s geography: “Newcastle is a long way from everyone, which is great, as it generates a lot of loyalty from our staff. If you are in London you can survive with a peripatetic staff, you can hire between the universities and internationally” – which is not the same in Newcastle. This creates, he argued a “Newcastle ethos” marked by stronger staff relationships and higher levels of satisfaction. Another member of the EB claimed, “We are more collegial than, say, XXXX [another northern Russell Group institution] where I had worked previously,” in explaining why Chris Brink decided to withdraw RTB rather than stand the industrial action down. This extends to the student body, too, suggested another lay member of the university: “Its geographic remoteness in Britain makes it hard for most students to pop back easily at weekends, and this creates sense of identity and strengthens cohesiveness.”

A middle manager agreed, explaining that this isolation raised unique problems for Newcastle in terms of staff recruitment and retention. “Those of us who live here know it is a fantastic part of the world to live in, but it is hard to convince others,” he said: because this made recruitment at senior levels harder, then staff retention becomes a critical issue: “what you really don’t want as a head of school is your good staff saying, ‘I’m pissed off with this place, and am looking for other opportunities.’ He continued by saying that the people we most want to retain are the people most able to leave: the people who would hit RTB targets comfortably, but whom he said in his school were in a class of people who were particularly antagonistic to RTB. Another HoAU, in FMS, who feared RTB would lead to redundancies, said “there has to be an element of reality there, but it seems to be lost in RTB.” He continued, sarcastically, mocking what he described as “The idea that you could get a good provincial university and make it amazingly strong, by sacking people and bringing in this great pool of stars who are desperate to come here!”




As the former VC, Chris Brink, declined our invitation for an interview, we have been unable to ascertain what led him to finally decide to withdraw RTB. But senior and middle managers, and senior lay figures, seemed to agree that the withdrawal was due to a combination of factors. Disquiet or opposition occurred across different parts of the university from different actors with different agendas, both pragmatic and principled, both within and without the activities and members of UCU.

A senior lay member reported a “growing sense that more and more people were expressing opinions about this, at personal, individual, town hall levels, and the union was threatening strike action.” Serendipity also played a role. A number of middle managers and EB members highlighted the importance of the visit of Professor Ed Byrne, VC of King’s College and former head of Monash, invited by Chris Brink to speak to HoAU Forum on May 18 2016 about “The transformation of Monash to a World Top 100 University.” One SAgE HoAU said “He dropped a bombshell,” by saying “don’t do it top-down.”  The professors’ letter was seen as “crucial” (middle manager) in representing the views of the “high-performing, senior academics” (EB member) upon whom RTB’s success was dependent. However this did not result in the withdrawal of RTB, but rather the creation of a ‘Forum.’ As one of the key authors of the letter said, “I thought we were being palmed off, there was no backtracking at all on RTB…industrial action was the tipping point.” It was, said a SAgE HoAU, the UCU industrial action seemed to prove the tipping point or “trigger”: it “raised the temperature and precipitated the final abandonment.”



The RTB dispute demonstrated a series of failures of various university bodies to do their job properly and to listen to each other. An EB member said that when RTB started to go badly wrong, “it genuinely came as a surprise to the steering group.” This speaks to a striking failure to listen because Senate, the UCU, the professors, Heads of Academic Units, individual academics, departmental collectives, and others, all made cogent critiques of RiPE early on: if the EB had listened, the damaging dispute could have been avoided. RTB revealed that “to a large extent there is a disconnect between the university [EB] and the unit,” as one SAgE HoAU summed up a recurring theme. “This disconnect is quite damaging,” was how another HoAU phrased an oft-expressed sentiment. A senior lay member of the university put it more bluntly still, lambasting the EB’s “gung-ho management.”

This failure to listen is exacerbated in Newcastle’s case because we have scholars with expertise in the field of metrics and public services, who have made widely-read meta-analyses and critiques of Outcomes-Based Performance-Management. Newcastle academics wrote to senior research managers in the university pointing this out, summarising the academic literature, and requesting evidence that management had undertaken a serious review of the relevant literature – which they had not.

But this is far from simply a failure on the part of senior management: as one HoAU put it, RTB “was principally a failure of senior management but there was also a degree to which it was a collective failure.”  Activists claimed that Corporate Affairs provided a skewed portrayal in its coverage of the issue on university websites, therefore making listening harder.  Some members of Senate raised key concerns early on, but as a body Senate failed to anticipate the problems RiPE would raise, modify it sufficiently to avert them, or to intervene as the dispute escalated. A senior lay member of the local business community said that Council too failed in its duty of governance to spot and stop a bad idea early on: he suggested that this might have been because the lay members of council often have backgrounds in “the commercial world” which “is about performance, measurement, accountability, and is heavily dominated by that culture.”  Heads of Academic Units identified key weaknesses with RTB early on, but did not push back against their Pro-Vice Chancellors robustly and consistently enough: “when I reflect back, the likes of me and other managers should have been more strident earlier on” admitted one HoAU. The Professoriate likewise issued an insightful critique of RiPE, but failed to follow it up forcefully, apparently being placated by the establishment of a new Professorial Forum.

The Newcastle branch of the UCU provided senior management with cogent critiques of RiPE as early as July 2015, and in October 2015 formally requested its withdrawal and the development of “a more positive approach to motivating staff to perform at a higher level.”[13] But, as one FMS HoAU said, he perceived that UCU “seemed to get involved quite late, which surprised me.” It wasn’t true that UCU was doing nothing: but it took a long time to move to a clear, forceful and unified rejection of RiPE in the form of decisive industrial action. Its branch committee’s sometimes lack of internal clarity and unity meant it went through two lengthy processes of negotiations drawing up memoranda of understanding on slightly-diluted versions of RiPE which were subsequently rejected by both the committee and the wider branch membership, in March and May 2016. EB and senior lay members involved in the dispute expressed understandable puzzlement over and frustration at this:  “the union was inconsistent – it was hard to know who we were dealing with”; “there was infighting, disagreement… factionalism” which seriously hampered the process of communication, said another, with evident annoyance at the time and resources wasted on a process entered into in good faith. Greater alacrity and unity in clearly and resolutely opposing RiPE and RTB in its entirety, and accelerating the movement to industrial action, might  have led to an earlier resolution of the dispute well before exam time, thus causing less anxiety to students (especially final year students facing graduation).

Thus failures to listen or be decisive are shared by all parts of the university, and to an extent the RTB dispute can be seen as a collective problem.



The community of Newcastle University can draw some positives from the RTB dispute. Instead of lapsing into cynicism, we witnessed a marked increase in academic citizenship as various groups of scholars put in significant amounts of energy in engaging with management to persuade them to rethink RTB: engagements that also took a certain amount of courage and displayed a certain amount of trust that management would respond properly. Ultimately when Council and Senate failed in their appropriate governance duties, UCU stepped in the breach. All of this should be interpreted as a deep and abiding concern for our workplace and reputation, at a time when it is widely recognised that output pressures have put academic citizenship “under strain” across the academy.[14] A senior lay member expressed his hope that “management sees this as an opportunity to engage this activism, not see it as a threat.”

The nature and tone of the dispute was also positive. The UCU did not personalise the campaign: as an EB member said of UCU, “they certainly kept the pressure up,” but did so “with mutual respect.” The UCU’s campaign simply negative or reactive: it was able and willing to offer constructive, evidence-based alternatives (Improving Research Together proposal of June 2016), and was re-energised by the dispute. Similarly, the VC, Chris Brink, was willing to engage in attempts to persuade and listen (town hall meetings), and was ultimately prepared to not only change his mind but was humble enough to back down graciously and with dignity. As he said of the RTB dispute in his valedictory address “I don’t believe universities should be safe spaces”, explaining that he thought it was important to have robust engagements and challenge each other in spirit of respect – and the RTB dispute was an example of that.[15]

The Newcastle opposition in the round to RTB was not simply reacting against a bad idea; it invited managers and the whole university to envision an environment where reputation is improved not by playing the system, but by trusting its scholars enough to give them autonomy and the resources to be creative and innovative. We also have, in AFRI, a genuine understanding between management and the broader university as an excellent place to move forwards.



A major positive outcome of the RTB dispute, and a theme which frequently emerged in interviews, is that post-RTB we have a common understanding in moving forwards. This is encapsulated in the Academic Framework for Research Improvement (AFRI), which ended industrial action on June 6 2016. This agreement recognises that funding structures mean it is necessary to be seen to perform well in what we accept are flawed and limited key metric tables, but that we seek to do that by improving research in a collegial and bottom-up, non-coercive manner. It recognises that an uncritical focus on quantitative targets is ‘problematic.’ Scholarly ‘performance’ cannot be artificially managed by a top-down coercive tool, but research is to be improved by creating a conducive working environment to allow creativity, and recruit and retain staff.



There has been widespread external interest in the RTB case, because it is exemplary of the question posed to all UK universities (and, beyond this, internationally) at the start of this report: how to navigate the challenges posed by the demands of performing well in key metric exercises that are inherently flawed and enact profound changes to the nature and practice of academic labour.

In March 2016 Newcastle scholars began collaborating on a research project to examine the impact of RTB, leading to an article in the THES. Some of the world’s leading scholars of the meaning and purpose of universities lent their support to the research by joining its advisory board. [16] The above-mentioned petition on, calling on Chris Brink to withdraw RiPE and adopt a more collegial approach to research improvement, garnered some 2,700 signatories in 3 days.  In the week that the industrial action began, the UCU Congress, as mentioned above, passed a solidarity motion recognising the Newcastle issue as “a local dispute of national significance” because of the issues it raised, and since the end of the dispute the local UCU has received various requests for support and advice in similar disputes in other universities. RTB has emerged as a case study of neoliberal Outcomes-Based Performance-Management, analysed in a number of published and forthcoming scholarly articles in the USA and Australia, and presented at a number of overseas conferences. Academics from North America and elsewhere in the UK have already visited to investigate the RTB dispute.

External interest is thus likely to be sustained in the medium term. We thus have a need to get the post-RTB environment under AFRI right, and responsibility to help other universities learn from our experiences. This provides an opportunity for Newcastle to position ourselves as a sector leader in this field.






In the wake of the RTB dispute there is a need to rebuild trust, to repair damage, restore reputation, and find different ways to help staff improve research performance. This should not be understood simply as undoing negatives, but as a unique and positive opportunity to improve our research environment, rethink our institution’s identity and narrative, and to reposition Newcastle University as a sector leader in progressive and innovative approaches to university management and governance.

The basis for this is the consensus framed by Academic Framework for Research Improvement (AFRI) agreement between management and the UCU of June 6, 2016. As the formal document for ending a legal industrial dispute, this remains binding on both the UCU Branch and the Executive Board, irrespective of changes in personnel for both. The June 6 agreement stipulated that this would “be a standing item at JNC”, and must remain so.

Staff and management (who are largely fellow academics) agreed, as the AFRI document put it, that “we want to succeed within certain policy environments and funding structures,” but that “it is problematic to focus exclusively on quantitative targets.” We recognised that “it is necessary to improve research performance of the University” – after all, every scholar wants their research, analysis and presentation of their work to get better over the course of their career. But we agreed that this should be a “collaborative” and “consultative and inclusive” process: improving our research cannot be artificially managed by a top-down, heavy-handed approach, but research is to be improved by creating a “non-coercive culture and approach”, fashioning a conducive working environment to allow creativity, and recruit and retain staff. This provides an excellent basis for moving forwards by rebuilding and reinforcing Newcastle’s reputation as a sector-leading, metrics-lite, supportive and collegial environment in which scholars are given the autonomy, resources and trust to work hard, innovate and be creative.



RTB was a major concern for me over the past year or so, when thinking about a possible move out of Durham. I would have been very hesitant to apply to Newcastle, had RTB still been in place. As it was, by the time the job was advertised, and thanks to the work of Newcastle scholars, RTB had been withdrawn. This made the difference for me, and I went ahead and applied. While of course no institution is perfect, Newcastle has always had a reputation for being a more collegial, supportive and equitable working environment than many of its competitors – and I believe that this underpins its current strong trajectory in terms of academic reputation. The possibility that this culture will be sustained in future has been a major factor in my decision to apply for and then accept the Chair in Human Geography at Newcastle.

Professor Rachel Pain of Durham University, one of the UK’s leading social geographers, on her reasons for accepting a Newcastle Chair, May 2017.[17]

It is in the DNA of every Russell Group university promotional strategy that it wants to be in the ‘top X’ list of universities, so this is no longer an adequate differentiator of vision. Therefore the key recommendation we make is that rather than focus on trying to ascend league tables by gaming the system, the ‘Newcastle brand’ should be marked by the production of a genuinely collegial, supportive, non-coercive, bottom-up, ambitious, and sustainable culture where staff wellbeing is prioritised and in which academics are trusted to be given the freedom, resources, support and autonomy to innovate and be creative. In short, we move from ‘carrot and stick’, not to ‘carrot,’ but to a recognition that academics have sufficient intrinsic motivation and that the goal of managers is to create an environment in which this can flourish. Extensive literature show how metrics-obsessed universities and performance management schemes make employees less happy and less creative.[18] Kirsi-Mari Kallio and Tomi Kallio write that “[t]he motivation to engage in creative, knowledge-intensive work, such as the work carried out at universities, is typically intrinsic,” and therefore outcomes-based performance management “is in conflict with intrinsic motivation and the very essence of the expert work undertaken in universities.”[19] Our interviews bore this out: in criticising RTB and questioning whether any alternative was needed, a senior FMS HoAU said “A happy PI is a productive PI.”[20] With the increasing realisation that what HEFCE calls ‘the metric tide’[21] leads to anxiety, unhappiness, and poor workplace relations,[22] Universities UK has recognised the strategic importance of embedding the promotion of mental health and wellbeing across all university activities.[23] Research improvement, reputational rise, and positive performance in key metrics exercises would follow naturally from the fashioning of the type of environments described above, aiding the retention and recruitment of top staff. In so doing, we can build our reputation and develop branding strategies as a sector leader in this regard, rather than identifying positions in league tables for certain parts of the university.

This suggestion emerges both from the empirical evidence of our interviews, and also the broader literature. Wæraas and Solbakk, in discussing a failed Norwegian example, show how university rebranding is inherently problematic. This is because universities are complex and diverse, but also because a shared global understanding of what universities are for makes product differentiation inherently difficult.[24] In a recent UNESCO-supported publication, Petter writes that because league table ratings are based on a basket of indicators that privilege the biggest and wealthiest universities, “for all but the most prominent universities, a singular focus on pursuing a higher ranking may be a misguided effort and a distraction from tasks that could both improve the institution and distinguish it more effectively from its competition.” [25] The relatively static position of most Russell Group universities in UK REF league tables lends support to this suggestion.[26]

Petter argues instead that “the way to greatness lies in finding the single differentiator on which an organization can rise above its competitors,” which in the world of higher education is less likely to lie in rankings than in the physical communities, exceptional contributions, or unique expertise of a particular institution. We contend that Newcastle’s way towards research improvement is precisely not by seeking to optimise league table positions, but by developing a genuinely supportive, non-coercive, richly rewarding working culture as our differentiator.  We are well placed to do this, because of our history, geography, and culture, research expertise, the lessons we have learnt from the RTB experiment and the networks developed on the back of it, and the AFRI agreement which provides the legal basis for our way forwards. The potential of using this to attract and retain the best staff is illustrated by the words of Professor Rachel Pain at the top of this section.

The above should be clearly formulated in our identity documents and branding, and we also suggest six specific steps to further facilitate it:



The post-RTB consensus is that research improvement must be academic-led, not top-down. Each academic collective should be trusted to hold conversations about how managers can help them create the most conducive environments in which to conduct the best possible research, and managers should respond to these as far as possible. Each unit must be accountable, both internally and to the rest of the university, for what it is doing to improve (where necessary) its research culture. Because the university is diverse, these cultures, whilst having certain commonalities, will look different across our institution and thus the process must be bottom-up, not top-down.

In October 2016 Newcastle UCU issued a document ‘UCU AFRI principles: improving the research process at Newcastle University.’[27] This identified ten key principles by which these consultative processes should be guided, including an emphasis on fostering a supportive environment, a focus  on improvement not assessment, an insistence that the process be bottom-up (ie not manager-led), equality and diversity auditing, taking a long-term perspective that recognises career cycles, and that all developments are in accordance with academic freedom. Specific models such as that of ‘Communities of Learning,’ pioneered at Newcastle, are explained in the document.



DORA was formulated by the editors of some of the world’s leading scientific journals at a meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology in San Francisco, 2012. It arose from a growing concern about the misuse of Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) and a desire to ensure that scientific output is measured accurately and evaluated wisely.’ Observing that JIFs were designed to help librarians identify journal subscriptions to purchase, not as a measure of the scientific quality of research in a paper, DORA points to a series of well-documented deficiencies of the use of JIFs as a tool of research assessment. Although there are institution and individual-specific suggestions, DORA’s general recommendation is that institutions “[d]o not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding provision.” As of May 2017, DORA has been signed by over 850 organisations (largely scholarly journals, societies and institutions). UK signatories include HEFCE, the Wellcome Trust, and a number of UK universities.

On March 9 UCU wrote to the Vice-Chancellor asking him to sign on behalf of Newcastle University; on March 14 he replied that he had passed this on to Nick Wright, PVC for Research and Innovation; and on May 2 Professor Wright informed Senate that he had signed on behalf of the university, making Newcastle one of the first UK universities to sign up. We wholly welcome this move by the EB as being fully in the spirit of AFRI. What matters now is its implementation. We recommend that one or more suitable committees (possibly of Senate, and HR with the UCU via JNC) are established to monitor progress towards best practice in ensuring that the implications of DORA are understood and its principles applied across the university in hiring, promotion, evaluation and other exercises;[28] and also to help Newcastle scholars lead their own fields in promoting its adoption worldwide, for example through their involvement in scholarly journals and societies. In so doing, Newcastle can continue positioning itself as a sector leader in the scientific and humane use of metrics in assessing scholarly research.





EB minutes show that RIPE was to be embedded in the PDR process, despite confusing messages from senior management to the contrary. This damaged trust in the PDR process. Interviews with some HoAU also showed this had led to a wider mistrust of other audit, review and support exercises, such as internal and external quality audits.  To restore trust, the PDR process, plus any other exercise which monitors the work of academic or academic-related staff, should from now on be negotiated with the relevant unions, with a goal of reaching a result based on consensus. The PDR title should be changed back from ‘Performance and Development Review’ to ‘Personal Development Review,’ which reflects the more supportive vision of AFRI. There are also issues about how reviewers are trained and briefed that need to reflect a new approach.




The practical, organisational, moral and intellectual problems of RTB/RiPE were made clear to management by various parts of the University including the professoriate, the UCU, and middle managers. However senior management was slow to listen and governance bodies did not act decisively, a situation not helped by official university websites creating an echo-chamber by providing a somewhat pro-management perspective on the ongoing discussions and debates. In answer to the question “How could the new VC regain trust?” one HoAU in SAgE said simply: “Be open, listen to staff in the university.”

To facilitate this and improve communication in the future, we make three suggestions:


A positive outcome of the RTB issue was the development of Professorial Forums with the VC. But the VC would benefit from hearing the voices of future professors as well as current ones. This model should be extended to three forums: Advanced Researcher Forum (Professors and Readers), Researcher Forum (Lecturers and Senior Lecturers), and Contract Researcher Forum (temporary, research assistance, zero-hours contract scholars, etc.)


This space would be permanent and clearly visible, shared between the three unions. Content would be submitted in the usual way and subject to the standard processes and regulations (overseen by Corporate Affairs in respect of UK legal, copyright, and other issues).


HoAU should be provided with the necessary support and spaces to talk and formulate positions with Academic Units (as per recommendation 1) and with each other in a collegial and bottom up manner. This pertains not just to interactions with EB, but with faculty executive boards, strategy groups, and other pertinent governance structures. One HaSS middle manager spoke of “the problem of fear” Heads of Academic Units had in challenging the VC; another (in FMS) claimed there was a general feeling amongst heads of schools that “we have a leadership that […] tell[s] us what to do, not discuss[es] things with staff.” One of his SAgE counterparts said, “We’d like to be asked what’s good for us, rather than be told what’s good for us.”

To promote this, and to recognise the invaluable and unique role of middle managers as two-way conduits between academic staff and senior- and faculty-level management, it is crucial that academic staff have a meaningful voice in the selection of the Heads of Unit; ways should be found to address the currently inadequate academic input into selection panels from staff in the units concerned.


The failure to stop prevent RiPE and stop the RTB dispute escalating to the level that it did was a failure of governance that Senate and Council need themselves to address.

Senate didn’t adequately listen to concerns of broader academic staff, and senior management did not listen well to those concerns that were raised in Senate. An August 20 2015 Newcastle University Report from the Working Group on Governance 2015 observed that “There have been comparatively few occasions in recent years where Senate has steered the Executive decision making process” (p.7). Although that report was released after the RiPE vote in July, RTB was a case where Senate could have acted to rectify this, and needs further reflection on why it failed and how it could better steer the decision making process in the future.

As reported, a senior lay member of the local business community suggested that Council might have failed to stop RiPE because the lay members of council are overwhelmingly drawn from the corporate world. Newcastle is a city which has a higher employment dependence on the public sector than most other parts of the UK; is home to some of the country’s most important historic Christian, Muslim and Jewish communities; has been a driver of recent movements like Fair Trade, Citizens UK and the Jubilee Debt Campaign; and has a history of support of progressive global movements like anti-slavery, peace and civil rights. We might thus have expected lay membership of council to include representatives of local trade unions, faith communities, social activists, and alternative economic actors. However, as of May 2017, 11 of the 12 non-academic members of council had corporate/legal backgrounds. It is true that Council must seek the skill set it needs to undertake its work; but a more representative body would have helped it reflect critically on the university’s direction during the RTB dispute and listen to a great range of perspectives. Although progress has been made on gender balance with 5/12 current non-academic members being women, action should be taken to ensure greater diversity of experience and skill set.



The prolongation of the RTB dispute was also a failure to listen to the relevant academic literature, and it should be a settled principle that academic managers should consult this thoroughly before embarking on significant future schemes that affect the university. This is particularly the case where especial expertise exists in Newcastle, as was the case for the understanding of Outcomes Based Performance Management in the public services (Toby Lowe, Rob Wilson, Roger Burrows, Richard Collier, and others). The proposed Newcastle Centre for Critical University Studies could assist the EB, Senate and Council, and HR, in this regard.



Newcastle academics should establish the world’s first inter-disciplinary Centre for Critical University studies. Its purposes would be to help other institutions learn from our experience and, on the back of our early adoption of DORA, position Newcastle as the central research space internationally for scholars wrestling with questions about how to manage universities well in an age of branding and metrics. It would also be well placed to respond to the recent Universities UK call to develop an evidence-base on mental health and wellbeing in higher education. The extensive links of support and interest fostered by RTB give an immediate boost in placing ‘NECCUS’ at the centre of a string of significant networks drawing in rising and leading scholars.

This time-bound), multi-disciplinary institute would undertake activities including: running conferences and workshops; offering short visiting fellowships or professorships; delivering an annual Lecture (the Chris Brink Lecture?) as part of the Insights series; providing small grants to seed fund research; assisting Newcastle scholars in applying for larger grants to undertake national and international research and host and build networks of scholars; working with HR to gather evidence and study best practice around mental health and wellbeing in HE; helping the university implement DORA; and reflect on its new vision and branding strategies going forwards in the ‘Shaping our Vision’ process launched by new VC, Chris Day, in 2017.

[1] Academic Frameworks for Research Improvement

[2] Daniel Pink, Drive, the Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us (2009) New York: Riverhead Books. Drawing on behavioural psychology, Pink argues that both the ‘carrot and stick’ approach (like RTB) and the simple ‘carrot’ reward approach often serve to dampen and suppress intrinsic motivation. Pink explicitly identifies academia as a sector where intrinsic motivation is high


[3] James Wilsdon et al,. “The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management “, HEFCE, 2015.


[4] Not all HoAU are comfortable with the term ‘middle managers’, but it is a common term in the literatures on management science which reflects the responsibilities and constraints of the role of HoAU.

[5] EB Minutes, 3/02/2015.

[6] Executive Board, 13 October 2015, “Raising the Bar Implementation:  Notes from the meeting held with Academic Heads of Unit on 8 October 2015.”

[7] ‘Update on local industrial action,’ email from Chris Brink to all staff, 2/06/2016.

[8] “HE54 Targeted research performance measures – who will be next? – Newcastle University”, Higher Education Sector Conference 2016, UCU Congress 2016. Thursday 2 June 2016, Liverpool. Motion tabled by Joan Harvey and seconded by Geoff Abbot.


[10] Chris Brink, email, ‘Extraordinary meeting of Heads of Academic Units Friday 3 June,’ 1/6/2016.

[11] Academic Framework for Research Improvement, 06/06/2016.

[12] Toby Lowe and Rob Wilson. “Playing the Game of Outcome-Based Performance Management (OBPM). Is Gamesmanship Inevitable? Evidence Form Theory and Practice.” Social Policy and Administration (2015): DOI: 10.1111/spol.12205.


[13] UCU President Joan Harvey wrote to Vice-Chancellor, Chris Brink, 21/10/2015, identifying 15 problems with RiPE and asking for it to be withdrawn.

[14] Chris Havergal,”Is ‘academic citizenship’ under strain?” Times Higher Education, 29/01/2015.



[15] Chris Brink, 12/10/16, Lindisfarne Room, Newcastle University.

[16] These included: Martha Nussbaum, the Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, and the recipient of a Newcastle Honorary Law Doctorate in 2013; Rowan Williams, Master of Magdalene College and former Archbishop of Canterbury; Stefan Collini, Professor of English Literature and Intellectual History at the University of Cambridge and the country’s leading analyst and public critic of higher education change in the UK; and Dame Marilyn Strathern, former Mistress of Girton College, Britain’s foremost anthropologist, and author of an early key text critical of ‘The Audit culture. Other key authors cited in this report, such as Rosalind Gill and Arild Wæraas, were also board members of the research project. The research project’s launch was covered in the Times Higher Education by Jack Grove, ‘Target led culture in universities analysed in major project,’ 31/03/2016.

[17] Personal communication, May 16, 2017. It is worth noting that on a previous occasion when Newcastle had advertised an open chair in human geography, they were unable to appoint at the professorial level. It is also noteworthy that the unsuccessful candidate also mentioned the defeat of RTB as a pull factor to Newcastle.

[18] Rosalind Gill. “Breaking the Silence: The Hidden Injuries of the Neoliberal University.” In Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections (2010), edited by Róisín Ryan-Flood, 228-244. London: Routledge; Burrows, Roger. 2012. “Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy.” (2012) in  The Sociological Review 60 (2):355-372.

[19] Kirsi-Mari Kallio, and Tomi J. Kallio. 2014. “Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities – implications for work motivation.”  Studies in Higher Education 39 (4):574-589 (p574).

[20] A SAgE HoAU, when asked how senior managers could help them improve the research in their units, answered only half-jokingly: “leave us alone!”

[21] See footnote 3.

[22] Rosalind Gill. “Breaking the Silence: The Hidden Injuries of the Neoliberal University.” In: Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections (2010). Edited by R. Ryan-Flood. London, Routledge: 228-244. See also work by Newcastle scholar Richard Collier, “’Love law, love life’: Neoliberalism, wellbeing and gender in the legal profession – the case of the law school” (2014).  Legal Ethics 17(2): 202-230.

[23] ‘New programme to address mental health and wellbeing in universities,’ Universities UK, December 2016. Available at:

[24] Arild Wæraas, and Marianne N. Solbakk. “Defining the Essence of a University: Lessons from Higher Education Branding,” Higher Education 57 (2009): 449-62. The authors observe a striking paucity of research into branding of higher education: an observation that remains pertinent, and which the proposed Newcastle Centre for Critical University Studies could address.

[25] Andrew Petter. “Connecting with Communities Vs. Racing for Rankings. Why Community Engagement Is a Better Strategy Than Seeking Higher Rankings,” In Towards a Socially Responsible University: Balancing the Global with the Local, 429-434. Girona: Global University Network for Innovation, 2017, p.429-30.

[26] Jack Grove, “REF: static ranking raises questions about management policies,” Times Higher Education, 24/12/2015.

[27] Available from UCU website:

[28] We recommend that a key comment on bibliometrics in Nature be consulted in this process: Diana Hicks, and Paul Wouters. “The Leiden Manifesto for Research.”  Nature 520 (2015 ):429-431.


Posted in News | Leave a comment

Meeting: SEE (Science and Engineering Excellence) Restructuring

When: 1:00-2:00pm, Thursday, 15 June 2017
Where: Bedson 1.19

UCU has been following the restructuring in SAgE and having discussions with management about it off and on for the last year or so. Now that it is being implemented, a number of members have raised concerns about how existing staff are fitting into the new structures, especially when it comes to regrading of jobs and the potential for redundancies. Bruce Baker (our new Newcastle UCU President) will be hosting a meeting for any members who are affected by the SEE restructuring to discuss concerns. The purpose of the meeting is to help Newcastle UCU formulate a plan as to how we should be supporting our members in SAGE. If you are interested in contributing to the discussion but are unable to attend at this time, please email Bruce directly ( While academic-related staff are most directly affected by the restructuring, the work of academic-related staff is inextricably linked to that of academics, so staff of any category who might have concerns are encouraged to come along and contribute to the discussion.

Posted in Events, News | Leave a comment

Newcastle UCU Local Election Results

Elected: 6 June 2017


  • Bruce Baker 144
  • Nathaniel Coleman 76

VP Operations

  • Joan Harvey 101
  • Matt Perry 121

VP Communications

  • Nathaniel Coleman 90
  • Fionnghuala Sweeney 134


  • Alasdair Charles 97
  • Phillip Lord 126


  • Fabrizio Casalin 127
  • Joan Harvey 95

Congress delegate (elected unopposed)

  • Geoff Abbott
  • Joan Harvey

Regional Committee Delegates (elected unopposed)

  • Geoff Abbott
  • Sarah Campbell
  • Joan Harvey
  • Matt Perry
Posted in News | Leave a comment

Local Emergency General Meeting (Final Pay Offer)

To discuss the employers’ Final Pay Offer (which includes gender pay gap and precarious employment).

Time: 1-2pm Wednesday 10 May, 2017

Venue: Clement Stephenson Lecture Theatre, Agriculture Building

For details of UCEA’s final offer follow this link.

The EGM will consider the following questions:

  • whether the UCEA final offer on pay should be accepted or rejected, if they are prepared to take part in industrial action after a sustained ‘get the vote out’ campaign;
  • whether UCU should hold a ballot on higher education pay in autumn 2017.
Posted in Events, News | Leave a comment

We are international – Let’s keep it that way

As part of the We Are International Campaign, UCU Newcastle and Northumbria are holding a Brexit event in support of EU nationals.

Jason Hussein from the Newcastle Law Centre will give advice and answer questions in regards to EU resident rights and Brexit. In particular Jason will focus on what EEA citizens living in the UK should do now. Jason will talk through the procedure of EEA residence and permanent residence document application and answer any questions you may have.

All UCU members and non-members are invited to attend.

Where: Daysh Building Lecture Theatre 3 [room 1.29]
When:  Friday 7th April; 2-4pm


Posted in Events, News | Leave a comment

Recruitment Week: Newcastle University UCU

Newcastle University UCU are running a number of local events during the week from Monday 27 February until Friday 3 March, 2017. All University staff and students are invited to come along to discuss their concerns with UCU members and about the role and activities of UCU (both nationally and locally) and learn about the benefits of membership. The past year has already shown how a strong local UCU branch can positively impact on the the work environment at Newcastle University and joining the union is one important way to contribute to that.

At a national levelUCU is the largest post-school union in the world: a force working for education that employers and the government cannot ignore. It understands the work you do, and the problems you face. And, of course, the more members UCU has, the more effective the support and protection we offer will be. Whether you are an academic, lecturer, trainer, instructor, researcher, administrator, manager, computer staff, librarian or postgraduate from a university, college, prison, adult education or training organisation, UCU is the union for you, so come along to work of the local recruitment events below to find out more.

For more information on UCU visit the national UCU website.

  • Monday 27 February
    • 12.30-1.30pm School of Marine Science and Technology: MAST conference room Armstrong Building 1.53B
    • 1.15-2.15pm School of Chemical Engineering and Advanced Materials: Bedson Building 1.19
  • Wednesday 1 March
    • 12-1.00pm School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Agriculture Building 3.05
  • Thursday 2 March
    • 1-2.00pm School of Chemistry, Bedson Building 2.76
  • Friday 3 March
    • 1-2.00pm All SAgE staff, Merz Court L202.
Posted in Events, News | Leave a comment




1       NAME

The name of the Branch or Local Association is “The Newcastle University Branch of the University and College Union”, subsequently referred to as the Branch.


The Branch is constituted in accordance with the current rules of the University and College Union (UCU).


The aims and objects of the Branch are the same as those of UCU, set out in national rule 2, except that they exclude the political objects of UCU referred to in national rule 2.6. The Branch may discuss UCU’s political objects and may act to further these, provided that no funds of the Branch are spent on those political objects. All actions taken by the Branch shall be consistent with the national Rules of UCU.


  • Members of the Branch shall be those assigned to the Branch in accordance with national Rule 12. Normally, this will include all UCU members for whom Newcastle University is their principal qualifying employment.
  • In accordance with national Rule 12.2, members who are employed at Newcastle University but who have been assigned to a different Branch may attend meetings, and vote on matters concerned with their employment, at this Branch. They are eligible for membership of the committee of this Branch, but may stand for election as a local officer only in their designated Branch. In relation to national office and national elections, they shall be entitled to stand for office and vote in national elections only in their designated Branch. National elections include all elections for General Secretary, Officers, Trustees, NEC representatives and Congress delegates.
  • Retired members whose last employment was in Newcastle University may choose to be members of the Branch or of a regional retired members’ branch.


  • Each member of the Branch will pay, in accordance with procedures determined by the NEC, a subscription to the funds of UCU consisting of the current national subscription as determined by the NEC, and any current local subscription agreed by the Branch.
  • The local subscription will be approved by a decision of the annual general meeting and published to all members.

6       USE OF FUNDS

6.1    All expenditure by the Branch must further the objects of the Branch and must be approved by a majority vote by the committee (either in a meeting or via email). The finances of the Branch shall be conducted in accordance with arrangements determined by the National Executive Committee which shall include an annual audit and report prepared in accordance with instructions issued by the Honorary Treasurer.

6.2    No funds of the Branch will be used for affiliation to a political party, or for the furtherance of the union’s political objects. Under trade union legislation, any expenditure on political objects must be made from a designated political fund, which is established and continued by a vote of the membership every ten years. This fund, set up in accordance with UCU rules 31 and 38, is one per cent of membership subscriptions and members may opt out of paying it. All expenditure on political objects must be made nationally out of this designated political fund; expenditure on political objects cannot be made out of local funds. Political objects may be broadly described as electoral or other party political activities.

6.3    The funds of the Branch will be used for:

6.3.1 Costs incurred in the proper conduct of the business of the Branch, as agreed by the committee either at a meeting or via email.

6.3.2 Payment of the expenses of any members duly appointed by the Branch to represent it.

6.3.3 Payment of other such expenses as will from time to time be determined by a majority of members present and voting at a quorate general meeting of the Branch, subject to 6.1 and 6.2 above.

6.3.4 Donations to charities or other bodies whose objects are consistent with those of the Branch. Donations greater than £100 must be approved by a general meeting of the Branch; donations below this amount may be approved by the committee.


7.1    There will be a committee responsible for conducting the day-to-day business of the Branch. The committee will meet at least ten times a year at regular intervals. Not less than one third of those who are at that time members of the committee must be present to form a quorum at any meeting.

7.2    If presented with a written request signed by half of the members of the committee, the chair must call a meeting of the committee to take place not later than 5 working days following the day on which that written request is received.

7.3    The committee will consist of:

  1. a) the Officers as specified below,
  2. b)up to seven ordinary members elected annually from members of the Branch.
  3. c) up to three members co-opted by the annual general meeting or by the committee who will serve to the end of the term of office of other committee members.
  4. d) any member of the Branch who is a member of the National Executive Committee of UCU

7.5  The committee shall elect (from among its own members) a Negotiating Committee to conduct negotiations.

7.6    The Negotiating Committee is the only body empowered to conduct negotiations with the institution. The negotiators may include the Regional Official, under circumstances determined by the General Secretary and approved by the Branch committee. The Negotiating Committee shall make appropriate arrangements for the appointment of its officers from among its membership subject to approval by the Branch committee.


8.1    Members will be elected to the following officer roles within the Branch:

The chair

The vice-chair

The treasurer

The secretary

The membership secretary

The equality officer

The anti-casualisation officer


          These positions will be declared elected annually at the annual general meeting from members of the Branch in accordance with Rule 9.

8.2   Chair

The chair will chair all general meetings and all committee meetings of the Branch and perform such other duties as are laid upon the chair by any rule or are decided by the committee, including to report on the nature and volume of casework to committee. In the absence of the chair these duties will be performed by the vice-chair, failing which another officer as the committee decides. In accordance with normal practice, the chair may, between meetings of the committee, take any action on behalf of the committee which is both urgent and necessary. Such Chair’s Action must be reported for approval to the next committee meeting.

8.3    Secretary

The duties of the secretary are to call general and committee meetings of the Branch; to ensure that minutes of those meetings are kept; to organise membership circulations as the committee deems necessary; to arrange notification of local election and ballot results to all members; and to perform such other duties as are laid on the secretary by any rule or are decided by the committee.  In the absence of the secretary, the secretary’s duties will be performed by another officer as the committee decides.

8.4    Treasurer

The treasurer will have custody of the funds of the Branch and authority to make payments from them in accordance with the rules as the need arises.  The treasurer’s duties will be to keep the books of the Branch; to present the accounts of the Branch for auditing as necessary; to present these audited accounts to a general meeting of the Branch, to publish them to all members of the Branch, and to submit a copy forthwith to the honorary treasurer of UCU. In the absence of the treasurer, the treasurer’s duties will be performed by another officer as the committee decides.

8.5    Membership/Recruitment Secretary

The membership/recruitment secretary will be responsible for recruitment and for keeping any membership records that are necessary at local level. The membership secretary will provide membership information promptly to UCU in accordance with instructions from UCU Head Office or Regional Office to enable statutory and rule requirements of membership records to be met.  In the absence of the membership secretary, these duties will be performed by another officer as the committee decides.

8.6    Equality officer

The equality officer will:

  1. have knowledge of and commitment to relevant issues, and be willing to undertake training according to the needs of UCU, monitor the implementation of equality policies within the institution, and, where appropriate, encourage and support local negotiations on equality matters
  2. monitor the volume and nature of personal casework which involves equality issues to ensure that the Branch has appropriate mechanisms in place for handling such cases and to report regularly to the Branch committee on the volume and nature of such personal casework
  • where appropriate, provide information, encouragement and support to members about equality issues
  1. ensure that UCU’s national annual meetings, and any other relevant events and opportunities for women, black members, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members and disabled members are publicised locally, that members from all groups are encouraged to participate, and that the Branch maximises the opportunities for recruitment and organisation amongst all groups
  2. where appropriate, provide liaison between the Branch and UCU’s equality structures

In the absence of the equality officer, these duties will be performed by another officer or officers as the committee decides.

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

8.8    Casual vacancies

If an office is vacant and no ballot is being held for that office, the committee is empowered to fill the vacancy, either from members of the committee itself or from the general membership of the Branch.  Officers so appointed will retire at the same time as if they had been duly declared elected at the last Annual General Meeting.


9.1    Returning Officer

The local committee will appoint a returning officer for elections who is neither a candidate for any office in the Branch nor a member of the committee.

9.2    Nominations

All nominations will be received in writing by the returning officer no later than the day that is [28] days before the day of the annual general meeting.  Nominations must be accompanied by the written consent of the nominee and supported by the identifiable signatures of [2] members of the Branch.

9.3    Eligibility to stand for election

Retiring officers will be eligible for re‑election, except that the chair and vice chair may normally hold office for not more than 6 successive years in any one capacity.

A member may not normally be declared elected to more than one officer or ordinary position of committee membership.

9.4    Elections

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

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

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

9.5    Term of Office

The term of office of an officer or ordinary member of the committee elected under this rule 9 will be one year following the annual general meeting. Committee attendance is an important part of the work of the officers and ordinary committee members: any committee member who fails to attend four meetings without good cause as determined by the committee shall be removed from office and that position will be made available at the next general meeting.


10.1  All ballots will be conducted in accordance with this rule, other than industrial action ballots which will be conducted in accordance with national rules.

10.2  If required, a ballot for officer posts will be held in accordance with 10.3. A ballot for ordinary committee members will be held by a vote at the AGM.

10.3  Not later than the end of the day that is fourteen days before the date fixed for counting the ballot, the ballot forms will be sent to each member of the Branch. The Returning Officer will supervise the conduct of the ballot including the distribution of ballot forms and will fix the date and time for starting the count of the ballot. The ballot will be secret. Ballots will be counted in accordance with the method determined by the returning officer. Where appropriate and practicable, the single transferable vote system will be used.

10.4  When officer and committee ballots are conducted over the same time period, they will be counted in the following order: officer and other positions set out in rule 8.1, in the order in which they are set out in that rule, followed by ordinary committee members. If a person is a candidate in two or more elections over the same time period for positions that cannot be held concurrently under rule, after the successful election of that candidate to a position, votes for that candidate will be disregarded in subsequent elections.

10.5  The result will be notified in writing by the Returning Officer to the secretary and as soon as practicable by the secretary to the members of the Branch and to the General Secretary of UCU.


Congress representatives will be elected annually from members of the Branch.  Any ballot that is necessary will be conducted in accordance with Rule 10. Where an elected representative is unable to attend a particular Congress, a substitute may be elected by a General Meeting. If this is not possible, a substitute may be elected by the Committee. Names of the representatives will be notified to the General Secretary in accordance with published procedures.


Any member of the committee (including the officers and other persons elected to represent the Branch and any other member of the committee) may be removed from office by resolution at a general meeting (including an extraordinary general meeting) of the Branch provided that (a) the terms of any such proposed resolution are received by the  secretary not later than the day that is fourteen days before the day of the general meeting and (b) the proposal for such a resolution is supported in writing by not less than twenty‑five members or 25% of the membership, whichever is less.  Upon receipt of such a proposal the secretary will take all reasonable steps to ensure that that proposal is received by each member of the Branch not later than the day that is seven days before the general meeting at which it is to be considered.  Any general meeting which will have removed a member or members of the committee in accordance with the above will have power to replace any such member or members until such time as normal election of officers and other members of the committee next occurs.  Committee attendance is an important part of the work of the officers and ordinary members: any member who fails to attend four successive committee meetings without apologies shall be removed from office and that position will be made available at the next annual general meeting.


There will be at least three general meetings of the Branch each year, of which one will be designated as the annual general meeting. The Regional Official shall receive notice and minutes of all Branch meetings. The General Secretary or nominee may attend all Branch meetings.

13.1  Annual General Meeting

The annual general meeting will be held in May of each year. The secretary will take all reasonable steps to ensure that notice of the annual general meeting is received by members not later than the day that is 42 days before the day on which the meeting is to be held. The secretary will take all reasonable steps to ensure that the agenda for the meeting is received by members not later than the day that is 14 days before the day on which the meeting is to be held.

The annual general meeting will normally receive the results of elections of the officers and committee members.  It will appoint an auditor or auditors.

13.2  Other General Meetings

The secretary will take all reasonable steps to ensure that notice of other general meetings is received by members not later than the day that is 14 days before the day on which the meeting is to be held.


An extraordinary general meeting of the Branch will be held either at the request of the Committee, or following receipt by the secretary of a requisition signed by at least the number of members equivalent to a quorum. Such a requisition will specify the topic or topics to be discussed. Requisitioned meetings will be arranged to take place not later than 10 working days after the day on which that requisition was received. The secretary will take all reasonable steps to ensure that notice of the extraordinary general meeting is received by members not later than the day that is 5 working days before the day on which the meeting is to be held.


15.1  Where an issue is urgent and an emergency meeting is called by the Officers, the secretary will take all reasonable steps to ensure that notice of the emergency general meeting is received by members not less than 3 working days before the day on which the meeting is to be held.

16     QUORUM

At all general meetings, including extraordinary and emergency general meetings, of the Branch a quorum will be one twentieth of the membership or 25 members, whichever is least.  In any case, the quorum must be greater than the total size of the committee.


Where an annual general meeting, extraordinary general meeting or general meeting is unable to complete items of formal business required by national or local Rules, or resulting from trade union legislation, or from membership of the TUC, or in relation to the local finances of the branch, because the meeting was not quorate, notice of a further meeting will be circulated to members to take place no later than 14 days after the date of the inquorate meeting. The agenda of the further meeting will be restricted to this incomplete, formal business. It will be quorate if three members are in attendance, except that in respect of the local finances of the branch, these three will not for purposes of the quorum include the Branch treasurer or its local auditors.

18     MOTIONS

A resolution of a general meeting is a motion that has been approved while that meeting was quorate by a simple majority of members present and voting except as provided elsewhere in these rules.

Any motion (other than an emergency motion) submitted by the Branch to the Congress of the UCU will be circulated to all members of the Branch and approved by a quorate general meeting of the Branch.  Amendments, which may not introduce new subject matters to motions, may be taken at the discretion of the Chair.

Where a general meeting is called, and part of the business of this meeting is to approve motions for submission to the Congress of the UCU, and this meeting is inquorate, motions for submission to Congress may be subsequently approved in a manner determined by the Committee and consistent with the Standing Orders of Congress.

Emergency motions to Congress must be submitted in accordance with the Standing Orders of Congress.


All motions to national Equality bodies, and national meetings and specialist committees of the Special Employment Interest Groups shall be submitted in accordance with national Rules and Standing Orders and should be approved by a properly convened meeting of members of the relevant special interest group, for which the quorum will be 25 or 25% of the relevant Special Employment Interest Group, whichever is smaller, or by a quorate general meeting, or by the committee.

Note: Wherever possible and appropriate to their members Branches should establish specialist groups paralleling the national specialist groups defined in national Rules 23 and 25.  (Currently these will in most institutions include academic-related staff; fixed-term and hourly-paid staff, disabled members, black members, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members, and women members.)  Such groups should meet as required and prior to the relevant national meetings and an officer of the local committee should attend all group meetings.


Any draft agreements must be ratified in accordance with regional or national ratification procedures where these exist.


No act done in good faith under these rules by the committee, an officer or any other person or body will be invalidated only by reason of the subsequent discovery of a defect in, or the expiry of, their appointment.

22     RULES

No rule or rules of the Branch will at any time be in conflict with a rule or rules of the UCU currently in force. Changes in the rules of the UCU will, where applicable, automatically constitute changes in these rules of the Branch.


These rules of the Branch may be amended by resolution of any quorate general meeting of the Branch. Proposed amendments to these rules must be handed in writing to the secretary by the end of the day that is 14 days before the day of the general meeting at which they are to be considered. The secretary will take all reasonable steps to ensure that these proposed amendments are received by members not later than the day that is 10 days before the day on which the meeting is to be held at which they are to be considered. Amendments to these rules require the support of at least two‑thirds of the members present and voting at the general meeting at which they are considered, an abstention not being regarded as a vote for this purpose.

Alternatively these rules of the Branch may be amended by membership ballot and, in that case, the support of at least two-thirds of those members casting a valid vote in that ballot would be required. Either the committee or a quorate general meeting may decide to hold such a membership ballot.

All rules of the Branch and amendments to these rules will be subject to approval by the national executive committee of the UCU.


Where members of a Branch are employed on more than one site, the Branch may, for the purposes of enhancing local organisation, make arrangements for the members on any site to elect appropriate site officers to perform functions agreed by resolution of the Branch. Any such arrangements and functions must be consistent with the overriding responsibilities of the Branch and its officers as set out in these rules.


Ballots conducted under these rules may be by post or in the case of electoral ballots by secure electronic means[2]. Officers of the Branch should hold an up to date register of members’ physical and electronic contact details for these and other communication purposes. Unless specifically determined by the Branch, all other communications may be by email.


Date these local rules approved: 11 October 2017

Appendix 1 [Note: Branches/LAs may adopt these if they wish]


The arrangements for the quorum, calling of meetings and circulation of motions to meetings are as given in the rules of the Branch.


1       Business of the meeting

In advance of the general meeting, the committee will determine the agenda and prepare recommendations as to the order in which the business is to be conducted. The committee will also decide on the duration of the meeting. The competent business of the general meeting will be the matters stated in the agenda circulated to members in accordance with the local rules.

2       Chairing

The chair/president will chair the meeting. In the absence of the chair/president, a vice chair/vice-president will chair the meeting, and in the absence of a vice chair/vice-president, another officer of the Branch. If there are no officers present, the meeting will elect a chair.

3       Conduct of meetings

The conduct of meetings will be the responsibility of the chair. The chair will have power to lay down time limits for the discussion of items on the agenda. The chair will rule on any question under the standing orders, or on points of order or information. A challenge to a ruling by the Chair must be moved, formally seconded, there should be one speech in favour of the ruling, and then the challenge should be put to the vote without further debate. In a vote, such a challenge will require the support of two-thirds of the members present and voting at the meeting, an abstention not being regarded as a vote for this purpose.

4       Minutes

Minutes will be kept of all general meetings. The minutes of the previous meeting having already been circulated, the chair will call for any questions regarding their accuracy.  When there are no further questions the chair will declare them (as amended, if necessary) confirmed.  Members will then be at liberty to raise points arising out of the minutes, except on matters appearing elsewhere on the agenda.

5       Voting

Voting will be by show of hands, unless the chair directs otherwise.  Tellers will be appointed at the beginning of the meeting.  Decisions will be taken by a simple majority of those present and voting, unless otherwise directed by these standing orders or the rules of the Branch.

6       Motions

All motions must be moved and seconded. Movers of motions may speak for five minutes. All other speakers may speak for a maximum of three minutes. Except at the discretion of the chair, no member will speak more than once on any motion, except that the mover of the motion will have a right to reply. Any member may formally second any proposition and reserve his or her speech until a later period in the debate.

Amendments from the floor of the meeting will be taken at the chair’s discretion. All amendments must be moved and seconded.

7       Motions to close debate

Any member of the meeting may seek to end the debate on a motion or amendment by moving THAT THE MEETING PROCEED TO NEXT BUSINESS or THAT THE QUESTION BE NOW PUT provided that there has been at least one speech each for and against the motion or amendment under discussion.

Such motions must be seconded and no speeches will be allowed on them but the vote on them must be taken straightaway.  If either motion be lost, the same motion will not be moved until at least ten minutes have elapsed.

8       Effect of motions to close debate

If the motion TO PROCEED TO NEXT BUSINESS is carried, the debate will cease and no vote may be taken on the main question nor on any amendment; if it is lost, the debate will continue as if NEXT BUSINESS had not been moved.

If the motion THAT THE QUESTION BE NOW PUT is carried, the meeting will vote immediately on the proposition before it.

9       Points of order

Any member may, at any time, raise a point of order.

10     Points of information

Any member may, with the leave of the chair, raise a point of information.

11     Withdrawal of propositions

Permission to withdraw any proposition that is before the meeting may be granted by a simple majority of those present and voting at the meeting, an abstention not being regarded as a vote for this purpose.

12     Reference of motions

Any motion to refer a motion to the committee either for examination or for re‑drafting will, if seconded, rank as an amendment with precedence over any other amendment.

Any motion which is left on the agenda at the end of a meeting will be considered by the committee at their next meeting.

13     Suspension of standing orders

Any of the above standing orders will be suspended by the meeting for a specified purpose if a motion to that effect is moved, seconded and supported by two‑thirds of those present and voting, an abstention not being regarded as a vote for this purpose.  Standing orders will again apply as soon as the specified issue has been concluded.

14     Alteration of standing orders

These standing orders may be altered by a resolution of a general meeting of the Branch, provided that notice of any proposed amendment is received by members not later than the day that is 14 days before the day on which that general meeting takes place. Such a resolution requires the support of two thirds of the members present and voting, an abstention not being regarded as a vote for this purpose.

Posted on by Newcastle UCU | Leave a comment

A Local Victory of National Significance: Branch secretary’s report, 2015-6

This year, the branch secretary’s work has been principally concerned with our campaign against quantified research expectations that were elaborated in Research and Innovation Performance Expectations (RIPE/RTB) documents. All academic staff with a research element in their contract were to be measured against research outputs, grant income and PhD completion. It became apparent from our members in various schools that this would be a punitive process and opened the door to bullying with the ‘encouragement’ to accept teaching and scholarship contracts, more frequent performance meetings, retirement or capability procedures.

After discussion at our extended UCU Committee meeting on 7 October, we solicited members’ views, and Joan Harvey (our branch president) received around 200 responses. Most were negative about, afraid of, or angry at RTB; several offering biting critiques. The comments provided quotes for the posters that we then circulated. The Vice-Chancellor at this time organised a series of Town Hall meetings to explain RTB. These were well attended with voices of criticism being raised at each.

The Campaign Begins: The Grassroots Speak

An action committee encouraged members to participate in the campaign. This helped to encourage a creative grassroots response from our membership and beyond. One example of this creative approach beyond usual trade union practice was the launch of a major research project about the effects of RIPE. This project passed the University’s ethical approval process and constructed an impressive international advisory board. There were too many initiatives to be mentioned here and nobody has the full picture of what was done. I think there was lots of behind the scenes lobbying done and we ought to pay tribute to those at Head of School level and above who did this.

In late October-November, we organised meetings in at least a dozen schools to discuss RIPE, and these meetings generally drew at least half of the academics in the schools and often more. We circulated newsletters and posters against RIPE. Branch recruitment surged at this point. From late October, at least half a dozen Schools submitted open letters to the Vice-Chancellor against RIPE signed by a majority of school members, likewise Early Career Staff wrote their own open letter and over a hundred of the University’s professors signed a protest letter. The VC felt it necessary to meet with the Professors to explain his case. We gained favourable coverage for the campaign in The Courier and in the THES.

Our autumn General Meeting on 28 October 2015 had the largest turnout for such a meeting in this branch in memory. We overwhelmingly passed a motionfor the immediate withdrawal of the RIPE documents, the organisation of a vote of no confidence in the Vice-Chancellor, an indicative ballot for industrial action over the RIPE policy. The branch then organised a well-attended public meeting inviting Liz Morrish (Nottingham Trent University) to speak on ‘Raising the Bar? Why we should resist target culture’. In December, we lobbied Council about RIPE and received a fairly positive response from several Council members who were unaware of the opposition that the policy had created. There were also spirited interventions from our sympathisers at Senate.

Negotiations, Thorough Consultation and a Democratic Mandate for Action

Days after the General Meeting of 28 October, the university management, though hitherto uncommunicative, requested talks with the union over RTB/RIPE. Between November and February (10 November, 30 November, 11 January, 24 February), four sessions of talks took place with the management elaborating a Memorandum of Understanding to attempt to mitigate the effects of the RIPE documents given management refusal to withdraw RIPE.

The result of our indicative ballot for industrial action was announced on 3 February: 77.9% voted for action short of strike and 63.8% voted in favour of strike. This provided a strong mandate to consider to a formal ballot for industrial action.

A General Meeting on 9 March resolved to reject the Memorandum of Understanding in its entirety, to call for a formal ballot for industrial action over the management’s refusal to withdraw this policy, to call for a vote of no confidence in the University’s Executive Board, and to put a motion to national UCU Congress to designate our campaign a local dispute of national significance. This General Meeting was as well attended as the one in October, with staff members from across all the faculties of the University, and that no more than five people voted against any of these motions.

The UCU National Executive Committee sanctioned the ballot for industrial action during the last week in April. The ballot opened on 3 May for a fortnight. Posters and leafletting sessions sought to maximize the vote. A resounding 65.1% voted for strike action and 71.7% voted for action short of a strike. The turnout was 40.6% of members (higher than the national dispute).

On 23 May, our Emergency General Meeting voted to reject the MoU (that had been arrived at in ACAS negotiations on 11 May), and to move immediately to an assessment boycott, roughly 2 to 1. The NEC approved the marking boycott on Tuesday 24 May, and the local UCU branch gave University management official notification.

The marking boycott was set to begin on Friday 3 June. In late May-early June, another wave of school meetings took place for members as well as meetings for students to explain how a marking boycott would affect them. Engaging with students was vital and we tried to diffuse their anxieties about the boycott based on our past experience of such action. We produced a Youtube video for students and a leaflet. Generally speaking, students were supportive of our action. A student Facebook group and petition supported us. Many students emailed the VC. We kept a line of dialogue open with students throughout the campaign. The school staff meetings indicated that members were determined to carry out the marking boycott, despite the prospect of pay docking. A couple of days before the marking boycott was to begin, a petition that had branch support calling for a bottom up approach to research planning was posted on Within a couple of days, it had over 2,000 signatories: our students, staff, academics across the world. With branch committee backing, this proposed an alternate way of planning research entitled Improving Research Together.

Marking Boycott Begins

On Friday 3 June, the day that the marking boycott began, the VC held a meeting at short notice with Heads of Unit. At this meeting, an open discussion indicated the serious concerns across the university at that level about RTB. During the week before the marking boycott, the university management contacted UCU requesting talks. These talks took place on Monday 6 June and included the UCU’s senior national negotiator, Michael MacNeill. Raising the Bar and RIPE were withdrawn with management seeking to restart from scratch the research planning process along collegial, inclusive, school-level lines. We would therefore encourage members to be involved in this process in their schools to ensure that the vision of bottom-up research enhancement materialises.

RIP to RIPE, RIP to RTB: Life after RTB

This victory would not have been possible without all those in the academic community, union and non-union, staff and student. I thank all of you who made this possible. Though RTB did not directly affect academic-related or academics on T&S contracts, it was a victory for all staff against bullying and top down pressure. It allows us to move forward to address the concerns of all staff. It is giving confidence to those outside Newcastle University to resist similar pressures.

The common response to the news of the withdrawal of RTB/RIPE is that it is ‘unbelievable’. We perhaps ought to have more confidence in ourselves and our union. Equally, we should not rest on our laurels. This campaign allows an opportunity to increase our membership, to better represent staff interests and revitalise our rep and caseworker structure. We want to do more to address the concerns of the casualised, of those on T&S contracts, of academic related. We cannot do it without you. Ask your colleagues to join. Put up a union poster on your door or in your staff room. Contact us if you want to get involved.

Matt Perry, Branch Secretary, Newcastle University UCU.


How to join 03332070719 or

Working the Metricised Academy’ –

Liz Morrish ‘Raising the Bar? Why we should resist target culture’

Her blog is Academic Irregularities:

The RTB research project:

Posted in News | Tagged , | Leave a comment