APPENDIX 44
Memorandum submitted by the Universities
and Colleges Employers' Association (UCEA)
PURPOSE OF
SUBMISSION
1. UCEA is the employers' association representing
all HE institutions in the UK. It would like the Select Committee
to consider the very real and urgent need for modernisation of
the procedures set out in the model statute for pre-1992 universities.
Universities have already submitted a Draft Revised Model Statute
to the Privy Council in March 2002 for its consideration and approval
(a copy with explanatory notes is attached). This will remove
a barrier to good management for universities which has resulted
in an over-reliance on fixed-term contracts instead of the appropriate
use of permanent contracts. Moreover, revised procedures will
ensure the application of effective and fair employment procedures
for academic and research staff in line with good practice and
will continue to robustly protect academic freedom. UCEA has agreed
Guidance on Fixed-Term and Casual Employment in HE[59]
(copy attached) with all the recognised unions which encourages
the use of permanent contracts as the norm and the use of fixed-term
contracts only in the well-defined circumstances identified in
the Guidance (see paragraph 9).
BACKGROUND
2. The Model Statute procedures apply only
in pre-1992 universities. They set down mandatory disciplinary,
grievance, redundancy and appeals procedures for academic, research
and other related staff. The Model Statute and its procedures
were put in place in all pre-1992 universities from 1990 under
the supervision of the University Commissioners appointed by the
Privy Council. The Government took this step under sections 202-208
of the Education Reform Act 1988 in order to dispose of academic
tenure (whereby academic staff could not be dismissed for redundancy)
whilst continuing to protect academic freedom and fair treatment
of staff.
EXISTING MODEL
STATUTE PROCEDURES
DO NOT
WORK EFFECTIVELY
IN PRACTICE
3. However, the Model Statute procedures
are too prescriptive and have proved to be legalistic, lengthy
and expensive to operate. They do not accord with the ACAS Code
of Practice. As a result, universities rarely use them and the
procedures therefore fail to achieve their purpose. Instead, where
posts are funded by short-term monies, universities have been
forced to use a short-term contract which matches the duration
of the funding including adding extensions to match the renewal
of the funding. Because a fixed-term contract contains the termination
date as part of the contract, this avoids the necessity of having
to go through the model statute process. For this reason, the
model statute procedures were described in the Bett Report as
"impediments to good management" and it recommended
that universities update the procedures. For convenience, the
relevant paragraphs 221 and 222 are quoted below. The Bett Report
is an independent review of Higher Education pay and conditions
published in June 1999. The Follett Report[60]
also makes a similar recommendation. The relevant paragraph 66
is also quoted below.
THE SOLUTION—A
REVISED MODEL
STATUTE
4. Revised and updated Model Statute procedures
would encourage universities to make more appropriate use of permanent
contracts in the knowledge that normal and fair procedures could
be used in circumstances where necessary eg the ending of the
short-term funding or the completion of the project. These procedures
would include looking for alternative internal or external funding
to continue the work or, if the work is ended, redeployment for
staff (see paragraph 5 of the Guidance). In addition, the Draft
Revised Model Statute provides enhanced rights for fixed-term
postholders because there must not only be a proper process of
consideration but the justification for not renewing the appointment
must fall within one of the prescribed grounds (see clause 16).
A REVISED MODEL
STATUTE
5. After extensive consultation with universities
and the relevant unions (AUT,BDA, BMA), a working group chaired
by Professor Graham Zellick, Vice-Chancellor, University of London
has submitted a revised model statute (copy attached) to the Privy
Council on 5 March 2002 for consideration and approval based on
the following principles:
(i) to apply to academic staff the ordinary
principles of employment law applicable to all employees
(ii) to preserve and reinforce the principle
of academic freedom
(iii) to secure due process and compliance
with the Human Rights Act
(iv) to simplify and clarify the Statute
and remove matters of detail to Ordinances.
6. The Privy Council has agreed to liaise
with the DfES and the devolved administrations on the matter.
We hope they will be in a position to decide by September this
year. It is our view—and we have discussed this informally
with the Privy Council and the DfES—that there is no need
for primary legislation to introduce a revised model statute.
If the Privy Council approves the revised model it will be a matter
for each university to adopt it and apply formally to the Privy
Council for approval of the change of their statutes. This will
be a straightforward process since that was the purpose of drawing
up a national model.
EXTRACTS FROM
REPORTS RECOMMENDING
A REVISED
MODEL STATUTE
7. The Bett Report
"221 Whilst recognising that these complex
and drawn-out procedures were put in place as safeguards of academic
freedom, we were concerned that they could also be obstacles to
necessary management action to adjust the university's staffing
levels or profile, or to remove ineffective staff. Moreover, it
seems that the perceptions of many university managements have
been coloured by a small number of `worst case' experiences, and
there is consequently a reluctance to pursue redundancy or dismissal
except in the most clear-cut cases.
222 Against that background, we recommend that
all pre-1992 universities should
re-examine their statutes with a view to tackling
the difficult task of securing approval
(from the Privy Council, in most cases) for amendments
which eliminate impediments to good management whilst ensuring
fair treatment for individuals and safeguarding academic freedom."
8. The Follet Report
"66. Disciplinary procedures are complex
and often require long periods of time. It is right that they
should provide for fair and transparent processes, and for the
full protection of the interests of staff members. We understand
that both the NHS and some universities are currently working
towards simplification of their procedures, while retaining essential
safeguards for staff. This should in particular ease the position
of those universities whose disciplinary procedures are governed
by the `model statute' clause in their charters. We welcome these
moves, and hope that they will be carried to a conclusion, since
more straightforward processes will considerably facilitate joint
working."
CONCLUSION
9. Subject to satisfying the Privy Council
on any queries they may have, UCEA would urge the Select Committee
to support the approval of a revised model statute.
1 August 2002
59 JNCHES Guidance for Higher Education Institutions
on Fixed-Term and Casual Employment June 2002 agreed between UCEA
and Amicus, AUT, EIS, GMB, NATFHE, T&GWU, Unison. Back
60
A Review of Appraisal, Disciplinary and Reporting Arrangements
for Senior NHS and University Staff with Academic and Clinical
Duties "A report to the Secretary of State for Education
and Skills", by Professor Sir Brian Follett and Michael Paulson-Ellis.
September 2001. Back
|
