University College London UCU Branch
Co-Presidents: Saladin Meckled-Garcia, Department of Political Science
and Geoff Williams, Research Department of Speech Hearing and Phonetic Sciences
Secretary: Sean Wallis, Department of English Language and Literature
Enquiries: ucu@ucl.ac.uk, www.ucl.ac.uk/unions/UCU
Prof Anthony Finkelstein
Dean of Engineering
University College London
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Dear Anthony,
We are writing to formally respond to the consultation at this stage with
respect to the content of any revised Statute 18 that would be acceptable to
UCU. We are doing so in order to enter into a constructive dialogue with you
over this content on the understanding that you recognise that we have a
number of ‘red lines’ which are determined by our formal mandate and by our
broader consultation with members.
This is not meant to be our ‘final word’ on the subject – but a timely rejoinder
to consult and to identify our ‘red lines’ at this stage.
Three options
We believe that UCL has three potential starting points for consultation at this
stage, and we explain our attitude towards each of these below.
1. Modifying the existing Statute 18. The “minimum legal compliance”
option consists of modifying the existing Statute 18 to bring it into line
with modern employment law. This would require the following
a. Updating references to legislation while also minimising them as to
avoid ambiguities that may arise over time.
b. Introduction of a new clause in the general application section of the
Statute to the effect that “Any reference in this Statute to a provision
in an Act of Parliament shall be taken to be a reference to that
provision as it may be amended or superseded from time to time (with
the understanding that the more favourable substantive and
procedural protections contained in this Statute will be retained unless
they are explicitly contrary to the mandatory provisions contained in
the Act of Parliament in question)”
c. Clarification regarding when staff designated as being outside the
Statute may be brought within it for reasons of fairness of application.
An example would be when pooling considerations dictate that staff
engaged in teaching might be pooled together, such that all staff so
pooled would be subject to the same procedure.
2. Utilising the UCU Model Statute (included at Appendix A in a form
adapted to UCL terminology for ease of commensurability) as a basis for
negotiation. The UCU Model Statute consists of an alternative model which
has been developed by asking what would best practice in the sector look
like? Unlike either the current Statute 18 or your revised proposal,
Appendix A contains a specific procedure for dealing with complaints
concerning Academic Freedom. This procedure could have general
application to all staff, despite the designation. Naturally it is also up-todate in terms of employment law and minimises references to specific
legislation to avoid ambiguity that might arise over time.
3. Modifying the current proposal. During the consultation, staff and
ourselves have spent most of our time discussing the current proposal and
its deficits. The current revised Statute:
a. removes the right to legal representation for staff to be made
redundant;
b. removes the need for a Redundancy Committee and transfers the
power to dismiss staff to individual managers (the Dean or Head of
School) and makes no adequate provision to guard against mass
redundancies;
c. abolishes requirements for Council and Academic Board involvement
and oversight in dismissals of other kinds;
d. allows a wide range of interpretation for what might constitute
inadequate job performance;
e. makes no adequate provision for the protection of freedom of
research;
f. permits Council to divest itself of any powers to defend academic
freedom;
g. entails the risk that any detailed rules replacing the substantive and
procedural protections currently afforded by Statute 18 be placed
outside Statute and unilaterally varied by UCL management;
h. Decentralises decisions over job-security to the managerial structures
of departments and faculties in a way that is potentially conflictive and
definitely not conducive to a harmonious working relations.
For avoidance of doubt we formally object to all of the above.
Our position on these options
Our attitude to these proposals would be
•
Our preferred route is to take the UCU Model Statute as the starting point
for further consultation. UCL has the opportunity to mark itself out as a
defender of academic freedom and research excellence, revisiting its
founding principles as a champion of dissent free from interference from
church, state and commerce.
•
Modifying the existing Statute is clearly the easiest route for UCL to
minimise further consultation requirements and would be our second
choice. If any provisions were intended to be moved outside of Statute
these could be consulted on specifically. However for credibility, this would
need to be justified seriatum in concrete terms, rather than merely as a
general aspiration to move procedures from Statute.
•
The third option, namely, continuing to consult on a proposal that has
wholesale opposition within College is we believe the most problematic. As
the consultative period has continued our members have contacted us
with stronger objections than those we initially raised. The problem UCL
faces is that there is now wholesale opposition such that very few staff
support UCL management’s proposal. UCL has had two months to
persuade staff of the merits of their proposal and has singularly failed to
do so.
In our considered view therefore the current proposal requires wholesale
revision to be acceptable to our members and it is therefore a poor starting
point. As we note in (3a-h) above, there are significant deficits in the
proposal, many of which are not easily addressed.
a. The right to legal representation for staff can be addressed by
enshrining that right in policy.
b. The Redundancy Committee provision must be reconstituted in
Statute, meaning that there must be a specific procedure in the
Statute covering such eventualities. Its scope of application must
include, to be lawful, staff who may not be defined as academic by title
but whose duties are ‘poolable’ with academic staff at the time that
redundancies are considered. Other Universities have done this but
UCL has been resistant in practice.
c. Managers must not perceive dismissal by other routes as an easier
option. Consequently there must be comparable protections for all
dismissals in Statute.
d. Proposals on capability need to be properly consulted on separately. In
our view the question of academic ‘capability’ is highly problematic in
relation to both the law and academic freedom. There is a widespread
literature on the absence of correlation between the type of crude
measurement and academic ‘performance’ more generally, and
e.
f.
g.
h.
substantial evidence across many industries of the demoralising impact
of punitive managerial intervention. Consequently, in consultation with
UCU over professorial pay in 2008, UCL specifically agreed that they
would use pay incentives to address academic capability of professors
rather than punitive measures.
We have discussed the question of academic freedom of research
enquiry in general terms and although we appear to agree that it is a
Good Thing it is more difficult to come up with an all-encompassing
definition.1 The current Statute protects freedom of enquiry by
protecting academic contracts. (It does not protect research staff,
irrespective of seniority.) Therefore were UCL to reinstate (b) and (c)
above this question of definition is less significant.
Academic freedom, as conventionally (and narrowly) defined in terms
of freedom to engage in academic debate without fear of institutional
censure, does not currently have a separate procedural instrument for
redress and this procedural deficit is exposed further by UCL’s new
proposal. The UCU Model Statute does have a separate procedure
under section 2 and we believe this should be added to any revised
Statute.
It is not clear to us where UCL would choose to locate the detailed
rules that would substitute the protections currently contained in
Statute 18. What is clear, however, is that if they were to be placed
outside Statute, then management would be granted more leeway in
enforcing unilateral changes.
It is clear to us that under the new proposals Heads of Department will
effectively decide to dismiss any staff member and appeals will be
handled by their Deans. This will necessarily change the role of Head of
Department. Collegiality and harmonious working relations are under a
very real threat.
Grievance
Note that in the above we have not discussed Grievance. In our view UCL’s
standard Grievance Procedure is relatively sound and does not lead to
dismissal. The standard UCL Grievance Procedure is likely to be acceptable,
given the other protections for Academic Freedom, with one proviso.
This proviso is simply the following. UCL needs to reinstate the provision,
removed in 2006 as a supposed trade-off for setting up ‘standing panels’ to
1
This may be due to a tendency to see rights as absolute, rather than subject to
practical limits. Just as the right of academic freedom of speech cannot be upheld
contrary to law, academic freedom of enquiry is a right and indeed a
responsibility of academics, and a founding premise of the University – but it is
not an absolute right!
hear formal Grievances, that the Chair of Grievance Panels be an academic
member of the Law Faculty. Statute 18, 35(b) and UCU Model Statute 4(b)
require that external third parties are brought in to Grievance Panels. In this
instance we believe that the Law Faculty represents a good substitute.
We are cognisant that UCL UNITE have been boycotting Grievance Panels
since 2006 because of their dispute with UCL over this removal. UCL UCU
formally supports UNITE’s position, but we are participating in Grievance
Panels at this time to ensure that Grievances are heard.
We believe that now is an opportune time to correct this. Since 2006 we have
seen a number of cases where Panels were not equipped to execute their
responsibilities because the Chair was not properly aware of UCL policy or
relevant legislation. These include
a) Failure to understand legal language, case law and documents.
b) Failure to understand the law on indirect discrimination.
c) Failure to understand their authority to recommend compensation.
In each case the employees appealed (the second case went to employment
tribunal); the first two have been settled to the betterment of the
complainant and the last is pending. The Grievance procedure is not working
adequately when issues of legal substance are raised.
Moreover we believe that UCL is avoiding formal stages of Grievance in many
cases. The idea that an academic legally trained mind is unnecessary is not
substantiated by the number of cases that have been heard and has proven
costly in generating further actionable grounds for complaint.
“All Staff”
We now turn to the question of the All Staff designation. We are in favour of
ensuring that the Statute is as inclusive as possible but not at the expense of
contractual rights or protections for academic freedom. We believe that there
are circumstances where questions of academic freedom may apply to staff
other than those conventionally defined as academic, and it is an obvious
deficit that the current Statute omits research staff from its academic
freedom protections. The wording we have introduced into the UCU Model
Statute at Appendix A, (1)(a)(iii) may be appropriate to address this.
Nonetheless if the statute is narrowed in terms of its applicability, we have an
obligation to engage in consultation regarding wider protections against
redundancy in order to ensure broadly comparable rights outside of Statute.
In particular we are very concerned that UCL is not adequately discharging its
responsibilities towards staff on fixed term contracts or those funded by finite
income streams.
In this regard we wish to revisit our agreement from 2008 with UCL regarding
consultation over redundancy avoidance.
We do not believe that UCL has engaged concretely with us over collectively
consulting over research staff and other redundancies. Information has been
inadequate for meaningful consultation in each case and has not been timely.
The redeployment policy change has been welcome. It replaced a passive
process where managers ticked a box to say they could not find an employee
with an active one run by HR. However we are concerned at reports that this
hands-on HR staff involvement has apparently reduced in scale (again without
consultation with the unions). This must be addressed in a timely manner.
The redeployment policy also needs to be tightened up with respect to
maternity. Moreover no steps to proactively address research staff
redundancies by forward planning have been undertaken.
We would therefore refer you to the trade union side JNCHES proposal for
redundancy avoidance2 and the recent Leeds agreement on fixed term staff3.
We believe these represent models of best practice that should be closely
reviewed for their applicability.
We should additionally take the opportunity to review existing standard policy
against some of the more detailed provisions in the statute documents. For
example the UCU Model Statute states that the staff member can decide who
to call as witnesses in procedures, rather than the Chair of the Panel.
Red lines
In summary, any proposal adopted by management will be unacceptable if it
does not contain the following three elements:
(a) Retention of Redundancy Committee provisions and any other hearing
where the outcome may be dismissal within Statute;
(b) Procedures for handling other complaints arising at other times on
grounds of Academic Freedom to be within Statute;
(c) Retention in Statute of the right to legally qualified representatives in
hearings.
2
http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/f/8/turedundancyavoidance_v1r4.pdf
http://www.hr.leeds.ac.uk/policies/UploadedFiles/
Proceduretosupporttheemploymentsecurityofstaffonfixedfundingorfixedtermcontract.doc
3
We need to clarify that failure to address these ‘red lines’ in a timely manner
risks moving us towards a dispute situation for the reasons that we have
already discussed in previous letters from ourselves and Barry Jones.
Note: School of Pharmacy
We believe that UCL has not properly consulted with staff in the School of
Pharmacy (SoP) about changes to their Statute rights.
First, in its communications with academic staff covered by SoP Statute 26,
UCL has been unspecific about their rights at transfer to UCL, i.e. following
transfer whether the provisions of the SoP Statute 26 applies or UCL Statute
18. If Statute 18 applies, how have staff been consulted about the differences
between the two Statutes?
Second, the definition of staff covered by SoP Statute 26 is materially
different to the definition in UCL Statute 18 such that some designations
covered by the first are not covered by the second. The most obvious
difference is that staff described as “teachers” are covered, but not
“lecturers”. In addition some senior academic-related staff are also clearly
covered. In the absence of a clear consultation process with these staff and
UCU about how their contractual rights will be amended or upheld on
transfer, or (whether their job title would change), it remains the case that
these rights must continue to apply.
Our understanding is that in fact, staff were told in 2011 that their transfer to
UCL was on a no-contractual change basis, meaning that SoP Statute 26
would continue to apply to transferees covered by its provisions.
Given the above, there is a clear responsibility for UCL to engage with staff
and unions at the School of Pharmacy alongside ourselves. At this point in
time, SoP UCU is a separate union branch to UCL UCU, with its own
membership and consultative arrangements.
Saladin Meckled-Garcia
Co-President, UCL UCU
Sean Wallis
Branch Secretary, UCL UCU
cc: Malcolm Grant, UCL President and Provost
cc: Nigel Waugh, Director of Human Resources, UCL
cc: Andy Young, Regional Support Official, UCU
cc: Barry Jones, Regional Official, UCU
cc: Sally Hunt, General Secretary, UCU
cc: Tamsin Piper, Branch Secretary, UCL UNITE
cc: Bill Lehm, Branch Secretary, UCL UNISON
cc: Alex Thomson, President, SoP UCU
Appendix A
UCU
ALTERNATIVE
REVISED MODEL EMPLOYMENT STATUTE
STATUTE 18
Academic and Related Staff: Dismissal, Discipline, Grievance
Procedures and related matters
PART I: GENERAL
1. Application
(a) This Statute applies to the following:
(i)
The members of academic and academic-related staff, that is to
say all those staff on academic and equivalent salary grades and
any other staff primarily engaged in teaching, research and/or
academic related work regardless of the nature of their contract of
employment or method by which they are remunerated.
(ii) such other members of staff or categories of staff of UCL as are
brought within its scope by Council
(iii) and “member(s) of staff” in this Statute means those members of
staff to whom this Statute applies; with the exception that part 2
concerning academic freedom has general application to all staff.
(b) Nothing in this Statute shall prejudice, alter or affect any rights, powers
or duties of the institution or apply to any person unless his/her
appointment is made or contract entered into on/after (the date this
Statute is adopted) or s/he is promoted after that date.
(c) Nothing in any other Statute or in any Regulation or Ordinance shall
authorise or require any officer of the institution to sit as a member of
any body appointed under this Statute or to be present when any such
body is meeting to arrive at its decision or for the purpose of discussing
any point of procedure.
(d) Parts II to IV of this Statute shall not apply to removal from an
appointment to a post designated by the Council to which a member of
staff has been elected or appointed and which is distinct from that
individual’s substantive post, where dismissal from the substantive post
is not contemplated, but the Council shall by Ordinance prescribe a
procedure for handling such removals prior to the prescribed or normal
termination date, which shall include a hearing panel, the right to
representation and an independent appeal panel.
(e) Application to Provosts
2. General Principles of construction and application and the
protection of academic freedom
(a) This Statute and any Ordinances and regulations made under it shall be
applied and construed in every case to give effect to the following
guiding principles:
(i)
to ensure that members of staff have freedom within the law to
question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas
and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing
themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges;
(ii) to enable the University to provide education, promote learning
and engage in research efficiently and economically; and
(iii) to apply the principles of justice and fairness.
(b)
(c)
The following provisions are without prejudice to the rights of members
of staff under Parts II, III, IV, V, VI or VII of this Statute.
Where, in any proceedings under this Statute, a member of staff invokes
Paragraph (a)(i) above; the complaint shall be referred to the Provost.
Upon receipt of such a reference the Provost will suspend any
proceedings taken against the complainant and instigate an
investigation of that complaint. Such an investigation shall be
undertaken by a panel of no less than three academic members of UCL
drawn from a list agreed from time to time by the Academic Board and
UCU. Among the panel there should be a Chair, who shall be acceptable
to all parties.
The panel investigating the complaint should take evidence from the
parties and from any other sources that it believes necessary and
appropriate.
The complainant shall be entitled to be represented by another person
of his/her choosing, to provide oral evidence in relation to his/her
complaint to the panel and to call such witnesses as s/he thinks
appropriate.
On completion of its enquiry the panel shall either:
(i)
decide that the action originally instigated against the complainant
arose from or sought to restrict the complainant’s exercise of
academic freedom; or
(ii) decide that the complaint that academic freedom was infringed or
an attempt had been made to infringe that freedom was
unfounded.
In the event that the complaint is upheld all actions against the
complainant should be withdrawn and expunged from the record. Should
the complaint be held to be unfounded then the original action should
resume.
Where there is any issue as to the meaning of ‘academic freedom’ in any
proceeding under Parts II, III, IV, V, VI and VII of this Statute, regard
shall be had to Sections VI and VII of the Recommendation concerning
the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel adopted by the
General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in Paris on 11 November 1997.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
It is the general policy of UCL to appoint members of staff on contracts
of indefinite duration. The appointment of a member of staff on a fixedterm contract is only to be made in the following circumstances:
(i)
where a current member of staff (the ‘postholder’) holding a
contract of indefinite duration is unable to continue to fulfil the
duties of the post, either because s/he has been seconded to other
duties for a limited period or has been granted leave of absence for
a limited period, which may in either instance be subject to
periodic review; or
(ii) where the duties of the member of staff are for a specific and
determinable fixed period less than one year in total.
Without prejudice to the principles at 2(d) above, the overall duration of
a series of fixed-term contracts at UCL shall be limited to a period of one
year with any subsequent contract offered on a permanent basis.
Any reference in this Statute to a provision in an Act of Parliament shall
be taken to be a reference to that provision as it may be amended or
superseded from time to time.
Any reference to the UCU in this Statute is a reference to the University
and College Union.
3. Dismissal
(a) For the purpose of this Statute, “dismissal” shall have the same meaning
as in section 95 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
(b) A member of staff may be dismissed if that dismissal is for a reason set
out in section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
(c) A dismissal by reason of redundancy shall be handled in accordance with
Part II; a dismissal for disciplinary reasons shall be handled in
accordance with Part III; a dismissal on health grounds shall be handled
in accordance with Part IV; and a dismissal on any other grounds, shall
be handled in accordance with Part V.
4. Hearing and appeal panels
(a) Any redundancy panel established pursuant to clause 7(c) of this Statute
shall consist of at least five members including a Chair, at least two of
whom are members of Council not being persons employed by the
institution and at least two of whom are members of academic staff (or
academic-related staff if the potential redundancy affects academicrelated staff) drawn from a list compiled by the Academic Board.
(b) Any panel established pursuant to 10(g)(iii)(disciplinary panel),
15(f)(other reason dismissal panel) or 18(g) (grievance panel) of this
Statute shall consist of at least three members including a Chair, at least
one of whom is a member of Council not being a person employed by
the institution and at least one of whom is a member of academic staff
(or academic-related staff if the staff member involved is a member of
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
academic-related staff) drawn from a list agreed from time to time by
the Academic Board and the UCU.
An incapacity on medical grounds panel established pursuant to clause
12(c) of this Statute shall consist of one member nominated by the
Council; one person nominated by the member of staff concerned and a
medically qualified Chair jointly agreed by the Council and the member,
or, in default of agreement, to be nominated by the president of the
Royal College of Physicians.
Any appeal panel established pursuant to clause 20(c) of this Statute
shall consist of a person who is the Visitor of the institution or person
not employed by the institution holding, or having held, judicial office or
being a barrister or solicitor of at least ten years’ standing. The person
appointed shall sit alone unless s/he considers that justice and fairness
will best be served by sitting with two other persons. The other persons
who may sit with the person appointed shall be one member of the
Council /Court not being a person employed by the institution and one
member of academic staff (or academic-related staff if the staff member
involved is a member of academic-related staff) drawn from a list
agreed from time to time by the Academic Board and the UCU.
Panels of more than one person established under paragraph 4(a), 4(b),
4(c) or 4(d) shall not consist solely of persons of the same gender.
At any hearing heard by a panel established under paragraph 4(a), 4(b),
4(c) or 4(d) or with any dealings with said panels, the member of staff
shall be entitled to be represented or assisted by any person.
The member of staff involved shall have the right to challenge the
constitution of any panel established under paragraph 4(a), 4(b), 4(c) or
4(d).
PART II: REDUNDANCY
5. Application
(a) Nothing in this part shall prejudice, alter or affect any rights, powers or
duties of the institution or apply to any person unless his/her
appointment is made or contract entered into on/after (the date this
Statute is adopted) or s/he is promoted after that date.
6. Definition of redundancy
(a) Dismissal by reason of redundancy for the purpose of this Part has the
same meaning as in section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
7. Procedure for dismissal by reason of redundancy
(a) Where the Council has decided that it is likely to be necessary to reduce
the number of academic and/or academic-related staff employed by the
institution as a whole, or of any faculty, school, department or other
similar area of the institution, the following procedures shall apply.
(b) In all cases of potential redundancy the Council shall consult with
appropriate representatives.
(c) In all cases the Council shall appoint a redundancy panel in accordance
with paragraph 4(a). The redundancy panel shall seek ways to avoid /
minimise compulsory dismissals by way of redundancy, recommend the
requisite members of staff for dismissal by reason of redundancy and
report their recommendations to the Council. This recommendation may
include that the Provost be authorised to dismiss any person selected by
the redundancy panel for dismissal and that the Provost reports such
actions to the Council. UCL shall identify any reasonable opportunities
for redeployment and the redundancy panel shall ensure that members
of staff have every opportunity to consider the acceptability of any post
so identified.
In carrying out its work the redundancy panel shall ensure that
individuals who are subject to a selection procedure have the
opportunity to make written and oral representations to the panel.
(d) The Council shall either approve any selection recommendation made
under sub-paragraph (c) or shall remit it to the redundancy panel for
further consideration.
(e) Where the Council has approved a selection recommendation, any
member of staff selected for dismissal shall be given notification of their
selection by the redundancy panel. This notification shall sufficiently
identify the circumstances which have satisfied the redundancy panel
that the intended dismissal is reasonable and in particular shall include:
a summary of the action taken by UCL including what redeployment
opportunities were considered, an account of any selection processes
used by the redundancy panel, a reference to the rights of the person
notified to appeal against the notice and information that any such
appeal should be lodged within 14 days of the date that the notice was
received and a statement as to when the intended dismissal is to take
effect.
8. Appeal against dismissal by reason of redundancy
(a) A member of staff appealing against the decision of the redundancy
panel shall do so in accordance with Part VII.
PART III: DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
9. Grounds for disciplinary action
(a) For disciplinary matters for which dismissal is not a reasonable outcome
there shall be set out in an Ordinance the procedure to be followed in
respect of the presentation, hearing and determination of charges. This
Part shall apply to all other disciplinary matters.
(b) Disciplinary action under this Part may be taken, and where found to be
appropriate a penalty imposed, in respect of the following:
(i)
conviction of a criminal offence of a kind that is judged in all the
circumstances to be relevant to the member of staff’s employment
by the university;
(ii) refusal, neglect or failure to perform some or all of the duties or to
comply with some or all of the conditions attaching to the post, or
performing those duties or complying with those conditions in an
unsatisfactory or inadequate manner;
(iii) conduct of a kind judged to be inappropriate or unacceptable on
the part of the holder of the post held by the member of staff, such
as (but not confined to) the following:
1.
breach of any obligation or duty arising under any of the
university’s
regulations
regarding
financial
matters,
harassment, equal opportunities, public interest disclosure,
health and safety, or data protection or any other rules,
regulations or codes binding on the member of staff;
2.
wilful damage to or improper use of university facilities,
premises, property or equipment;
3.
improper interference with, or disruption of, the activities of
the university, or any member thereof or visitor thereto
other than lawful industrial action;
4.
violent, disorderly, threatening, abusive, insulting or
harassing behaviour or language (whether written, spoken or
in any other form);
5.
fraud, deceit, deception or dishonesty in relation to the
university or any related activity, including research and
examining;
6.
action likely to cause injury or impair safety;
7.
divulging information or material received in confidence and
clearly indicated as such (unless the disclosure is permitted
under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 or in
accordance with the university’s public interest disclosure
procedure).
10. Disciplinary procedures
(a) A complaint seeking the institution of disciplinary procedures under this
Part of the Statute against a member of staff relating to that member’s
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
appointment or employment may be made to the Registrar who shall
bring it to the attention of the Provost.
To enable the Provost to deal fairly with any complaint brought to
his/her attention under sub-paragraph (a) s/he shall institute such
investigations or enquiries as appear to him/her to be necessary.
If it appears to the Provost that a complaint brought to his/her attention
under sub-paragraph (a) relates to a particular alleged infringement of
rules, regulations or byelaws for which a standard penalty is normally
imposed in the university or within the faculty, school, department or
other relevant area, or is trivial or invalid s/he may dismiss it
summarily, or decide that no action be taken upon it under this Part.
If the Provost does not dispose of a complaint under sub-paragraph (c)
s/he shall treat the complaint as disclosing a sufficient reason for
proceeding further under this Part.
The member of staff may be suspended on full pay pending a final
decision only where it is untenable to have the member of staff
continuing to report to their, or another, place of work within UCL.
Where the Provost considers that the conduct or performance of a
member of staff may not meet acceptable standards (whether following
a complaint or otherwise), s/he shall write to the member of staff
concerned inviting comment in writing.
As soon as possible following receipt of the comments, or after 28 days
from writing to the member of staff if no comments are received, the
Provost shall consider the matter in the light of all the material then
available and may:
(i)
dismiss it him/herself;
(ii) deal with it informally if it appears to him/her appropriate to do so
and the member of staff agrees in writing; or
(iii) direct the Registrar to prepare a charge or charges and establish a
disciplinary panel in accordance with paragraph 4(b) to consider
the charge.
The Registrar shall formulate, or arrange for the formulation of, the
charge or charges and present, or arrange for the presentation of, the
charge or charges before the disciplinary panel. It shall also be the duty
of the Registrar to forward the charge or charges to the disciplinary
panel and to the member of staff concerned together with any
documents therein specified and to make the necessary administrative
arrangements for the summoning of witnesses, the production of
documents and generally for the proper presentation of the case.
The procedure to be followed in respect of the presentation, hearing and
determination of charges by a disciplinary panel shall be set out in an
Ordinance made under this sub-paragraph.
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing such Ordinances
shall ensure: that the disciplinary hearing shall include an oral hearing
at which the member of staff and any person appointed to represent
him/her are entitled to be present and make representations; that the
member of staff will be entitled to call such witnesses and s/he, or
his/her representative, may question witnesses upon the evidence on
which the case is based; that confidentiality is maintained, that
provision is made for postponements, adjournments, dismissal of the
case for want of prosecution and for the correction of accidental errors
and that time limits are set by the disciplinary panel to ensure that the
case is heard and determined as expeditiously as reasonably practicable.
(k) The disciplinary panel may uphold the charge in full or in part and make
recommendations as to the penalty or may dismiss the complaint and
will communicate its decision and recommendation to the Provost and
member concerned. The Provost will make a decision based upon those
recommendations and communicate his/her decision to the member
concerned. However, it is not open to the Provost to uphold a dismissed
complaint or impose a greater penalty than that recommended by the
disciplinary panel.
(l)
If the charge is upheld, the member of staff will be advised of his/her
right to appeal the decision and/or any penalty imposed.
(m) The disciplinary panel may recommend dismissal, a warning or, as an
alternative to dismissal, suspension with or without pay for a period not
to exceed the end of the next full term after the panel’s decision or a
combination thereof.
(n) If dismissal is recommended, and pending any appeal lodged, the
Provost shall be authorised to dismiss the member of staff with notice
or, in cases of gross misconduct, summarily.
11. Appeal against findings of disciplinary panel
(a) A member of staff appealing against the decision or the penalty imposed
by an disciplinary panel shall do so in accordance with Part VII.
PART IV: INCAPACITY ON HEALTH GROUNDS
12. Procedure for dismissal due to incapacity on health grounds
(a) Any member of staff who wishes to retire early on medical grounds shall
arrange for a medical certificate by the member’s personal doctor
following medical examination, supported by a second consultant
opinion, to be sent to the Registrar for consideration by the Provost.
(b) If the Provost is satisfied, in light of that certificate and opinion, that
early retirement on medical grounds is justified, s/he shall enable the
termination of the employment of the member of staff on those medical
grounds.
(c) If the Provost is not satisfied under sub-paragraph (b), he shall inform
the member of staff and advise him/her of his/her right to apply for the
case to be considered by an incapacity on medical grounds panel
established under paragraph 4(c).
(d) In any other cases, where it appears appropriate to the Provost that the
removal of a member of staff on medical grounds would be justified he
shall inform the member of staff and request consent for a medical
report from the member’s own doctor.
(e) If the member shares that view and applies for early retirement under
12(a) the university shall meet the reasonable costs of any medical
opinion required.
(f) If the member does not share that view the Provost shall refer the case
in confidence, with any supporting medical and other evidence, to the
incapacity on medical grounds panel.
(g) The incapacity on medical grounds panel, receiving a case under
paragraph 12(c) or 12(f) may require the member to undergo a medical
examination at the university’s expense.
(h) If the incapacity on medical grounds panel determines that the member
should be required to retire on medical grounds the Provost shall enable
the termination of the employment of the member of staff on those
medical grounds.
(i)
The panel shall communicate their decision to the member of staff and
shall advise him/her of his/her right to appeal the decision.
13. Appeal against the decision of the incapacity on medical grounds
panel
(a) A member of staff appealing against the decision of the incapacity on
medical grounds panel shall do so in accordance with Part VII.
14. The disability discrimination act
(a) Nothing in this Part shall authorise the dismissal of a member of staff for
incapacity on medical grounds if such a dismissal would amount to a
breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
PART V: OTHER DISMISSALS
15. Application
(a) This Part applies to dismissal for reasons other than those set out in
Parts II, III and IV but in accordance with section 98 of the Employment
Rights Act 1996.
(b) Dismissals for reasons of capacity should be dealt with under Part III or
IV as appropriate.
(c) For staff who have been appointed subject to review after a
probationary period the Council shall, by Ordinance made under this
sub-paragraph, prescribe a procedure for review and shall include
provision for non-confirmation in post at the end of the probationary
period if performance is found to be deficient. The procedure for review
will include provision for the member of staff to be advised of his/her
deficient performance and adequate opportunities for him/her to rectify
any deficient performance. The procedure shall also contain provision for
the right to appeal against a decision of non-confirmation in post to a
panel constituted in accordance with paragraph 4(d) of this statute.
(d) Given the size and administrative resources of the university, issues
relating to the break-down of working relationships should not be dealt
with under this Part but by means of internal redeployment.
(e) If the registration, contract or status of a member of clinical staff, who is
required to engage in clinical work or activities and for that purpose to
be registered with the General Medical or Dental Council or similar body
and/or to have an honorary or substantive contract or status with a
National Health Service Trust or similar body, is terminated, withdrawn
or revoked the matter will be dealt with under Part II and full
opportunities for redeployment considered.
(f) If the Provost considers that, in relation to a member of staff,
consideration should be given for dismissal for a reason not falling within
Part II, Part III or Part IV, s/he should establish another reason
dismissal panel in accordance with paragraph 4(b).
(g) The Provost shall formulate, or arrange for the formulation of, the
reason for dismissal. It shall also be the duty of the Provost to forward
the reasons to the other reason dismissal panel and to the member of
staff concerned together with any documents therein specified and to
make the necessary administrative arrangements for the summoning of
witnesses, the production of documents and generally for the proper
presentation of the case.
16. Procedure
(a) The procedure to be followed in respect of the presentation, hearing the
generality of the foregoing such Ordinances shall ensure: that the case
hearing shall include an oral hearing at which the member of staff and
any person appointed to represent him/her are entitled to be present
and make representations; that the member of staff will be entitled to
(b)
(c)
(d)
call such witnesses and s/he, or his/her representative may question
witnesses upon the evidence on which the case is based; that provision
is made for postponements, adjournments, dismissal of the case for
want of prosecution and for the correction of accidental errors and that
time limits are set by the panel to ensure that the case is heard and
determined as expeditiously as reasonably practicable.
The other reason dismissal panel may agree that the case amounts to
another reason for dismissal, may make recommendations as an
alternative to dismissal or may dismiss the case as a reason for
dismissal and will communicate its decision and recommendation to the
Provost and member concerned and advise him/her of his/her right to
appeal the decision or any recommendation.
The Provost will act upon the recommendations of the panel and will
communicate his/her actions to the member concerned.
If dismissal is recommended, and pending any appeal lodged, the
Provost shall be authorised to dismiss the member of staff with notice.
17. Appeals against the decision of the other reason dismissal panel
(a) A member of staff appealing against the decision of the other reason
dismissal panel shall do so in accordance with Part VII.
PART VI: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
18. Procedure for grievance
(a) This Part applies to members of staff who have a grievance concerning
their appointment or employment.
(b) Grievances should be settled and redressed promptly, fairly and, as far
as possible, within the faculty, school, department or other relevant area
by methods acceptable to all parties.
(c) If the other remedies within the faculty, school, department or other
relevant area have been exhausted the member of staff may raise the
matter with the Head of the faculty, school, department or other
relevant area.
(d) If the member of staff is still dissatisfied after an approach under subparagraph (c) s/he may apply in writing to the Provost for redress of the
grievance.
(e) If it appears to the Provost that the grievance is trivial or invalid, s/he
may dismiss it summarily or take no action upon it. However, where the
grievance alleges any act of unfair treatment or discrimination the
Provost shall not so dismiss the grievance until s/he has taken
appropriate advice.
(f) In all other cases the Provost shall decide whether it would be
appropriate, having regard to the interest of justice and fairness, and
with the written agreement of the member of staff, for him/her to seek
to dispose of it informally. If s/he so decides s/he shall proceed
accordingly.
(g) If the grievance has not been disposed of informally the Provost shall
establish a grievance panel in accordance with paragraph 4(b).
However, where the grievance contains a claim of discrimination the
panel shall be extended to include a mutually agreed suitable specialist.
(h) The procedure in connection with the consideration and determination of
grievances shall be determined in Ordinances made under this subparagraph. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing such
ordinances shall ensure: that the member of staff and any person
appointed to represent him/her are entitled to be present and make
representations to the grievance panel; that the member of staff be
entitled to call such witnesses as s/he believes necessary to present a
full statement of the complaint; that provision is made for
postponements, adjournments, dismissal of the grievance for want of
prosecution and for the correction of accidental errors and that time
limits are set by the panel hearing the grievance to ensure that the
grievance is heard and determined as expeditiously as reasonably
practicable.
(i)
The panel shall determine whether or not the grievance is well-founded
and, if it is well-found will make proposals for the redress of the
grievance and will communicate this to the Provost and member of staff.
(j)
The member of staff will also be advised of the right to appeal the
findings of the panel and any proposal for redress.
Pending the outcome of any appeal, the Provost shall ensure that any
recommendations for redress are acted upon.
19. Appeal against the decision of the grievance panel
(a) A member of staff appealing against the decision of the grievance panel
shall do so in accordance with Part VII.
PART VII: APPEALS
20. Procedure for appeals
(a) This Part applies to: appeals against selection for redundancy; appeals
against the decision of a disciplinary panel or the penalty imposed;
appeals against the decisions of the incapacity on medical grounds
panel; appeals against a decision of non-confirmation in post at the end
of a probationary period; appeals against dismissal for some other
reason and appeals against the decisions of the grievance panel.
(b) A notice of appeal shall be served within 14 days in relation to appeals
against selection for redundancy under Part II and within 28 days in all
other cases of the date on which the document recording the decision
appealed from was sent to the appellant.
(c) On receipt of an appeal the Council or Provost shall establish an appeal
panel in accordance with paragraph 4(d). Where an appeal panel is
established to consider the decision of an incapacity on medical grounds
panel, the panel shall be extended to include a suitably qualified medical
officer who has had no previous involvement with the case. Where the
appeal panel is established to consider an appeal of the decision of the
grievance panel, and the grievance considered contained a claim of
discrimination, the appeal panel shall be extended to include a mutually
agreed suitable specialist who has had no previous involvement with the
case.
(d) The procedure to be followed in respect of the preparation,
consolidation, hearing and determination of appeals shall be that set out
in Ordinances made under this sub-paragraph.
(e) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing such Ordinances
shall ensure:
That an appeal shall not be determined without an oral hearing at which
the appellant, and any person appointed to represent him/her are
entitled to be present and make representations; that the appellant will
be entitled to call such witnesses as s/he believes necessary and s/he,
or his/her representative may question witnesses, that full and sufficient
provision is made for postponements, adjournments, dismissal of the
appeal for want of prosecution and the correction of accidental errors;
and that the appeal panel may set appropriate time limits for each stage
to ensure that any appeal shall be heard and determined as
expeditiously as reasonably practicable.
21. Appeals under Part II (Redundancy)
(a) For appeals under Part II, the appeal panel may: remit an appeal to the
Council for further consideration as the panel may direct, uphold the
appeal and recommend to the Provost that the notice of dismissal be
withdrawn or it may uphold the original decision to dismiss the
appellant.
(b)
22.
(a)
(b)
(c)
The proceedings of the appeal panel shall be reported to the Council and
notified to the member of staff.
Appeals under Part III (Disciplinary)
For appeals under Part III the appeal panel may, in whole or in part:
remit an appeal to the Provost for further consideration as the panel
may direct, uphold the appeal and recommend to the Provost that the
notice of dismissal or other penalty be withdrawn, substitute an
alternative penalty or uphold the original decision to dismiss or
otherwise penalise the appellant.
The appeal panel will notify the Provost and the member of staff
concerned of its decision and the Provost will make a decision based
upon those recommendations. However, it is not open to the Provost to
overturn the decision of the appeal panel to uphold the appeal nor to
impose a greater penalty than that recommended by the appeal panel.
In the event that the appeal is upheld in whole all actions against the
appellant should be withdrawn and expunged from the record. If pay
has been withheld this should be forwarded to the member of staff at
the earliest opportunity.
23. Appeals under Parts IV and V (Incapacity of Health Grounds and
Other Dismissals)
(a) For appeals under Part IV and Part V the appeal panel may, in whole or
in part, dismiss the appeal or uphold the appeal.
(b) The appeal panel will notify the Provost and the member of staff
concerned of its decision and the Provost will act upon the decision of
the appeal panel, withdrawing any notice of dismissal if necessary.
24. Appeals under Part VI (Grievance)
(a) For appeals under Part VI the appeal panel may, in whole or in part:
uphold the appeal and make recommendations for redress, dismiss the
appeal and uphold the original recommended redress or may dismiss the
appeal and uphold the original decision to dismiss the grievance.
(b) The appeal panel will notify the Provost and the member of staff
concerned of its decision and the Provost shall act upon any
recommendation for redress.