Lambeth College staff who went on a five-week strike earlier this year will vote on whether to take further industrial action after rejecting “improved” offers over contract changes.

University and College Union (UCU) members walked out indefinitely on June 3 in a dispute over new staff contracts introduced on April 1, which the UCU said would leave staff with longer working hours, less sick pay and less annual leave, before returning to work on July 9.

The UCU shelved a ballot for further strike action mid-voting three weeks ago to allow members to consider whether to accept “improved” offers from college bosses.

But these were rejected by 92 per cent of branch members who voted — although it is understood less than 55 per cent of UCU members who work at the college took part in the ballot.

A UCU spokesperson said a ballot asking members whether they supported further industrial action “up to and including indefinite strike action” would be launched today (November 3) and close on November 17.

He said: “The latest proposals tabled by the college were roundly rejected by an overwhelming majority of UCU members.

“Our members are dedicated to their learners and would much prefer to be teaching than thinking about further industrial action but [college principal] Mark Silverman needs to address what are clearly widely held objections within the college to the introduction of inferior contracts that creates a two tier workforce.”

The college offered a guarantee that staff taken on before April 1 would have stayed on the original contract until at least September 2017.

Alternatively, existing staff could have accepted a £1,500 “cash incentive” to transfer to the new contract by September 2016.

Both options were dependent on staff agreeing to work an extra hour per week from September — increasing their overall annual working hours from 828 to 864.

Mr Silverman said: “It’s extremely disappointing that UCU has rejected what we offered.

“We should remember that this dispute is about a new contract for new staff. The new contract does not need to apply to staff employed by the college before April 1.

“It was UCU that said there needed to be a single contract [for old and new staff]. We made what I think was a very reasonable offer to move towards that, which was rejected.

“We are working on a plan to deal with any possible strike action, but haven’t got to the stage yet of knowing how many staff will be on strike or when it will take place, so it is too early to talk about specific measures.”

The college was slapped with an Ofsted grade four rating in 2012 but worked its way up to a grade three last year.

 

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 Comments

  1. Voice of reason

    How unforgivable for these teachers to put their learners through this again. I assume on my walk to work past the college each day I can expect to be pestered by the Socialist Worker Party.

    • @Voice of reason: Yes, those unforgivable teachers are not agreeing to even worse working conditions than ones they have now. The thing is those new contracts don’t save the college much/any money (how many people will go on sick pay for a year? Only those who really need it), but they put more pressure on the teachers. On top of that it creates a two-tier workforce.
      Yes, it may affect the learners, but in the long run having overworked teachers will affect the learners even more.

      • Voice if reason

        Teacher; the contract has been in place since April 2014 and you already have a two tier system as all teachers are on different salaries depending on scale. If the change in full pay for sickness goes from 6 months to 4(?) it won’t matter because teachers don’t go sick for that long (according to you) … Why is it an issue then?

        Your last paragraph stinks ” yes it may affect learners” . You are in the wrong profession

        • Teacher

          Voice of reason: Yes, but your pay was related to your scale and that increases yearly. Working in the college for 1 year you can’t expect to be paid same as those who’ve worked 10 years in the place. New contract means that some staff will have more favourable terms of employment (like longer holiday) than others.
          If the change in sick pay doesn’t save any money (or saves very little) why change it?
          Can you elaborate? Do you mean that teaching 35 hours a week (and some teachers do that) is a good thing for both teachers and learners?

          • Voice of reason

            You are not bring asked to teach 35 hours a week are you? I have looked carefully at what is being asked.

            You are being asked to teach 24 hours a week and then have 12 hours for marking and admin.

            You have not considered your case carefully enough: a new teacher may be more experienced than a teacher in Lambeth for 10 years. They have just not worked in the same job. Everyone in a workplace is on a different scale wherever they work ( from Asda to Harrods)

            No teachers TEACH 35 hours a week. You know it, mr and Ms average knows it. Please don’t insult those who are less educated than you but not unintelligent. You don’t have societies support. . No one feels your pain. Except it

  2. Voice of reason

    Of course changing the sick pay saves money. The long term “stress related” teacher sickies will now return after 4 months instead of 6 months.

    At 40k per year , per teacher that’s saving a fortune because apparently the job is so stressful compared to other professions. I know this because it is stated often enough in these comments pages!!

    And before you protest too much about the salary : as an educated teacher you will know that this salary is the cost to the employer including the very generous teacher pension contributions made by your employer. No one is suggesting this is net pay