Last week, the branch notified MMU management of a formal failure to agree on Academic Career Pathways (ACPs) on the basis that in its current form, the ACP framework remains unreasonable, unsafe, and discriminatory. Further detail on the content of the failure to agree is below.

Earlier this year we heard from almost 300 of you in the Pathways and Workload Consultation survey. The survey asked whether you supported the branch moving to a formal failure to agree with management. There was resounding support for this with 91% voting to escalate.

What the notification of the failure to agree means in the first instance is that we will look to move to more formal, structured and timebound talks to try and reach a suitable resolution and agreement. We will be joined in these talks by our UCU Regional Official.

This is a hugely important step for the branch as it is the first failure to agree in many years. It shows the strength of feeling and significance of the Academic Career Pathways and the impact they are having on you and your jobs. It reflects the increasing body of evidence we have collected through your contributions, experiences, and support we provide through a growing amount of casework. Evidence that also appears to have been prevalent in the EVS results too.

To support this escalation and make it successful, you need to get involved to help build around the ACPs. You can do this by:

• continuing to share with the branch what is happening and what you are being told about the ACPs
• coming along to branch and other related meetings
• offering up specialist skills and expertise e.g. on communications, design, journalism
• joining the ACPs Dispute Committee
• speaking to others about the failure to agree and encourage them to get involved too

We will keep you updated as things progress and if you want to get more involved and/or share examples, get in touch with the branch: ucu@mmu.ac.uk

Outline of Failure to Agree

Despite repeated efforts to resolve concerns through established procedures, management has not addressed the significant risks and impacts identified by UCU. The ACP framework, in its current form, remains unreasonable, unsafe, and discriminatory.

Areas of concerns include as follows:

• Workload models and tariffs that are inaccurate, untested, and lead to excessive workloads.
• Restricted promotion and progression routes, including exclusion of key staff groups and unclear, inconsistent criteria.
• Unreasonable objectives and performance expectations, including risks arising from limited transfer opportunities across pathways.
• Overly narrow and inflexible pathway structures, resulting in deskilling, reduced mobility, and under‑utilisation of staff expertise.

The union therefore considers that the ACPs, as currently designed and implemented, are not operationally viable and have been introduced without adequate mitigation, consultation, or assessment.

To move towards resolution and avoid escalation through formal disputes procedures, the union requires the following actions:

1. An immediate pause on any further implementation or roll‑out of the Academic Career Pathways including a pause on capability and performance management processes linked to the Academic Career Pathways.
2. Meaningful and time‑bound negotiations with recognised union representatives to develop a revised framework that is safe, equitable, and workable.
3. Full transparency and access to all relevant documentation, assessments, and data necessary to support good‑faith negotiations.