We’ve just written again to the University regarding the 2015-16 pay rise, following the employers’ ‘final’ offer of 1.0%. The full email is below, and we’ll let you know as soon as we have more details, as the other unions are consulting over the offer.
The likelihood is that in order to get a better deal, strike action will be necessary. As well as holding a full legal ballot prior to this, we’ll want to fully consult and involve all members on any plans of this kind, probably via an open meeting and an indicative ballot, but in the meantime please do send any feedback to us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Many apologies for the belated response to your email below. Having consulted further with members, I wanted to follow up a few points on this issue.
Firstly, we now see that a ‘final’ offer has been made – of 1.0%. The IWGB considers this unsatisfactory for the reasons specified below, and the other HE unions are currently in consultation with their members. Once the outcome of this consultation is clear, we will be deciding what further action to take.
Secondly, perhaps we should have been clearer as to what we were asking of the University. We understand that it is part of the national-level pay negotiations conducted by UCEA, and in this capacity we are asking the University of London to feed back to the other employers about the discontent its staff feel with the current proposed increase, in order that UCEA as a whole are apprised of feeling over this and are thus able to improve their offer. At the same time, in recognition of the continuing need for an uplift in the wages of staff specifically at the UoL, we are requesting that the University also adjust its own pay bands upwards, which it is perfectly at liberty to do.
Thirdly, it is disappointing, especially in the light of tomorrow’s CAC meeting, that yet another attempt by the IWGB and its members to engage positively with the UoL has been rejected. We would also like to clarify that it is not possible for an employer to unilaterally reject engagement with any union – should the IWGB and its members subsequently choose to take industrial action, then the University will be engaging with us, however involuntarily. It is simply a shame that for the time being this is the only engagement option that the University wishes to afford our members, all of whom are hardworking and dedicated members of staff who simply wish to be properly consulted around issues concerning their remuneration.
Fourthly, members have been asking: please could you clarify that whatever increase is eventually agreed will be applied equally across the board – to Vice-Chancellors as well as to administrative assistants?
As ever, we remain open to all offers of dialogue.
Secretary, University of London IWGB