On 27 November 2025, Durham UCU (DUCU) received a response from the employer to a notice of dispute, sent by DUCU to the employer on 5 November 2025.
The notice of dispute centred on failure to make meaningful progress on the local claim and the ongoing dispute, a process which started in January 2025 as the threat of redundancies at Durham emerged during the academic year 2025/26.
The employer’s response can be read online on the University website and on Durham University SharePoint.
Here is our analysis of that response, accompanied by a red-amber-green (RAG) rating for each claim item. A red rating indicates that we do not believe the employer’s response represents progress. An amber rating indicates that we do believe the employer’s response represents some progress. There are no green ratings.
| Claim item | Summary of response with RAG rating |
| Job security | |
| Rule out compulsory redundancies until the end of calendar year 2027. | The employer refuses to negotiate. We have repeatedly raised this issue and the employer’s response has been a repeated refusal to consider our reasonable request. While the employer claims there are “no current plans” and that they are not currently considering compulsory redundancies to meet their remaining staff cut targets for last year, they are maintaining the option of redundancies claiming a “difficult financial environment.” The employer repeatedly refers to the financial environment as their rationale to reserve their option to implement redundancies, while refusing to provide the requested financial information to substantiate their account of their finances. Redundancies can be pursued far faster than we could achieve an industrial action mandate in response to a specific proposal. We are seeking guarantees for the medium term. Red |
| TU-negotiated measures like pooling and bridging funding to decouple research staff job security from individual grants | The employer refuses to negotiate. Durham University ranked 82nd out of 98 universities in the level of support offered for research staff in 2023. The employer’s suggestion that “agreed policies in place” support research staff job security are not borne out by Durham’s low score in the report based on FOI data. The “agreed policies” are clearly insufficient and would benefit from negotiation. Red |
| All voluntary severance measures should be truly voluntary and not under the threat of potential compulsory redundancies. | The employer refuses to negotiate. We do not oppose voluntary severance measures to meet mutual aims of the employer and individual staff members. However, we argue that initiating action under the chapter for Procedures for Handling Redundancies of the TULR(C)A of 1992 (i.e., Section 188) constitutes a threat of compulsory redundancy, especially given the speed with which the employer can enact compulsory redundancies (i.e., 30-45 days). Red |
| Rule out further job losses as a result of staff cost cutting, including protecting fixed-term and casualised staff and roles. | The employer refuses to negotiate. The employer trivialises fixed-term and casualised staff and roles by suggesting that issues of precarity faced by these staff are matters of “day-to-day hiring” and they refuse to negotiate on it. Red |
| Increase the job security of existing hourly paid staff by moving them onto fractional contracts. | The employer has ignored this. This costs the employer little. It enhances job security for precarious workers and transparency of payments, and increases worker motivation and commitment to the institution. It also prevents any possible breach of legislation due to less favourable treatment of hourly-paid staff regarding leave entitlements (paid as rolled-up holiday pay). It is not clear why the employer does not wish to discuss this. Red |
| Develop a dedicated mechanism for trade-union scrutiny and negotiation of any changes to the use of fixed-term contracts (FTCs) (e.g. hiring on FTCs rather than permanent contracts; FTC redundancies) following past or future organisational change, including the recent VS schemes. | The employer has ignored this. Many jobs have been lost in hidden redundancies via not renewing or replacing fixed-term contracts, e.g. postgraduate researcher teaching jobs. Neither we nor (we suspect) the employer know how many jobs were lost this way over recent years. Redundancies for staff on fixed-term contracts (employment or casual) don’t have the statutory protections salaried staff do regarding redundancies, so they need protections. Employer preference for fixed-term contracts over permanent contracts, which materially harms staff, is also a problem outside staffing cuts and organisational changes. Red |
| Manageable workload | |
| 100% workload (35 hours a week on average or pro rata) is the limit… changing ‘nominal hours’ on grade 7+ contracts to actual hours as for other grades. | The employer refuses to negotiate. The employer has indicated they have no intention of discussing our concerns about how the use of “nominal working week” enables the employer to abuse workload allocations and tariffs. Red |
| Fair, TU-negotiated workload models for all salaried and hourly-paid staff | The employer refuses to negotiate. They have implied that existing working groups with representation from the unions are as good as the negotiated models we’ve proposed. Red |
| Develop a mechanism, using existing empirical workload data where available, to ensure past and future organisational changes, including the recent VS rounds, do not result in workloads which measurably and/or routinely exceed the contracted working hours of 35 hours per week (pro rata). This includes changing ‘nominal hours’ on grade 7+ contracts to actual hours as for other grades. | The employer refuses to negotiate. They have implied that existing working groups are as good as the mechanism we’ve proposed. Red |
| Establish routine negotiation with trade unions on restructures, re-alignments, and changes of roles, responsibilities, and related business processes as a result of organisational change. This should be supported by a timely process to ensure roles are appropriately graded following those changes, giving particular attention to grade slippage and erosion. | The employer refuses to negotiate. They have implied that existing working groups are as good as the negotiation we’ve claimed. They refuse to change existing grading/re-grading policy or acknowledge any problems of grade slippage and erosion. Red |
| A democratic university | |
| Recommend to Council that all four TUs are invited to nominate representatives to Council with full voting rights | The employer refuses to negotiate. Their responses have focused on semantics and suggestions that members nominated by TUs cannot remain unconflicted while those nominated by the SU or senior management members can. Red |
| Honour TU recognition (implement agreements, open comms, engage cost-saving/cost-neutral TU proposals) | The employer refuses to negotiate. They have refused to change or acknowledge issues in implementation of TU recognition or agreements. They have not addressed open communications. Red They have referred to existing levels of response to cost-neutral TU proposals. However, they have not addressed cost-saving proposals (e.g. voluntary reduction of senior staff pay/benefits) in their written response, though in previous meetings they have refused these suggestions. Amber |
| Promotions for everyone | |
| Formal PS promotions procedure | The employer refuses to negotiate. They have referred to existing processes that fall short of promotion procedures (pausing of these before pausing academic promotions is not addressed in their response). They have implicitly denied any departures from appropriate grading or grade slippage. Red |
| Appeals procedure for all promotions | The employer has ignored this. Red |
| Pay spine review | |
| Open local negotiations | The employer has ignored this. The employer has referred to “planned” (no longer “imminently planned”) work, with TU representation. This work falls short of negotiations and especially open negotiations. Amber |
| Commit to local implementation | The employer refuses to negotiate. They have suggested that work on local application of the UK-wide pay spine to Durham’s pay grades cannot begin, let alone be implemented, due to potential UK-wide work on the overall pay spine. They have added a suggestion that financial constraints may prevent this work. Failure to advance local work on the pay spine due to potential UK-wide work repeats a trend we have seen over the last three years. It is a worsening of a position reached as part of a joint agreement following industrial action in May 2022 and never implemented. Red |