XClose

UCL UCU

Home
Menu

Statute 18 under threat again

5 July 2019

We are writing to highlight a developing and serious dispute between the UCU and UCL over the interpretation of Statute 18, the part of UCL's Charter and Statutes intended to protect academic freedom at UCL (see Appendix below).

Statute 18 places additional requirements on procedures that might lead to the dismissal of academic staff that go over and above standard UCL procedures. Colleagues may recall that in 2012 we led a campaign to stop UCL rewriting Statute 18 to 'streamline' and 'modernise' staff dismissals.

The Statute is important for all staff, not just academics protected by it. By making the dismissal of academic staff more painstaking and indeed time-consuming, research groups and departments gain protections from closure. The Statute protects university research from external and internal conflicts of influence, and helps shape the ethos and research environment of UCL.

There are two principal methods under Statute 18 whereby an employee may be dismissed: redundancy, which requires a Redundancy Committee; and disciplinary, which requires a Disciplinary Tribunal. In the latter case, an employee is entitled to legal representation, typically a barrister or senior solicitor. Although not explicitly obliged to do so, UCL also engages a lawyer to represent management. 

Whereas the Statute does not provide an explicit procedure for the conduct of Redundancy Committees and Disciplinary Tribunals in the manner of UCL's standard HR procedures, it does explicitly place additional requirements on any procedure to be conducted. 

Unfortunately we have learned that in a current case, UCL and their lawyers are attempting to reinterpret these mandatory provisions as mere 'guidance'. UCL's lawyers asserted in correspondence a right to demand a hearing date at which UCL had previously been told that the employee's chosen legal representative and one of their key material witnesses could not attend.

We have written serially to the Provost and SMT challenging this interpretation, holding back from informing members until such time as it became clear that the UCL was standing behind it. 

We appreciate that for many members this issue might seem obscure, but fundamentally it concerns basic issues of natural justice, due process and academic freedom.

We cannot allow this matter to stand. Were we to permit such a reinterpretation, we can expect that UCL will apply it to future cases. We successfully campaigned alongside Academic Board in 2012 to defend Statute 18. This campaign led to a series of governance reforms that have given academics more of a voice against Senior Management.

Unfortunately, Statute 18 is under threat again, not by public attempts to rewrite it, but by a different mechanism: the 'back door' reinterpretation by lawyers.

UCL UCU Executive Committee

Appendix: Paragraph 17, Statute 18

The procedural parameters for the preparation, hearing and determination of charges by a Disciplinary Tribunal are set out in Paragraph 17, which we have reproduced below. The repeated use of mandatory 'shall' and reference to entitlements unambiguously emphasise the obligatory nature of these parameters.

Thus 17(2) (a) allows an employee to appoint a legal representative of their choosing and (b) requires that a hearing is scheduled that permits that representative to attend. Where charges are based on evidence concerning a witness, 17(2) (c) requires that the witness be available for cross-examination, and (d) emphasises that if the above are not possible at certain times, that full and sufficient provision be made for postponements.

17. (1) The procedure to be followed in respect of the preparation, hearing and determination of charges by a Tribunal shall be that set out in Regulations made under this paragraph.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing such Regulations shall ensure:

(a) that the member of the academic staff concerned is entitled to be represented by another person, whether such person be legally qualified or not, in connection with and at any hearing of charges by a Tribunal;

(b) that a charge shall not be determined without an oral hearing at which the member of the academic staff concerned and any person appointed by him or her to represent him or her are entitled to be present;

(c) that the member of the academic staff and any person representing the staff member may call witnesses and may question witnesses upon the evidence on which the case against him or her is based; and

(d) that full and sufficient provision is made:

(i) for postponements, adjournments, dismissal of the charge or charges for want of prosecution, remission of the charge or charges to the Provost for further consideration and for the correction of accidental errors; and
(ii) for appropriate time limits for each stage (including the hearing) to the intent that any charge thereunder shall be heard and determined by a Tribunal as expeditiously as reasonably practicable.

Click here for the full text of UCL Statute 18