London Met UCU - Statement on Staff Association

The following was emailed to all London Met UCU members on 14th March 2007


UCU Statement on Staff Associations

Dear all,

UCU has been asked to comment on the elections for a Staff Association currently being conducted through Human Resources at London Met.

Given the failure of management to consider or engage with staff opinion at any level,we might be expected welcome such a proposal. However, we do not believe that, as currently proposed, it offers a genuine opportunity for the expression of staff views:
  • Contrary to management claims, the Staff Association will not be more representative or more democratic than trades unions. In fact, the reverse will be the case;


  • The Staff Association will be controlled by management in terms of agenda and content;


  • It will have no decision-making powers;


  • It is not linked in to any governance process within the institution and so management will not need to take it seriously;


  • Again, despite management claims, it is being provided as an alternative to union representation. At the same time as this initiative is being pushed, management is trying to derecognise one of the existing unions;


  • The Staff Association will have no back-up outside the individual representatives;


  • Almost certainly, it will be ignored if it becomes the repository for views contrary to whatever policies London Met management believes itself currently to be practising. If, on the other hand, it rubber stamps management proposals, the Staff Association will be lauded as the only valid representative of staff opinion.


This has long been our experience with London Met management. Staff governors have found it difficult to speak in the Board of Governors. Helen Peters was denied the right to report back to staff on what had taken place in the Board. More recently, management has reduced representation on the Board of Governors and run what may be a flawed email poll for the one remaining staff governor post, the format of which was agreed in advance by no one. The University Secretary, however, refuses to engage with staff concerns.

London Met management’s attitude to staff representation is also shown in its attitude to the merger of NATFHE and AUT. At first our management did appear to recognise UCU and in that spirit UCU officials and local officers attended meetings in August at ACAS. In the event the ‘talks’ proved to be a total farce. The head of HR failed to turn up and in her absence the PVC (academic) demonstrated no authority to agree or even discuss anything else.

Since then London Met management have de facto failed to recognise or engage with UCU officers or officials at any level; this despite, or perhaps because of, the urgency to discuss increasing staff work loads, the use and abuse of hourly paid staff and the position of research staff. UCU has the experience and national base to engage constructively with all these issues with management. London Met could only benefit from such a partnership. However, to date London Met is the only institution in post-16 education not to carry over formal recognition; that fact alone reveals everything about our current management’s commitment to engage in constructive dialogue with its workforce and those who legally represent that work force in higher education.

In these circumstances we do not believe that Staff Associations are an expression of this management’s commitment to representative governance. They may indeed be designed with precisely the opposite intent in mind. It looks as if this Staff Association has been established to bypass normal consultation procedures while retaining a figleaf of staff involvement. For all management’s claims, this will be less accurate as representation of staff opinion, less democratic and totally ineffectual. As far as we can see, it will be controlled by management and will be able to achieve nothing.

The danger is that it will be used to undermine genuine staff representation. To give one example, staff associations can, in certain circumstances, be used instead of trade unions for consultation over redundancies. Unlike trade unions, representatives on a staff association would have no experience or expertise in this field. Trade union reps do and what is more, they can call on highly experienced and qualified support in their head offices, including legal advice.

In the light of all the above, UCU is advising its members to boycott Staff Association and these elections. We should not legitimate this pretence at consultation or allow management to set up sham staff bodies when we have already chosen our representatives. Instead we will be inviting you in future weeks to engage in a campaign to restore union-management engagement at this university.

Best wishes,

Amanda Sackur
Chair, Co-ordinating Committee,
London Metropolitan UCU


Copyright © London Met UCU
Webmaster: Mark Campbell