The University has rejected an amended trade union proposal to stop compulsory redundancies.
The University Executive Group (UEG) told Dundee’s Universities and Colleges Union (DUCU) that their amended proposal is rejected, and the University will now continue with its second stage of consultation on compulsory redundancies with individual staff members.
DUCU members voted to amend the original UEG proposal, which was to open a Voluntary Redundancy (VR) scheme for at-risk academic staff. The Interim Principal Prof. Nigel Seaton said this was “as part of our commitment to avoiding CR as far as possible.” The original proposal, however, would have seen no new VR scheme for professional services staff.
The rejected DUCU motion read as follows:
“1) Any voluntary redundancy scheme should be fair, transparent and applied consistently across staff groups. Academic and PS/academic-related staff should have the same timeline, with the consideration period for existing PS offers extended accordingly, including extending the consideration period for staff with a VR offer, and giving staff the option of rescinding offers already accepted.
2) The VR scheme should be open to staff not currently in at-risk pools.
3) There must be no further VR/CR in the next two years, following the conclusion of the proposed VR scheme.”
In an email to all staff, Chief People Officer Dawnne Mahmoud said: “Unfortunately, DUCU has not accepted that proposal, opting instead for an alternative proposal from within DUCU which contains conditions that we are unable to meet, so we must now move to our next stage of the redundancy programme.”
Ms Mahmoud followed by saying that they estimate 86 out of 97 pools have been de-risked. Next week the University will inform those that are no longer at risk.
A Court member who wishes to remain anonymous told The Jute Journal that they are “disappointed that Court did not have the opportunity to vote on the DUCU amendments.”
In an earlier communication to staff, Principal Nigel Seaton stated that he was “disappointed that UCU opted not to put our proposal to a vote, as they informed us they would, but we remain committed to avoiding redundancies wherever possible and to engaging with them to bring an end to their current dispute and accompanying industrial action.”
A DUCU spokesperson responded by saying: “As a Trade union rep, I find it problematic that UEG dictates what a union puts to its members.”
DUCU also state that they did not receive a formal request to put this proposal to their members from the University. The University maintain that DUCU negotiators had agreed to put this proposal to its members and did not follow through on this.
There is no mention of re-negotiation between DUCU and the UEG at this time. However this may change in the coming days.