Dear Mr Roper,
As you know staff (both academic and administrative) in the Working Lives Research Institute recently wrote to you to ask if you would be willing to meet with us to discuss our concerns about the future of our research work in the light of the University’s refusal to continue with recognition arrangements with the union representing academic staff. In response I have received a letter from Lyn Link, which I have conveyed to colleagues at WLRI. They have unanimously expressed their extreme disappointment with the response. Our sincere aim was to enter into dialogue with yourself, as our Vice Chancellor, over the future direction of research in the university in what appears to be an increasingly serious situation in which, we believe, our work will become untenable. Colleagues find it very hard to accept that our Vice Chancellor appears to feel that concerns about our right to be represented by the appropriate union are not worthy of discussion in a university with a commitment to social justice.
Ms Link is responsible, as we understand it, for human resources matters at the university. The concerns, which we were raising with you, were over the university’s academic and research environment. Consequently, a number of colleagues feel that your failure to reply directly on issues of academic relevance reflect contempt for the work of the WLRI in terms of both the funding and the enhancement in reputation we have brought to the university.
Colleagues with long histories in trade unions both as activists and as academics were also very surprised by the implication in Ms Link’s letter that the University feels that union representation should depend upon whether or not it approves of the caliber of the union representatives, rather than respecting the rights of union members to democratically elect their representatives. Colleagues firmly assert that it is the right of union members to select the representatives of their choosing, a right which no other reputable employer that we are aware of would challenge.
We are reluctant to draw the conclusion from your response that there is an avoidance of face-to-face dialogue and fear of engaging with the concerns and views of academic and administrative staff and a reluctance to encourage the free exchange of ideas that characterises academic freedom. The outcome of this can only be mediocrity in aspiration and standards. We would therefore ask that you reconsider your position not to communicate with us directly and would again reiterate our desire to engage in a face to face discussion over the future direction of socially committed research in the light of the current impasse.
Yours Sincerely
Sian Moore
on behalf of staff in the Working Lives Research Institute