We have sent the below to SLT as a response tho their continued refusal to negotiate with UCU locally in respect of the MAB.

Dear colleagues

We are disappointed that you are still unwilling to enter into negotiations with us regarding the ongoing marking and assessment boycott. 

This position leaves us in a significant minority of UK institutions, and one of only a very small number of Welsh institutions. Additionally, your proposal to continue the deductions indefinitely ranks us among the worst institutions in the UK in terms of the total scale of deductions, and runs contrary to your stated position that you value good relations with campus trade unions. We are sure you agree that this does not reflect well on the reputation of the University, and are surprised that you are not taking steps to remedy this.

In the absence of any negotiations, we write to put you on notice that your proposed salary deductions are a breach of contract, and also constitute an unlawful interference with our members’ right to engage in lawful industrial action. 

We understand your position that you are rejecting partial performance. But, this is quite obviously a fiction.

Firstly, you have at no point advised colleagues participating in the MAB that they should not undertake their ordinary duties unless they also discontinue their participation in the MAB. This contradicts Government advice that “you must tell employees that they should only attend work if they fulfil their contractual duties”. Nor have you made it unambiguously clear to colleagues that any work done is on a purely voluntary basis (save for some particular comments to specific individuals). To the contrary, your correspondence on the matter of reporting expressly refers to the duty of obedience in contracts of employment, asserting colleagues participating in the MAB to remain bound thereby (your reply to our letter of 18th May does not address this point). Additionally, the University has continued to issue further instructions directly to individual colleagues after their participation in the MAB has become known.

Secondly, we note your threat to impose 100% deductions in the event of any escalations, such as the withdrawal of 100% of our labour. This, again, is clearly inconsistent with having rejected partial performance. If the payment of 50% is conditional upon our members continuing to perform 90-95% of their ordinary duties, then it is not, as you assert, an “ex gratia payment”, but rather, a salary deduction, which must be justified on some lawful grounds. 

Thirdly, the fact that you continue to deduct PAYE and NI from these payments indicates that they are not “ex gratia”: HMRC guidance confirms these payments to be subject to tax, by reason that they are conditional upon work being performed. This is inconsistent with your assertion that you have rejected partial performance.

Finally, we note your stated reasoning for imposing and maintaining the deductions that they are to “incentivise” colleagues to discontinue their participation in the MAB. That is to say, the deductions are (and are intended to be) punitive. As you are aware, it is unlawful to impose a detriment upon employees for their participation in lawful industrial action. Although you would be fully entitled to deduct a much smaller amount in respect of work not done, imposing disproportionate deductions amounts to an interference with our members’ legal right to freedom of association.

We note with interest your continuing assertion that your actions in this dispute are intended to mitigate the impact of industrial action on students. It is increasingly clear that the only way to achieve mitigation is to accept our offer and enter into local negotiations. 

The current approach of punitive deductions, a refusal to properly challenge bullying behaviour by some managers, and the imposition of regulations which devalue degrees and harm students has only served to deepen divisions. We have at all times shown willing to work with you to reduce the impact upon students, and are deeply disappointed at your failure to engage with these invitations.

We remain hopeful that you will work with us to settle the local dispute by calling on UCEA to return to negotiations, and by entering local negotiations to support our students.

We await your response.

Yours faithfully

UCU Committee

In response to the announcement of 50% deductions for those taking part in MAB we raised our concerns and disappointment with the university’s position.

We’ve shared our initial letter, the VC’s response, and our reply below.

We’re in regular contact with the university’s senior leadership regarding the ongoing marking and assessment boycott. We’ll be sharing updates as with members in our regular MAB drop-ins and via email.

Letter sent April 20th

Dear SLT,


We’re writing to express our disappoint at your decision to impose a blanket 50% pay deduction on staff taking part in the marking and assessment boycott.

We are particularly disappointed that our engagement - in good faith - with yourselves throughout this dispute has been met not with a willingness to negotiate an appropriate deduction but with an unevidenced, punitive, blanket 50% deduction that reflects some of the worst anti-worker behaviour in the sector.

This, along with your refusal to rule out 100% deductions at a later date, is far from a proportionate response and we believe is an attempt to punish staff who take part in industrial action.

Despite the marking and assessment boycott officially beginning today there is still a lack of information on how deductions will be calculated and implemented, and we are asking for clarity on the below points as a matter of urgency;

- Is the university is treating the deduction as a set-off of projected damages for breach of contract against full salary. If so, please explain exactly how the value of the potential damages to be set off has been calculated.
- Alternatively, if the university believes it will be paying a sum which represents the value of the work actually done, (a quantum meruit), please explain clearly how that value will be assessed. Our position is that even when engaging in ASOS the value of work delivered by members is easily equal to 100%

- What metrics the university is using to calculate days that will be subject to deduction


Our position as a branch is that negotiations on deductions remain open and would welcome a further meeting with yourselves to discuss a more equitable level of deduction and a process which does not unduly impact staff who are taking part in action.

In the interests of full transparency, we will be sharing this letter with members and publishing it on our website.


We look forward to hearing from you.

SLT Reply 10th May

On behalf of the Senior Leadership Team, thank you for sharing the local branch’s views on our University’s current position in relation to UCU’s national marking and assessment boycott.
 
We understand your position and note the national guidance from UCEA, plus UCU’s own guidance in respect of the boycott, and the potential impact on salaries.
 
While this is not a decision that we have taken lightly, our position in relation to the withholding of pay for partial performance is entirely consistent with an employer’s legal rights under established case law in cases where partial performance amounts to a breach of contract. In addition, we note that the position that we have taken mirrors that of a significant number of institutions, both in Wales and nationwide. Our current position in respect of the level of salary withheld in relation to the national marking and assessment boycott will therefore not be subject to negotiation nor consultation.
 
We are aware that in some cases, institutions across the UK have opted to withhold 100% of salary outright. While we have stated clearly that we reserve the right to withhold up to 100% of salary for participation in ASOS that amounts to partial performance, we sincerely hope that the impact of the current action will not warrant consideration of this.
 
As you will have seen, we have recently communicated with all staff to outline our current position and approach to the MAB. I understand that you worked with our colleagues in HR to offer suggested amendments to the initial all staff email and FAQs, to ensure that they are as helpful and informative as possible, and colleagues in HR were also mindful of the UCUs national advice regarding declarations when drafting last week’s all staff email; we remain very grateful for your input on that front. We are of course open to further feedback in respect of the suite of FAQs that we have developed, should you become aware of any queries from colleagues or members or should you feel that they can be improved.
 
To date, our Senior Leadership Team and our Campus Unions have prioritised engagement and partnership working, and we feel that our shared commitment to the sustainability and success of our University benefits both our University and our colleagues. Both prior to and throughout the recent periods of industrial action, we have successfully continued to work in partnership to progress across a number of fronts, and it is our intention that we continue to do so, to further support our University’s on-going success.
 
Best wishes,
 
Paul

UCU Response 10th May

Paul,
 
It is obviously incredibly disheartening that you are refusing to negotiate on the issue of deductions. It is particularly disappointing that you continue to use the national nature of the dispute to justify local decision making, the decision to make a 50% deduction has been made by SLT and SLT alone.
 
We are of course aware that some outlier institutions have preceded with 100% deductions, but we would have hoped that Swansea University’s leadership team would employ a more thoughtful approach to industrial relations than ‘we could be worse’. Several institutions such as the Open University have taken a different approach and worked with UCU to find a fairer model which benefits both staff and the university, and it is regrettable that you have rejected this possibility.
 
Despite warm words around partnership the position of the institution is that trade unions are partners only when we can support the outcomes desired by senior management and while we have sought to work with HR colleagues on issues raised, we have, in light of the refusal to negotiate on the point of deductions, reassessed our position.
 
You talk about a shared commitment to the success of the university but it is quite clear that you have a different idea of what a successful university looks like. It has become increasingly evident that senior management no longer see this university as a community and have no real interest in the welfare of your employees.