911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ

Written copy of the JTU pay claim 2026/27 below (or download PDF: JTU Pay Claim 2026)

In previous years, the Joint Trades Unions have focused our pay claims on maintaining, at a minimum, the value of pay at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ since the University left national bargaining in 2005. We adopt the same approach this year.

Context

2025 Cost of living

In the figure below we show the update of the value of pay at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ compared to 2005, based on the estimated London CPIH at the end of 2024 using the established relationship between London CPIH and national CPIH between 2005 and 2024 (see appendix 1).

London CPIH continued to outpace national CPIH in 2024. Our estimate suggests that the additional cost of living in London had risen to 16.7% by the end of 2024, compared with 8.7% in 2008. The gap between national and London inflation is therefore not static but widening, nearly doubling over the past 20 years.

If the two plots above are combined, we see that the decline in real pay at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ can be explained by the failure to compensate for the additional costs of living in London. This is particularly noticeable in the past three years for which data has been recorded (2021-2024).

One of the stated reasons for moving to local pay bargaining was to enable 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ to reflect local circumstances in setting pay. In practice, that has not protected staff from the additional costs of working in London: the gap between London inflation and median pay at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ continues to grow.

Benchmarks

The University cited academic benchmarking data in justifying the imposed settlement. It is now accepted that a substantial part of those benchmark figures was miscalculated at the time of the last pay negotiations. It has also been accepted that the previous claim by the University Negotiating Team that the benchmarking targets reflected the recommendations of the 2018 Working Group led by Professor Nigel Brandon (and whose membership included the current Provost) was a misrepresentation. In fact, the Working Group recommended benchmarking the Academic, Research and Teaching job families against the upper quartile of our London Russell Group (LRG) comparators (UCL, Kings, LSE and Queen Mary), not the median.

We have little confidence in even the amended benchmarking figures. For example, we note that while every individual comparison of the latest benchmarking figures suggested 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ paid above the median of our LRG comparators, with by far the largest proportion of staff employed at a single institution, UCL, the latest published financial statements from UCL and 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ show that 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ’s median is 9.6% below UCL’s, a widening of the gap from 8.2% in 2024. It is therefore evident that the current benchmarking cannot provide confidence that 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ is paying even above the median salary of our individual London comparators.

One explanation for this discrepancy is that the benchmarking is not comparing like with like. For example, in the Research job family in 2025, at UCL by far the largest number of researchers were graded as Research Fellows (1501 FTE) rather than Research Associates (247 FTE), while at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ the opposite is the case with Research Fellows (201 FTE) much less numerous than Research Associates (1542 FTE). At UCL the PhD minimum is a Research Fellow point while at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ it is a Research Associate point. Hence comparing Research Associate and Research Fellow salaries would not provide an accurate comparison of relative salary levels.

There are further discrepancies in the benchmarking data, with data repeated identically across years and the PTO benchmarking showing wild fluctuations from year to year.

There is currently a review of benchmarking which will need to address all these issues, but currently management cannot have confidence that 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ is, or has been, even paying above the median salaries of our LRG comparators. Indeed, median staff pay at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ is currently nearly 10% less than at UCL.

Affordability

911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ should be in a unique position to respond to the unprecedented financial pressure that staff are currently suffering, with a loss in the value of pay not seen in the last twenty years.

University finances in 2025 were considerably stronger than had been presented during the previous round of negotiations, with cash flow from operating activities of £142m, well above the £80m figure cited a year ago. Indeed, a year ago, three key risks were presented to justify the real-terms pay cut for staff represented by University’s pay imposition of 2%.

1. Touted ‘low’ cash flow from operations: the real result turned out to be nearly twice as healthy as the figures given to us.
2. A potential decline in student recruitment: in fact, student numbers hit their target in the current year, in contrast to pessimistic predictions a year ago.
3. The cost of the proposed international fees levy. This turned out to be significantly lower than cited a year ago (£12m compared to £23m) and its implementation has been delayed compared to the scenario presented last year.

When viewed together, these developments call into question the financial assumptions used to justify last year’s settlement and suggest that 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ’s finances are healthy enough to offer staff some protection from the current crisis in the cost of living. Yet, far from shielding staff, the University shifted these unrealised risks onto them, cutting the real value of median pay by a further 1.4% in real terms.

We were also told that it was crucial that any surplus be reinvested in updating the University’s estate and improving facilities. Instead, the University has used its funds to purchase and invest a total of £150m in an industrial estate (Victoria Industrial Estate, formally launched in March 2026). The current tenants include commercial enterprises such as camera-rental agencies, luxury-goods packaging, financial services and media production, with little alignment to 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ’s core academic mission. It is concerning that the University has chosen to fund such a discretionary acquisition when it is cutting the real pay of the staff who should be seen as the key to delivering that mission.

Clearly other choices are possible, as UCL is currently demonstrating. Median pay at UCL has more than matched the increase in London CPIH since 2018, and the current cashflow is considerably higher both in absolute and per FTE terms at UCL, £251m in 2025 compared to £131m at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ, £17k per FTE compared to £15k per FTE at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ. There is clearly no contradiction between strong finances and protecting or indeed, in UCL’s case, increasing real median pay.

Claim

In the context of the value of pay at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ, affordability and staff concerns as revealed in the survey of our members, our claim has four core elements.

1. Pay Claim

Given both the long-term erosion of pay that staff at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ have suffered, and the healthy state of University finances, our pay claim is therefore a 9.2% pay increase, to restore the value of pay at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ to 2005 levels with a floor of £3000 to protect the lowest paid.

This is clearly affordable in terms of both current and anticipated College finances. Our pay claim is modest: It is striking that pay has fallen so far in real terms despite sustained increases in staff productivity, with student-staff ratios more than 20% higher than just 10 years ago and workloads rising commensurately. There is now an opportunity for those who work at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ to be properly compensated.

2. Annual Leave

911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ employees receive 25 days of annual leave, plus up to eight closure days, in addition to public holidays. While this exceeds the statutory minimum, in HE it is not generous as we pointed out last year.

In post-1992 universities, the vast majority of employees receive either 30 or 35 days of flexible annual leave in addition to closure days and public holidays; increasingly in pre-1992 universities, the norm emerging is for 30 days’ leave.

In London, King’s College, Queen Mary, SOAS, City St George’s, and UCL, as well as all post-1992 universities, provide more annual leave than 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ. This places 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ in the lower quartile among London pre-92 universities and close to the bottom decile if the sector as a whole is considered.

The Joint Trade Unions recognise that the number of closure days were increased last year from six or seven days per year to eight. Nonetheless, members of all three unions pointed out that this was not a substitute for an increase in annual leave and members agree with us.

Members of staff value the ability to choose when they may take leave, for a number of reasons. Those with children, for example, need to cover school or nursery holidays or to coordinate with friends and family members who have to take these into account. Others are forced to use annual leave for religious holidays. For those working on shifts or part-time contracts, depending on their working patterns and the days on which the public holidays fall, the provision of additional closure days may not in fact equate to any additional time off during the year.

The provision of a slight increase in closure days highlighted differences between 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ’s treatment of Christian and non-Christian religious observances: the additional day(s) are centred around Christian holidays (Christmas/New Year and Easter). There is no equivalent for those who wish to observe other holy days.

Christians do not need to use annual leave to celebrate their key holidays: Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others have to use annual leave.

The increase last year did not improve their position raising concerns under the Public Sector Equality Duty. Since religion and belief is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, there is also a real risk of discrimination here. It certainly was neither flexible nor equitable.

This lack of flexibility was noted by a good number of our members who remarked on the unfairness. An increase in the amount of annual leave would also offer a small mitigation for rising workloads.

As highlighted during previous negotiations, it is very unclear that increasing annual leave allowances would have substantial financial implications for the University. Indeed, the University Negotiating Team could not propose any robustly measurable costs associated with increased annual leave and recognised that financial consequences were unlikely except possibly in a very few specific areas such as security or reception duties.

On the other hand, a significant volume of relevant research over the past few years has indicated increased productivity at organisations where staff have higher levels of annual leave.

The Joint Trade Unions are therefore asking that annual leave increases from 25 days to 30 days as of 1 August 2026.

3. Paid Carer's Leave

Since April 2024, employees have had the statutory right to take up to one week’s carer’s leave in any calendar year to attend to the needs of a person (or people) dependent on them because of disability, illness, injury or old age. Leave may be taken in any multiple of half a day, up to a full working week, provided the correct notice is given.

While this flexibility is welcome to those with dependants, its utility has been severely curtailed by the absence of a statutory right to pay during this period. Most employees cannot afford to take carer’s leave, especially given the continuing effects of the cost-of-living crisis. This is particularly true in Greater London, where costs are so much higher. It also has a differential impact on women and older employees who are more likely to be responsible for dependants.

Offering only unpaid carers’ leave therefore has a potential impact on gender pay gaps and hits older workers harder.

Following the 2025-26 pay negotiations, a working group was established to explore special leave across Russell Group universities, with a view to measuring how 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ’s allocation compares. During this exercise, there were discrepancies around how much data was available and reported; however, what was clear was that many other Russell Group universities provide paid carers’ leave provision, while others allow for up to 15 days paid carers’ leave per year. Some offer both more potential leave and pay it in full. Indeed, where we have data, just over half appear to offer paid carer’s leave which puts 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ below the median.

The likely cost to 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ is limited. Most members of staff would have no reason to claim their full entitlement (in its first year of operation, members of staff took only 16 days’ carer’s leave in total across 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ) and making the leave paid would save on administration costs.

Improvements to carer’s leave are also popular with our members who recognise the stresses of carers’ responsibilities; knowing that leave was available would alleviate that stress somewhat even if the member of staff never took it. Its provision would demonstrate the exercise of 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ’s duty of care towards staff and specifically contribute to the proactive approach to stress outlined in the HSE Management Standards. Moreover, in the working groups, it was clear that it was not just members of the trades unions requesting this particular change to the carer’s leave allowance.

The joint trade unions are therefore asking:

• that the statutory minimum carer’s leave is extended to two weeks where needed and is paid in full;
• that the University advertises its availability to employees.

4. Parental Leave

It is well established that adequate leave in the period following birth supports parental bonding, infant welfare and family wellbeing. Thus the extension of ‘paternity / partner leave’ for partners of people giving birth or adopting a child from two weeks to four was welcome although its negation by cutting shared parental leave for partners was much less appreciated. Nonetheless, four weeks’ parental leave is very little, especially if some is saved for later.

Unfortunately, 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ College is not world-leading, nor even a national leader in British HE as far as parental leave is concerned: around half of Russell Group universities offer 26 weeks’ maternity leave on full pay with others offering between 18 and 26 weeks, placing 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ near the bottom of the comparison. As far as partner’s leave is concerned, the leaders provide 12 weeks’ paid leave.

The Joint Trade Unions are therefore asking:

• That ‘maternity / adoption’ pay be increased to 26 weeks fully paid to put 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ in the top half of these comparators.
• That paternity / partner leave is extended to 12 weeks, fully paid and made a day-one right in line with new legislation.

Summary

The Joint Trade Unions therefore ask for:

1. A 9.2% increase on all salaries, to restore the value of pay at 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ to its 2005 level with a floor of £3000 to protect the lowest paid;
2. An increase in annual leave from 25 to 30 days for all staff (pro rata);
3. An increase in maternity/adoption pay to 26 weeks on full pay;
4. An increase in paternity/partner leave to 12 weeks on full pay, as a day-one right;
5. An extension of carer’s leave to two weeks where needed, paid in full, together with clear communication of the entitlement to staff.

These measures are affordable and necessary to protect staff from the rising cost of living and working in London.

Last year’s pay round was profoundly disappointing both for JTU negotiators and for ordinary members. We look forward to proper negotiations this year and approach the meetings in the hope of reaching agreement.

Appendix

Source: 911½ñÈÕºÚÁÏ, ONS with projection by log-log regression, IC JTU