From the bottom you'll see the original email sent from JJ giving the Deans carte blanche to do whatever they wish with their Schools, ignoring all agreements with the union ("At this stage, you are being asked to think radically about what this structure would look like, without, for example, the current constraints enforced by national agreements and our current grading structures/role profiles"). A number of prompts have been provided to guide the Deans' thinking (in a redacted document), no doubt encouraging Deans to consider getting rid of highly paid staff and appointing cheap Associate Lecturers, and such other gems common to many Schools' workforce planning proposals.
The tone of the Dean is quite striking here, especially as this is someone only joining the university in Sept 2012, and planning, as his vision for the School, with no cost-containment pressure, to make 4 or 5 very experienced staff redundant. He is "very pleased" with how it's all coming together and he notes openly where the lack of a financial imperative weakens the case for such 'non trivial' workforce planning, making it tricky to justify. It's sometimes hard to forget his vision involves ending the livelihood of 5 people who, for some years, have been loyal and dedicated employees of the institution that he has been working at for all of 5 minutes. Indeed, the email dated 4 January 2013 is where he informs HR of having written a draft of the workforce planning proposal. He has been in post, by this point, for a little over 3 months.
Readers will note the large number of exemptions and redactions where information concerns some individuals or is purportedly commercially sensitive.
Other key players in the emails are Dave Phoenix, Deputy Vice Chancellor, and Rod Dubrow-Marshall, Pro-VC (the Dean of Psych's line manager).
One highlight to look out for is the Dean's email to HR asking for advice on how to deal with the 'trickle' of student complaints, or 'unrest' as it is curiously referred to ("A University-wide email to all students might be useful, unless, of course, the unrest seems specific to Psychology, which wouldn’t surprise me!")
The emails are best followed if read from the bottom up.
COPIES OF EMAILS SAVED BY LB:
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
12 June 2013 08:22
To:
Dawn Pinckard
Cc:
Frances Ann Kirby
Subject:
RE: Workforce Planning – Psychology
Hi
Dawn,
Thanks
for these figures - and for clarifying the assumptions that
underpin them. I'm trying to work out how you calculated the
savings/additions for Proposal A and Proposal B on the basis of the
current cost structure. I wonder if the figure you've supplied for
the current structure should be £2040k rather than £2340k,
since that would make sense of the £131k saving (Proposal A)
and £88k addition (Proposal B) that you mention?
Thanks and
best wishes,
Linden
From:
Dawn Pinckard
Sent:
11 June 2013 15:28
To:
Linden BallCc:
Frances Ann Kirby
Subject:
RE: Workforce Planning - Psychology
Hi
Linden
I
have done the costings based on the data for the FTEs you have
provided (the cost is just for the actual staffing element so
does not include non pay/staff dev or other staff recharges).
****Exempt
s.43(2)****
Current
structure cost = £2340k
Proposal
A cost = £1909k (saving £131k on current cost)
Proposal
B cost = £2127k (additional £88k on current cost)
I
have used actual staff costs (estimated for the 13/14 budget) so this
reflects the actual grades of current staff. The reduction in
L/SL posts I have assumed will all happen at SL (I44) grade. I
was not sure of the grade for Teaching Fellow or Adjunct staff so
have used L grade (H35) for the TF and AL grade (G32) for the
Adjunct.
The
document that Dave provided shows that the School should get an
additional £70k budget, so hopefully Proposal B will be looked upon
favourably.
Thanks
Dawn
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
09 June 2013 15:15
To:
Dawn Pinckard
Subject:
Workforce Planning - Psychology
Dear
Dawn,
****Exempt
s.40(2)**** I've
found time to do some work on drafting a workforce planning document
(see attached) ahead of the School's upcoming Performance Review
meeting. The document isn't complete yet but does contain
relevant details relating to a re-configured staffing model
for the School (see page 5, Table 1).
From
the table you will see that I am proposing two revised
structures. ****Exempt
s.43(2)****
****Exempt
s.40(2)****
With
best wishes,
Linden
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
19 June 2013 15:26
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
RE: Actions from Performance review meeting.
Hi
Jacky,
Thanks
so much for these notes, which are really very helpful! No problem at
all with the delay; I’m sure you’ve been pretty busy of late….
Looking
forward to catching up tomorrow.
With
best wishes,
Linden
From:
Jacky Joseph
Sent:
19 June 2013 14:37
To:
Linden Ball
Subject:
Actions from Performance review meeting.
Hi
Linden,
Apologies
for the delay but please find below my notes from the performance
review meeting last week.
We
are meeting tomorrow and so I can go through and clarify any of these
if necessary.
Actions:
LB
to provide a 1 page summary of proposals regarding ****Exempt
s.43(2)****
LB
to speak to Lynne Livesey re Division leaders. (It was
acknowledged in the meeting that the use of divisional leaders would
not be as straight forward in a school such a Psychology due to the
nature of the subjects. However it was felt that the School is
akin to the Law School and therefore it would be worthwhile having a
discussion with Lynne to look at whether she was going to implement
Divisional leaders and how.)
LB/JJ
to produce a detailed action plan outlining:
o
Timeline
for the changes within the school.
o
Appointment
of a ****Exempt
s.43(2)****
o
Review
of profs/readers – ****Exempt
s.43(2)****
o
Clarify
the roles of the PL’s
o
Reduction
in number of SL’s
o
Appointment
of a lecturer in ****Exempt
s.43(2)****
Kind
regards
Jacky
Joseph
From:
David Andrew Phoenix
Sent:
25 July 2013 13:39
To:
Aidan Richard Clive Worsley; Akintola Akintoye; Allison Elizabeth
Jones; Andrea Burch; Antony DEmanuele; Debra Hayley Duxbury; Dharma
Kovvuri; Frances Ann Kirby; Graham Baldwin; Isabel Maria Donnelly;
Joanne Parker; John H Minten; Judith Dillon; Judith Jackson; Julie
Mary Howard; Katherine O'Neil; Kathryn Elizabeth Clements; Lawrence
Hugh Mair; Linden Ball; Louise Jane Nelson; Lynn Mary Byrne; Lynne
Margaret Livesey; M Glenda Brindle; Mick Gornall; Nigel Harrison;
Patricia Ann Beard; Paul Pollard; Robert Roy Wallace; S Faulks;
Sarah-jayne Butler; Stjohn Crean; Yvonne L Duncan
Cc:
Roderick Paul Dubrow-Marshall; Pauline Davies-taylor; Alison Smith;
Gill Bruce
Subject:
Update on Reshaping Work
Message
dictated by DP, but sent on his behalf, during his absence on leave
Colleagues
Just
to update you with respect to the work on Reshaping the Workforce.
We
now have all the first drafts of the action plans in, bar one or two.
Myself and Rod will work through these over the coming weeks, with a
view to feeding back around the week of the 12th August. As per the
schedule outlined, this should enable us to get final sign-off of
these plans towards the end of August, as discussed at the recent
Deans’ meeting.
Myself
and Rod have been through UCU comments on job descriptions and I hope
these will be with you shortly. You are then free to discuss these
with staff in parallel with finalisation of the action plans.
Finally,
when I return in a couple of weeks’ time, myself, Rod and HR will
work with you on a one-page summary for use in discussion with staff
once the action plans have been signed off.
Dave
Professor
David Phoenix, OBE, AcSS, DSc, FRSC, FIBiol, FIMA, SFHEA
Deputy
Vice Chancellor
University
of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE
Tel:
01772 892504
Fax:
01772 892936
From:
David Andrew Phoenix
Sent:
30 August 2013 10:59
To:
DL-SchoolHeads
Cc:
Pauline Davies-taylor; Alison Smith; Roderick Paul Dubrow-Marshall;
Christine Ann Reid; Lyn Butler
Subject:
Action Plans
Colleagues
I
thought it would be worthwhile providing an update on where we are at
with respect to the action plans:
You
have the role profiles now – these have had input from yourselves
and UCU. These can be used to provide staff with more details on what
we anticipate the roles to be and what we would expect of them. They
are based on the initial consultation by the VC and align with the
feedback from that consultation. We are not expecting major changes
now but this gives staff the chance to raise questions –
which we will reflect on and may lead to some changes. It has been
suggested that, following circulation of the role profiles, it may be
beneficial to have a range of Frequently Asked Questions for staff
members. I will start assembling this with HR. If you
have any specific questions or points you wish to be included, please
forward them
I
have asked Finance to rework projected budgets based on the snapshot
of current recruitment. This will enable us to check whether or
not action plans are still in line with the assumptions made earlier
this year. This has led to a few weeks delay but given some school
fluctuations it makes sense to make use of current recruitment
performance.
I
have arranged a meeting with Rod today to review the action plans
with HR and Finance. We will seek to get feedback to
Deans over 5-10days. Given we have taken the opportunity to
review these in light of the current recruitment position these could
in some cases require further change but I am aiming for all
these to be signed-off and approved over the next 2 weeks.
We
have a Deans meeting on 18th
September. At this point all workforce action plans should be
signed off and each School should have generated a one-page summary
of proposals for consultation with staff. HRMs will help advise
on this comms paper.
The
overall process itself is being finalised and your HRM will
discuss it with you over the next two weeks to seek your input.
It will also be discussed with UCU to seek their input so that, by
the time we reach our meeting on the 18th, it is anticipated
that the process will have been finalised.
We
are aiming for consultations within Schools to therefore
start the week following the Deans meeting
In
summary:
Frequently
Asked Questions being assembled; feed in any you wish to be
considered.
The
process and timeline has been drafted and will be reviewed with you
in the next few weeks, ready for roll-out.
You
will receive feedback on the action plans and final sign-off subject
to any changes based on expected recruitment patterns in the coming
days.
You
need to prepare, with HR, your one-page overview for use as a
consultation document within your School.
Dave
From:
David Andrew Phoenix
Sent:
12 September 2013 15:21
To:
Aidan Richard Clive Worsley; Akintola Akintoye; Allison Elizabeth
Jones; Andrea Burch; Andrew Ireland; Antony DEmanuele; Debra Hayley
Duxbury; Dharma Kovvuri; Frances Ann Kirby; Graham Baldwin; Isabel
Maria Donnelly; Joanne Parker; John H Minten; Judith Dillon; Judith
Jackson; Julie Mary Howard; Katherine O'Neil; Kathryn Elizabeth
Clements; Linden Ball; Louise Jane Nelson; Lynn Mary Byrne; Lynne
Margaret Livesey; M Glenda Brindle; Nigel Harrison; Patricia Ann
Beard; Robert Roy Wallace; S Faulks; Sarah-jayne Butler; Stjohn
Crean; Yvonne L Duncan
Subject:
Guidance on Academic Roles
Attachments:
****Exempt
s.43(2)****
Colleagues
First
of all apologies. Following SMT, I investigated the materials
that had been circulated and the pack was not that which I thought
had gone out. Please find attached the material you should have
had.
This,
in the main, is not new, but it pulled together the principles paper
that we discussed at the Deans’ meeting, incorporating amendments
from those meetings. It outlines activities to be undertaken
with the staff and it includes the current versions of the job
descriptions.
There
are still some inconsistencies in the job descriptions and hopefully,
through this next process, we will be able to further firm up on the
content.
As
I indicated at SMT, we do not have all the answers at this stage.
If you have any queries please feel free to contact me directly.
Once
again, apologies for not having picked up on the error earlier.
Dave
From:
Alison Smith
Sent:
22 September 2013 17:55
To:
Linden Ball
Cc:
Gill Bruce
Subject:
Re: New Job Descriptions - Feedback from Psychology
Thanks
linden, they are helpful comments and we'll feed them in.
Alison
Sent
from my iPad
On
17 Sep 2013, at 12:43, "Linden Ball" <LBall@uclan.ac.uk>
wrote:
Dear
Alison,
I
only have a small amount of feedback from Psychology colleagues
relating to the new/revised JDs. I apologise for the delay in getting
this feedback to you; I realise that it was supposed to be with you
yesterday.
By
way of context I note that I scheduled a meeting last Friday to
discuss the JDs with colleagues but no one turned up! Because we are
a highly unionised School I received a raft of apologies last week
whereby colleagues stated that they felt obliged to honour the UCU
advice to decline any offers to participate in discussions with their
Deans about the JDs. A few colleagues, however, did email me a some
issues and questions that they wanted to raise, which I summarise
below:
1.
One concern (expressed by a few people) relates to the title of
“Assistant Professor”, given that the term is standard in the US,
where it denotes an early career lecturer/researcher, often at entry
level and without full tenure. In the US it is only once as Assistant
Professor had gained full tenure they the are then likely to be
promoted to “Associate Professor”. There is, therefore, a concern
that colleagues in the US might misunderstand the term “Assistant
Professor” in the context that UCLAN is using it, because of its
association with early career work. As such, it does not seem to be
appropriate a job title for staff working as Senior Lecturers, with
many years of teaching and research experience.
I
replied by explaining the US situation also makes existing UK titles
such as “Lecturer” and “Senior Lecturer” problematic since
anything with “Lecturer” in the tile in the US is seen as a role
that has much less prestige than anything with "Professor"
in the title. In the US Lecturers simply teach and these positions
are non-tenure track and also involve no research or publishing
requirement. I additionally noted that within UK and Europe there is
an growing move toward using the Assistant Professor and Associate
Professor titles such that they are becoming increasingly meaningful
and prestigious within the more immediate geographic context.
2.
Another concern was that titles like “Teaching Fellow” and
“Senior Teaching Fellow” could be misunderstood externally since
they are roles that seem to denote early career work, rather than a
display of years of experience. A related issue was with such
individuals seeking career progression externally, say to a
Senior Lecturer post, where the TF and STF label might not be
taken very seriously.
I
noted that both the Teaching Fellow and Senior Teaching Fellow posts
would recognise excellence in relation to teaching, learning and
pedagogic research and would be a credible roles that would have good
external currency in terms of staff having demonstrable expertise in
ensuring very high quality teaching. The Senior Teaching Fellow
role should also be viewed as a high status one that is associated
with significant expectations in terms of course leadership and
academic management.
3.
One colleague noted that there may be some issues of the use of the
TF and STF titles when it comes to professional body accreditation
for UG and PGT programmes. They noted, for example, that some of our
MSc programmes expect the course leader/director to be working
at SL/PL level. It was further noted, however, that any
potential issues here would not be insurmountable and usually just
required careful explanations to be given to the accrediting body
regarding titles, roles and responsibilities.
4.
One KT active colleague stated that they thought there was going to
be an institutional move toward recognising a more KT focused Reader
role. They also commented that the Assistant Professor role states
that the individual may be research “or” KT active, yet the
listed duties and responsibilities place an almost exclusive emphasis
on research rather than KT.
That’s
it from Psychology! Not much, but as I mentioned, that’s because of
the UCU directive.
With
best wishes,
Linden
From:
David Andrew Phoenix
Sent:
03 October 2013 16:56
To:
Aidan Richard Clive Worsley; Akintola Akintoye; Alison Chambers;
Allison Elizabeth Jones; Andrea Burch; Andrew Ireland; Antony
DEmanuele; Carolyn Ann Williams; Catherine Ann Kilmartin; Debra
Hayley Duxbury; Dharma Kovvuri; Frances Ann Kirby; Isabel Maria
Donnelly; Jackie Morgan; Jeannine Sullivan; Jenny Leanne Gavell;
Joanne Clarkson; Joanne Parker; John H Minten; Judith Dillon; Judith
Jackson; Julie Mary Howard; Katherine O'Neil; Linden Ball; Louise
Jane Nelson; Lynne Margaret Livesey; M Glenda Brindle; Michael Ahern;
Michelle Fletcher; Nigel Harrison; Patricia Ann Beard; Robert Roy
Wallace; Robert William Walsh; Roderick Paul Dubrow-Marshall; S
Faulks; Sarah-jayne Butler; Stjohn Crean; Susan Anne Conduit; Susan
Avanson; Yvonne L Duncan
Cc:
Pauline Davies-taylor; Alison Smith; Michael Ahern; Deborah Karen
Reid
Subject:
follow on from Deans meeting
Attachments:
****Exempt
s.43(2)****
Colleagues
As
promised, I have followed up with Finance – detailed analysis is
attached.
I
have also attached to this email a short summary of what I believe
the position to be for each School (in round figures ).
Please
note that Schools need different combinations of cost containment
plus business efficiency. This is what the one-page
communication strategy should identify. Please also note that,
as indicated on the attached, these figures include:
FT
UG Home & EU Years 0-4 and Sandwich students on Preston Campus
FT
UG Home & EU Years 0-4 and Sandwich students on Burnley Campus
The
following categories therefore have not
yet been reviewed and updated (due to enrolments happening later, or
we need to wait for external information to be confirmed):
All
undergraduate part time categories
All
postgraduate taught and postgraduate research categories
All
partnership activity, both UK and overseas based, both income and
payments due
All
international activity
All
NHS contract activity
Non-standard
activity continuing from 2012/13
If
you believe you will have a shortfall in other areas, you may wish to
include an estimate for this from Finance because I would not wish
Schools to complete the exercise and then identify further
shortfalls. I agreed with you in summer that we would re-run
the analysis based on real enrolments at this time point, hence the
snapshot on 27th
September. This will now form the basis of the budget
allocation for this year. As usual there will be a mid-year
review after Christmas.
Following
completion of your one-page communication document with your HRM by
11th
October, we will formally sign these off at the Project Board on 16th
October. You will then be in a position to present your proposals to
the unions and commence consultations with your staff.
After
this we will review the position within each School, considering what
was needed, what has been achieved and what, if any, further action
is required. Staff leaving through voluntary redundancy,
depending on business need, could be asked to leave before Christmas,
at the end of Semester 1 or at the end of Semester 2. It will
be up to Deans to determine if an application for VR is supported and
this should be on the basis of the skills required.
In
parallel to the above, Deans have copies of the job descriptions
which you can continue to discuss with staff. To help prevent
confusion and crossover I suggest that we seek to have any final
comments on these by 18th
October
with a view to having finalised documents by 31st
October.
Dave
Professor
David Phoenix, OBE,
AcSS, DSc, FRSC, FIBiol, FIMA, SFHEA
Deputy
Vice Chancellor
University
of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE
Tel: 01772 892504
Fax:
01772 892936
From:
Pauline Davies-taylor
Sent:
15 October 2013 14:54
To:
DL-SchoolHeads
Cc:
David Andrew Phoenix; Roderick Paul Dubrow-Marshall; Jessica Shaw;
Alison Smith; Deana Jane Shackleton; Gill Bruce; Helen Jones; Jacky
Joseph; Kate Elizabeth Overend; Kirstie Louise Taylor; Lyn Butler;
Pauline Davies-taylor; Rebecca Hewitson
Subject:
Schools Consultation
Dear
All
Just
to confirm the process we agreed at the Dean’s meeting re
consultation.
The
overview documents will be signed off this week.
HR
will meet with the TUs on Monday 21st
Oct between 2-3pm and share all the affected schools “overview”
documentation. This will be the start of the 45 day consultation
period (ending weds 4th
Dec).
Following
this meeting Deans will commence consultation with their staff.
Please discuss with your HRM the approach for your school and arrange
appropriate meetings. In addition Jess will contact your PA to
arrange a time for you to attend a TU meeting to discuss your
proposals in more detail with the Unions.
Any
queries do not hesitate to contact your HRM, myself, Alison or Lyn.
Regards
Pauline
Davies Taylor
HR
Director
Human
Resources
T:
01772
892316
E:
pdavies-taylor@uclan.ac.uk
From:
Roderick Paul Dubrow-Marshall
Sent:
17 October 2013 09:57
To:
DL-SchoolHeads
Cc:
Pauline Davies-taylor; Alison Smith; David Andrew Phoenix; Michael
Ahern; Deborah Karen Reid; David Becker
Subject:
Urgent: School workforce consultation meetings and summary plans
Dear
Colleagues,
Following
this week’s meeting of the Project Executive it has been agreed
that a number of amendments to the School summary workforce plans may
be required and that 1:1 meetings (as currently being arranged) with
each Dean will pick these up and will also prepare for the
consultation meetings with staff in the Schools (for the 12 Schools
proceeding at this time). As a consequence the discussion with the
trades unions to introduce the School workforce changes will now not
take place until Monday 28th
October
– this is the day that the 45 day consultation will commence and
consultation meetings with staff in the Schools should be scheduled
for after
this date. Please therefore reschedule any meetings with staff that
have been already set up for before 28th
October.
Many
thanks,
Rod
Professor
Rod Dubrow-Marshall PhD, MBPsS,
Pro
Vice-Chancellor (Student Experience),
University
of Central Lancashire,
Preston,
Lancashire, UK
PR1
2HE
Tel.
(+44) (0)1772-892512
From:
Pauline Davies-taylor
Sent:
29 October 2013 14:39
To:
DL-SchoolHeads
Cc:
Roderick Paul Dubrow-Marshall; Gill Bruce; Alison Smith; Pauline
Davies-taylor
Subject:
Associate Lecturers
Dear
All,
Following
on from the Deans meeting, just to confirm the numbers for Associate
Lecturers please see below the extract from the Framework Agreement:
“Associate
Lecturers would not exceed a combined FTE figure that was greater
than
10%
of the total University career academic workforce and no more than
15% in any
Faculty.”
Given
that we no longer have faculties we would rely on the 10% of the
total university career academic workforce.
Thanks,
Pauline
Pauline
Davies Taylor
HR
Director
Human
Resources
T:
01772
892316
E:
pdavies-taylor@uclan.ac.uk
From:
Jacky Joseph
Sent:
01 November 2013 14:48
To:
Roderick Paul Dubrow-Marshall; Pauline Davies-taylor; Alison Smith
Cc:
Linden Ball
Subject:
Psychology Rationale
Attachments:
Psychology - Rationale 01.11.13.R1.docx ****Exempt
s.21****
Dear
All,
Further
to the discussions that took place earlier this week, Linden has now
amended his proposal in line with what was discussed and his final
version is now attached for consideration by the Project Exec on
Tuesday.
Kind
regards
Jacky
Joseph
HR
Manager
University
of Central Lancashire
Tel:
01772 892335
Fax:
01772 892933
E-mail:
jjoseph@uclan.ac.uk
COPIES OF EMAILS SAVED BY JJ:
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
18 November 2013 17:08
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
RE: Student unrest in Psychology re. buniness efficiency proposals
Hi
Jacky,
Excellent.
Thanks for getting back to me quickly and thanks for confirming that
there will be HR representation at tomorrow’s meeting with Michael,
Joel and Alison. I look forward to receiving further advice. I guess
the Q&A to students is not dissimilar to how the press is being
informed/updated etc.
Best
wishes,
Linden
From:
Jacky Joseph
Sent:
18 November 2013 17:00
To:
Linden Ball
Subject:
RE: Student unrest in Psychology re. buniness efficiency proposals
Hi
Linden,
I
understand that there is a meeting tomorrow re Q&A’s for
students with Michael Ahern, Joel Arber and Alison Blackburn. Someone
from HR will now also attend this meeting in order to feed in the
sorts of queries that you have raised and we will therefore let you
know what the outcome is following this re the proposed approach re
responding to students on these issues.
Kind
regards
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
18 November 2013 13:27
To:
Jacky Joseph
Cc:
Peter K Robinson
Subject:
Student unrest in Psychology re. buniness efficiency proposals
Hi
Jacky,
I’m
starting to get a trickle of emails from students (including the
UCLan Psychology Society) wishing to receive
clarification/reassurances on the business efficiency proposals for
the School. In the case of the UCLan Psychology Society it seems that
they had written directly to the VC’s Office, but their request for
a meeting with Gerry has quite rightly been deflected back to me. I
can only assume that these student emails are arising because
Psychology staff are fuelling unrest by issuing incorrect information
that is aimed specifically at scaremongering.
Is
there a HR steer on how best to handle these student-related
concerns? At the moment I’m happy to meet with individual students
or small groups of students so as to provide reassurances, but if the
trickle of requests becomes a torrent then such one-to-ones will soon
become unmanageable. Perhaps it is worth pre-empting escalating
concerns with a brief statement that can be sent out the student body
that clarifies that at present we are in a consultation period
regarding draft proposals, with nothing finalised. In addition, the
students are no doubt seeking reassurances that if any decisions are
taken to implement the proposals then the impact on their experience
will be minimised. A University-wide email to all students might be
useful, unless, of course, the unrest seems specific to Psychology,
which wouldn’t surprise me!
Thanks
for any advice.
With
best wishes,
Linden
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
06 November 2013 13:06
To:
Jacky Joseph
Cc:
Frances Ann Kirby
Subject:
Psychology - Letter inviting to full staff meeting
Attachments:
Psychology - Letter inviting to full staff meeting 06.11.13.docx
****Exempt
s.21****
Dear
Jacky,
Please
see attached for the letter inviting staff in Psychology to a full
staff meeting re. the workforce proposals.
Thanks
for checking through this for me and ensuring that it’s good-to-go
out to all staff when we get the green light.
I’m
currently aware of 3 members of staff who will definitely be
unavailable to attend the proposed meeting slots:
****Exempt
s.40(2)****
****Exempt
s.40(2)****
****Exempt
s.40(2)****
Best
wishes,
Linden
From:
Pauline Davies-taylor
Sent:
05 November 2013 20:06
To:
Linden Ball
Cc:
Jacky Joseph; Roderick Paul Dubrow-Marshall
Subject:
Final School Summary
Attachments:
Psychology - Rationale 01.11.13.R1.docx ****Exempt
s.21****
Linden
Please
find attached your school’s approved final Summary. Please just
check it closely as small changes may have been made to the one you
submitted. We intend to share this with the TUs on Thursday morning
Regards
Pauline
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
01 November 2013 13:16
To:
Jacky Joseph
Cc:
Frances Ann Kirby
Subject:
RE: Staff meetings + Final Workforce Plan
Attachments:
Psychology - Rationale 01.11.13.R1.docx
****Exempt
s.21****
Importance:
High
Hi
Jacky,
Fran
will sort out the staff meetings so that you can attend. I attach the
finalised workforce plan for dissemination after you’ve checked my
amendments. Please feel free to send this out to everyone who needs
it since I’ll now be in an ACAS workshop until 3.30 pm.
Thanks!
Linden
From:
Jacky Joseph
Sent:
01 November 2013 11:47
To:
Linden Ball
Subject:
Staff meetings
Hi
Linden,
I
have just checked my diary for next week and I will struggle next
Friday morning for a whole staff meeting as ****Exempt
s.40(2)**** I
am free after 2pm if that is convenient for you? On the following
Monday, at present I am free all morning.
Kind
regards
Jacky
Joseph
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
11 October 2013 19:33
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
RE: Psychology - Workforce Planning - Comms Statement
Thanks
Jacky. I'm very happy that you've sent this draft through to Dave and
Rod. I agree that Psychology is in quite a different position to the
other schools in that cost containment is not really a relevant
issue. I found that without mentioning the re-profiling element there
was little else to talk about that made much sense! Certainly our
staff will welcome clarity on the future staff profile for the School
so that they can see where things are heading. Anyway, I think you've
done the right things and we'll see what directorate make of it.
Thanks again for the helpful feedback.
Best
wishes,
Linden
________________________________
From:
Jacky Joseph
Sent:
11 October 2013 13:33
To:
Linden Ball
Subject:
RE: Psychology - Workforce Planning - Comms Statement
Hi
Linden,
Many
thanks for this. Apologies that I was not able to get back to you
before noon. ****Exempt
s.40(2)****
I
think your proposal reads well, my only caution would be around the
detailed discussion about the ****Exempt
s.43(2)**** and
the re-profiling element as I had asked other Deans to take this out
as this will not be done until phase 2. That being said, they are in
a different position to you in that they had costs to cut and
therefore needed to concentrate on this.
I
will therefore forward your proposal to Rod and Dave as it is and
effectively let them make the decision as to whether they are happy
for us to leave this in at this stage. Hope you are ok with this
approach.
Kind
regards
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
10 October 2013 14:38
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
Psychology - Workforce Planning - Comms Statement
Attachments:
Psychology - Draft Rationale 10.10.13.docx; School of Psychology -
****Exempt
s.21****
****Exempt
s.43(2)****
Hi
Jacky,
Please
find attached the rationale that I have drafted by way of a comms
statement to staff in Psychology re. proposed workforce changes. Many
of the heading in the template didn’t apply to Psychology because
of our fairly unique financial position, which centres around
business efficiencies and workforce re-shaping rather than
cost-containment per se. I think I’ve capture all that I need to
say in this statement and that the proposal is logical and coherent.
Do get back to me if you think otherwise or if you feel I have missed
something critical. Likewise, do say if I’ve extended beyond what I
need to say at any point. Thanks.
In
many ways this was very easy to write since I have a very clear
notion of what I’m proposing for the School. At the same time
things are slightly tricky in that I’m trying to explain some
non-trivial workforce re-profiling in the absence of significant
costs-savings requirements. Still, I’m hoping that on balance what
I’m proposing comes across clearly and makes sense.
If
you can feed back any comments before noon tomorrow I’ll be able to
deal with them whilst on the train to Euston. After noon I’ll be
out of email contact until I get home late evening.
****Exempt
s.43(2)****
Thanks
and best wishes,
Linden
Professor
Linden J Ball | Dean, School of Psychology
From:
Dawn Pinckard
Sent:
19 July 2013 12:04
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
RE: Confidential - Workforce plan
Attachments:
****Exempt
s.43(2)****
Hi
Jacky
I
have completed the table below for Psychology but included the cost
‘VARIANCE’ not the total cost as confirmed with Nichola (I attach
my workings in case you need the cost rather than just the variance).
Please note that the figures in the STF/TF column are all at TF
grade.
Prof
|
Reader
|
PL
|
SL/L
|
STF/TF
|
AL
|
SPH
|
Adjunct
|
Total
FTE
|
|
Current
|
All
content exempt s.43(2)
|
||||||||
Cost
|
|||||||||
Proposal
A
|
|||||||||
Cost
Variance
|
|||||||||
Proposal
B
|
|||||||||
Cost
Variance
|
|||||||||
Overall
Changes
|
*Proposal
B relates to the longer term plan for 2014/15 which includes the
****Exempt
s.43(2)**** through
the addition of 2 x L posts and equates to an overall cost increase
of £****Exempt
s.40(2)**** from
the current position.
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
15 July 2013 01:38
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
RE: CONFIDENTIAL: Workforce Planning
Attachments:
****Exempt
s.43(2)****
Categories:
*Urgent
Hi
Jacky,
****Exempt
s.40(2)**** On
the latter, many thanks for the excellent draft of the summary
staffing profile and the summary actions for Psychology. I've checked
through this and made a few minor amendments (see attached version).
In summary:
1.
Your split in our number of profs and readers was slightly wrong
(i.e., we have more readers and less profs than you noted - although
the combined numbers were right) so I've corrected this. The 'overall
changes' at the bottom of the table still tally up the same.
2.
I've been doing some planning around SL and STF numbers and thematic
roles in order to work out what the School needs to deliver its
thematic priorities. My thinking is that we would ****Exempt
s.43(2)****
3.
I think it would also be ideal to have ****Exempt
s.43(2)**** , but
what we need for this in terms of expertise in "learning
technologies" would almost certainly require an appointment from
outside of the existing workforce. I have reflected this in Action
Point 8. Note that ****Exempt
s.43(2)**** So,
this all works out okay. Everything else remains as you had it in
terms of roles and dates - and also assumptions re****Exempt
s.43(2)**** .
I've just re-worded a few things here and there in a very minor way.
I'll
now push on with drafting the one-page rationale for ****Exempt
s.43(2)**** and
will also do some further work on defining SL and STF roles for the
School (i.e., numbers and thematic leadership remits as well as the
attendant rationale). I'm nearly there with the latter, having had a
useful couple of hours with Andrew Churchill on Friday in which we
had a good think about what exactly the School requires. Essentially,
it seems like all the dots join up very effectively in terms of
having a coherent workface plan. I'm very pleased with the way things
are coming together.
With
best wishes,
Linden
From:
Jacky Joseph
Sent:
10 July 2013 13:30
To:
Linden Ball
Subject:
CONFIDENTIAL: Workforce Planning
Hi
Linden,
Following
our meeting yesterday I have drafted the attached which is the first
document that is required by next week. This is basically just a
summary of the staffing profile and summary actions. Would you mind
checking the information that I have included and amend or add
information where this is missing? I have made a couple of
assumptions including the number of Senior Teaching Fellows and also
some of the dates but feel free to amend these if you feel that this
are not right. I also made a couple of assumptions around the
****Exempt
s.43(2)**** bit.
Next
steps:
·
The performance review panel want this summary document asap
(preferably by the beginning of next week) and therefore as soon as
you are able to include this information please could you send it
back to me?
·
By the end of next week we also need to have prepared a brief summary
of the changes for the School, including the rationale for these
changes and this will be used as the basis for our consultations with
Unions and Employees in August.
·
We will also need a more detailed action plan, much of which will be
around the HR processes that will enable us to achieve these changes,
and we will use that attached summary document as the basis for this.
Please
do not hesitate to contact should you wish to discuss further. I am
here for the rest of the day and then back in on Monday.
Kind
regards
Jacky
Joseph
From:
Frances Ann Kirby
Sent:
11 June 2013 15:48
To:
David Andrew Phoenix; Roderick Paul Dubrow-Marshall; Deborah Karen
Reid; Dawn Pinckard; Jacky Joseph; Pauline Davies-taylor
Cc:
Linden Ball
Subject:
Performance Review Document for Psychology
Attachments:
****Exempt
s.40(2) and s.43(2)****
Dear
All,
Please
find attached the Psychology Workforce Planning document for
Thursday’s Performance Review.
Regards,
Frances
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
17 May 2013 11:56
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
RE: Workforce planning - School Data
Hi
Jacky,
Thanks
for this – and for yesterday’s email. I look forward to meeting
you next week to discuss the School’s workforce plan in light of
our key deliverables and priorities.
It’s
good that Dawn Pinckard can also come along to our scheduled meeting.
Are you okay if Andrew Churchill joins us as well? I’ve been
keeping Andrew updated on various issues relating to workforce
planning for the School as well as my own thinking around these
matters - and he is also very good at maintaining confidences. I feel
the meeting could benefit from his input when it comes to reflecting
on issues relating to the detailed delivery of courses and modules,
since he is much more in tune with operational level priorities than
I am.
Thanks
and best wishes,
Linden
From:
Jacky Joseph
Sent:
17 May 2013 11:46
To:
Linden Ball
Subject:
Workforce planning - School Data
Hi
Linden,
Further
to my email yesterday, and to support our workforce planning
discussions, please find attached the workforce data for your school.
If
you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind
regards
Jacky
Joseph
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
08 January 2013 01:52
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
Workforce Plan - Psychology - Updated
Attachments:
****Exempt
s.40(2) and s.43(2)****
Hi
Jacky,
****Exempt
s.40(2)**** ,
so I spent a couple of hours this evening correcting and updating a
few aspects of the Psychology Workforce Plan. If you could run with
the attached version for now that would be great. It remains a work
in progress since I keep thinking of further issues that need to be
dealt with and opportunities to capitalise upon!
Thanks
and best wishes,
Linden
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
07 January 2013 07:58
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
Draft Workforce Plan - School of Psychology
Attachments:
****Exempt
s.40(2) and s.43(2)****
Dear
Jacky,
Please
find attached my latest draft of the Workforce Plan for Psychology.
This is still a work-in-progress, with some sections still
incomplete, particularly ones toward the end of the pro forma. But at
least you will get a sense of the current context for Psychology and
the future directions for the School's planned development as well as
the associated workforce requirements. All feedback gratefully
received. In the meantime I'll finish off the sections that are
incomplete or in note-form.
With
best wishes,
Linden
From:
Linden Ball
Sent:
04 January 2013 15:27
To:
Jacky Joseph
Subject:
RE: URGENT: School Structures / Workforce Planning
Hi
Jacky,
Yes,
I've written an advanced draft of the Workforce Planning document,
but I'm on leave today and away from my computers! If I email to you
the draft this weekend you'll have it first thing on Monday - ahead
of the meeting with Dave.
I'd
certainly like to amend it in light feedback that I receive, but
hopefully the draft will provide a good summary of my current
thinking.
Thanks
and best issues,
Linden
From:
Jacky Joseph
Sent:
04 January 2013 14:47
To:
Linden Ball
Subject:
URGENT: School Structures / Workforce Planning
Hi
Linden,
Further
to my email below and our subsequent conversations I wondered if you
could let me know where you are up to in terms of your proposal? As I
understand, there is a meeting next week with Dave at which he wants
to see at least a draft document from all Deans.
I
know that you had the basis of a document when we last spoke and
therefore please could you send me what you have so far. If there is
further work that you wish to do on it, this is fine as there will be
a number of iterations and I can make a note that you wish to do some
further work on it.
Many
thanks
From:
Jacky Joseph
Sent:
22 November 2012 10:26
To:
Akintola Akintoye; Robert Roy Wallace; Linden Ball; Aidan Richard
Clive Worsley; Antony DEmanuele
Cc:
Nichola Swift
Subject:
URGENT: School Structures / Workforce Planning
Dear
All,
Further
to the SMT Away day that took place on Monday 12th November, we
understand that discussions took place about School structures. From
that you were advised that HRMs would be meeting with you in order to
assist with the development of your ideal structure for your school,
taking into consideration what it is your School needs to deliver
going forward in order to deal with the challenging times ahead. At
this stage, you are being asked to think radically about what this
structure would look like, without, for example, the current
constraints enforced by national agreements and our current grading
structures/role profiles.
In
order to assist with this process we have produced a set of prompts
(attached) which will provide direction in terms of the sort of
questions that you need to ask yourself when developing your vision.
I will obviously support you in this process and will be arranging
appropriate meetings over the next couple of weeks in order to get
these proposals developed. As part of that I will be questioning any
proposals that are put forward to ensure that we have considered the
prompts on the attached document and that we have also addressed any
key deliverables for your School.
Please
could you review this document prior to our meeting and give some
detailed thought to what your proposals would be as we will be
required to submit something quite soon.
Should
you wish to discuss in the interim please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Kind
regards
Jacky
Joseph
HR
Manager
University
of Central Lancashire
Tel:
01772 892335
Fax:
01772 892933
E-mail:
jjoseph@uclan.ac.uk<mailto:jjoseph@uclan.ac.uk>
