- Conference
- 2022 Virtual Higher Education Conference
- Date
- 13 October 2021
- Decision
- Carried
“Conference notes the now well-established practice of Universities utilising various spin-off companies, single purpose vehicles and wholly owned subsidiary companies (WHOs) for a variety of different purposes, including cost saving measures. For example, a University may use a nominally separate company for some of its activity on a small scale to exploit intellectual property, on a slightly larger scale to generate profit from commercial activities, or in the most troubling cases to take over the employment of all support staff.
Conference notes with alarm the increasing tendency for these companies to be used in ways that worsen pay, terms and conditions (T&Cs), slash pensions and attack collective bargaining rights.
In particular, conference notes the following tactics employed by one or more Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the process of creating these companies:
i)Using a company to evade legal obligations to enrol staff in a decent defined benefit pension scheme, often resulting in reductions in value and increased costs for members;
ii)Using a company to extend the activity of the institution into commercial areas not covered by its core charter and then to “gift aid” the profits back to the parent institution;
iii)Using a company to specifically employ staff on “market” levels of pay and T&Cs for professions such as catering, housekeeping and cleaning where the private sector is well known for poorer pay and working practices.
Conference affirms its opposition to these practices and makes it clear that, regardless of protestations to the contrary by HEIs, it considers this to be outsourcing and one of the biggest threats facing all those who care about good employment in the Higher Education sector.
Conference calls on the Higher Education Service Group Executive to:
1) Conduct a scoping exercise to establish how broadly these practices are being used across the sector, as well classifying the different “types” of wholly owned subsidiary company being used by HEIs;
2) Develop a comprehensive guidance document for branches on this topic, covering:
a)The relevance of legislation such as TUPE and the related requirements for consultation and information;
b) Key strategies that have been successful elsewhere in securing vital protections or even stopping these plans altogether;
c) Specific guidance about how particular types of situation (including those only affecting new starters) relate to UNISON industrial action guidance, and how to approach initial negotiations and ongoing campaigns in a way that maximises leverage, to prevent usage of such companies and/or protect members interests who are moved out of Universities into them.
d) Specific guidance dealing with strategies for continuing recognition agreements or defending/regaining recognition if Universities refuse to continue existing recognition agreements for new companies.
3) Design and deliver training for HEI activists which incorporates topics such as legal rights to information and consultation, points and methods of challenge, legalities of transferring staff and new starters, changes to contracts of employment, maintaining collective bargaining rights (national/local) and protecting pensions. This would also include organising and campaigning strategies to prevent WHOs and protect against detrimental changes to pay and terms and conditions of service.
4) Convene a specific group of activists with a stake in this matter, from Universities affected by this, as well as those who are concerned about its potential use at their employers in the near future, with a view to developing the above support mechanisms and discussing other ways UNISON can offer support to branches and representation for affected members.”