When consultation becomes something that happens to staff rather than with them, the institutional message is clear: your feedback is not decisive; your agreement is not required; your consent is optional.
We are currently under consultation on the Academic Career Framework, the Workload Planning Framework, a new Research Planning process already being operationalised (based on a few SKETCHY slides!), the new Learning Model, and ongoing Professional Services redundancies that began nearly a year ago.
All of this is landing at once — during marking, at the start of a new semester, under REF pressure, with business-as-usual expectations unchanged.
This is not orderly institutional development. It is acceleration without consent, in direct contradiction of the BU 2035 strategy‘s stated commitments to partnership and being a good employer
The Workload Planning Framework remains under consultation. No agreement has been reached with UCU. Yet its mechanisms are already being enacted. A research allocation system tied directly to that unagreed framework has launched. Staff are being required to comply with processes that depend on proposals still under negotiation.
That is not consultation. It is implementation in advance of consultation.
Consultation, in principle, means proposals are open to material change. It means feedback matters. It means outcomes are not predetermined.
When policies are operationalised before consultation concludes, consultation becomes theatre.
This briefing sets out the relevant national and local agreements governing pay, grading, workload and partnership — and examines whether the University’s current approach is consistent with those obligations. The issue is not whether change is permitted. The issue is whether change is being imposed over staff rather than agreed with them.
We’re not being “consulted” on ordinary change. We are being subjected to a pace and volume of change that is incompatible with meaningful consultation.
A Structured Analysis of Current Bournemouth University Actions
This document sets out the formal framework governing pay, grading, workload planning and role expectations within UK Higher Education and at Bournemouth University, and assesses current institutional actions against that framework.
It is grounded in:
• The JNCHES Framework Agreement for the Modernisation of Pay Structures (2003)
• JNCHES Guidance on Pay Progression (2004)
• JNCHES Role Analysis and Job Evaluation Guidance (2004)
• Post-92 guidance on use of academic role profiles
• The 2013 reformed JNCHES agreement (good faith obligations)
• The Joint Agreement between UCU and BU (Framework Agreement 2014)
• The 2019 Workload Planning Framework agreed between BU and UCU
• Appendix 5 – Process for Evaluating a Job
We are not arguing about whether change is permitted; it is. We are making an assessment of whether change is being conducted in accordance with binding agreements and national sectoral principles.
I. NATIONAL FRAMEWORK: PARTNERSHIP AND NEGOTIATION
The JNCHES Framework Agreement establishes that new pay and grading structures must be implemented “in partnership” and that partnership is defined as “negotiating to reach agreement on a timely basis” (Preamble).
Under the Grading section, it states that:
“detailed grading arrangements – including their links with job evaluation outcomes – will be negotiated in partnership between HE institutions and their recognised trades unions.”
Under Progression Within Grades, it provides:
“HE institutions will determine detailed arrangements for progression, in partnership with their recognised trades unions”
The 2013 JNCHES agreement reinforces that parties commit to operating in good faith and striving for agreed outcomes.
This establishes a sectoral norm:
Where grading architecture, progression mechanisms, or role expectations are altered, they are to be negotiated, not unilaterally implemented.
II. LOCAL FRAMEWORK: BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY
A. Grading Structure – Mandatory Negotiation
The 2014 Joint Agreement between BU and UCU states at paragraph 6.2:
“Any potential future changes to this grading structure must be negotiated and agreed between the University and UCU.”
This is not advisory language. It is mandatory.
If new frameworks materially alter:
- Grade expectations
- Role outputs
- Fusion balance
- Research/teaching weighting
- Contribution thresholds
then the University must negotiate and agree those changes.
B. Job Evaluation – Changes to Role Content
Appendix 5 provides that where “significant changes to the content of the roles” are proposed, roles may require evaluation under the Hay scheme.
The JNCHES Role Analysis guidance further emphasises that role evaluation must be analytical and that grading decisions must reflect evaluated role demands.
If workload frameworks or research allocation models alter the substantive demands of roles, this may constitute a de facto change to role content without evaluation.
C. Pay Progression – Fairness and Objectivity
JNCHES Guidance requires that progression arrangements must be “fair, consistent and transparent” and developed in partnership.
If research time allocation becomes competitive and affordability-filtered, and if that allocation affects evidencing contribution, this interacts directly with progression architecture.
D. Workload Planning – Agreed Principles
The 2019 Workload Planning Framework, agreed between BU and UCU, establishes:
“The overriding principles agreed by BU and UCU…”
Including:
- No element of workload should prejudice fulfilment of other elements
- Transparency and equity in allocation
- Publicly available workload records
- Legal compliance with contractual hours
This is an agreed document and cannot be displaced or replaced unilaterally without breaching collective agreement norms.
III. CURRENT POSITION: STRUCTURAL CONCERNS
The University is currently:
- Consulting on a new Academic Career Framework
- Consulting on a new Workload Planning Framework
- Launching a new research planning (PRIEP) process embedded in the proposed WLP
- Consulting on a new Learning Model
- Continuing professional services redundancy consultation
Simultaneously.
The research planning process has been launched during live consultation and is operationalising elements of a framework not yet agreed.
This raises the following structured concerns:
- Pre-implementation during consultation
If a process dependent upon a proposed framework is implemented before consultation concludes, consultation risks becoming performative rather than determinative.
- De facto alteration of grading expectations
If baseline research time, banding, and competitive allocation alter expectations for output and contribution, that may constitute a functional change to grading architecture, triggering paragraph 6.2 of the 2014 Agreement.
- Potential alteration of role content without evaluation
If workload balance and research allocation significantly alter role demands, Appendix 5 evaluation procedures may be engaged.
- Displacement of agreed workload principles
If the new WLP departs from the 2019 agreed framework without negotiation and agreement, that is a departure from joint agreement norms.
- Equal pay and equality risk
JNCHES requires analytical job evaluation to defend equal pay claims and requires monitoring of contribution-related pay for equality impact.
Competitive research allocation filtered by affordability during restructuring carries foreseeable equality risk.
Under the Equality Act 2010 and Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149), institutions must have due regard to equality impacts in policy development.
IV. LEGAL AND GOVERNANCE CONTEXT
Collective agreements in UK HE are often procedural rather than individually enforceable contracts unless incorporated into individual contracts. However:
- Breach of collectively agreed grading architecture may expose the institution to equal pay claims if role demands increase without pay alignment.
- Failure to evaluate materially changed roles undermines analytical job evaluation defences.
- Failure to conduct meaningful consultation may expose the institution to challenge where statutory consultation thresholds are triggered (e.g., redundancy contexts).
- Public sector equality duty requires due regard to equality impact prior to implementation of significant policy shifts.
Additionally, under common law principles of mutual trust and confidence, employers must not act in a manner likely to destroy or seriously damage trust without reasonable and proper cause.
V. SUMMARY POSITION
The University has the managerial prerogative to propose change. It does not have:
- The authority to alter grading structures without negotiation and agreement
- The authority to displace agreed workload principles without negotiation
- The authority to materially change role content without evaluation under agreed procedures
- The authority to operate progression systems outside partnership and fairness principles
- The authority to treat consultation as a formality where implementation is already underway
The cumulative effect of simultaneous high-impact framework change, live redundancy consultation, and accelerated implementation raises serious concerns about compliance with:
- The JNCHES partnership model
- The 2014 BU–UCU Joint Agreement
- The 2019 Workload Planning Agreement
- Equality and analytical job evaluation principles
VI. OPPORTUNITY FOR RESOLUTION
This document is published in the interests of transparency and institutional integrity. The University has the opportunity to:
- Pause implementation pending conclusion of consultation
- Confirm that no grading architecture is being altered without agreement
- Confirm that workload principles agreed in 2019 remain binding
- Commit to equality impact assessments prior to implementation
- Reaffirm partnership and negotiation obligations
If consultation becomes implementation without agreement, the remaining mechanisms within UK industrial relations are formal dispute procedures and, ultimately, collective action. The University should pause and ensure that its actions are fully aligned with the national Framework Agreement, the BU–UCU Joint Agreement, and the agreed Workload Planning principles.
Discover more from Bournemouth University University and College Union (BU UCU)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
