Imperial UCU response to the President’s message on pay, benchmarks & student numbers

Posted on by

Many colleagues will have seen President Hugh Brady’s all-staff email this afternoon. It is important we address it openly and accurately. The timing is itself noteworthy. Messages like this are not sent when management believe they can simply ignore an issue. They are sent when pressure is rising and concerns are being raised internally. Our action is having visible impact — this response demonstrates it.

Below, we unpick the key claims.

1. The 4.5% increase in salary costs is fully explained by normal, predictable factors

The President cites a 4.5% increase in salary costs. This is entirely accounted for by:

  • the imposed 2% pay settlement,

  • a 1.6% increase in staffing, and

  • the portion of the 1.2% NI rise that falls into this year.

His reference to increments and other routine salary movements is misdirection: these happen every year and do not meaningfully change the pay bill.

2. His email inadvertently confirms a major increase in overseas student numbers — and therefore resources

The email also unintentionally reveals that the College is expecting a very large increase in overseas student numbers, the largest in many years. This directly contradicts earlier claims that overseas enrolments could collapse and destabilise the College’s finances.

A large rise in students brings two consequences:

  • workloads that far exceed the 1.6% increase in staffing, and

  • a very substantial increase in fee income.

The President estimates the levy cost will be £12m. At £925 per student (after the first 220 exempt), this corresponds to 12,700–13,700 overseas students, compared with just over 12,000 last year.

3. Management used incompatible financial scenarios during negotiations

During negotiations we were repeatedly warned that there was a risk of a fall in overseas enrolment due to geopolitical and market factors. That risk was real — no one disputes that. However, the College presented it as if a sharp downturn were the most likely scenario, when they were simultaneously relying on internal modelling that assumed a substantial increase in overseas numbers to generate their projected £27m levy cost.

In other words, management were advancing two incompatible scenarios to justify financial risk:

  • a scenario of rising overseas numbers (to produce a large notional £27m levy cost), and

  • a scenario of falling overseas numbers (to argue pay rises were unaffordable).

Both scenarios cannot underpin the same argument at the same time. The issue is not whether risk existed — it is the inconsistency with which that risk was deployed.

4. Actual 2025 enrolment figures now show strong growth far above College’s own targets

We now have the College’s own dashboard data for 2025 enrolment (finalised in December, with only minor expected changes):

  • 13,322 overseas students — over 10% growth, the largest rise since the pandemic

  • 11,264 home students — first increase in five years

  • Total students up 6% — well above the 3.5% growth target cited during negotiations

5. What this means financially

Using conservative assumptions, we estimate:

  • fees have risen by around 50% over five years, and

  • by ~14% in the past year, roughly £70m new income.

Yet College proposes to offer staff only ~£13m, amounting to a real-terms pay cut.

Meanwhile workloads are rising sharply. A 1.6% staffing increase cannot absorb a 6% increase in students. Teaching quality will inevitably be affected.

6. Benchmarkgate: the credibility problems remain unresolved

We are surprised the President chose to highlight “flaws” in the benchmarks, because even the “corrected” figures remain deeply compromised:

  • impossible quartile relationships,

  • internal inconsistencies,

  • and explanations that rely on misunderstandings of basic statistics
    (e.g. claiming that “a few” outliers could shift a quartile — which is impossible).

The President’s reference to a “median-to-upper-quartile pay principle” is also a misrepresentation of the 2018 Pay & Benefits Review. No such principle exists in it.

Rather than inviting unions to a review in 2026, leadership needs to acknowledge the present failures and provide validated data now. This year’s pay settlement relied on a dataset that senior management now concede was flawed.

7. The cracks in management’s position are widening

Across the term we have seen:

  • miscalculated benchmarks,

  • failures of governance in rewriting pay principles,

  • incompatible financial narratives used in negotiations,

  • and now a large, welcome surge in overseas enrolments which shows clearly that resources are available.

It is clear the College can afford a fair settlement.

8. The next two weeks will be decisive

We now enter two weeks of targeted, strategic teaching-only action. This is designed to apply pressure at the moment management care most about teaching delivery.

If we maintain unity and determination, we can secure a fair and sustainable settlement based on evidence, transparency and respect.

The alternative — accepting a real-terms pay cut and heavier workloads at a moment when it is now undeniable that the College has the resources to support staff properly — is simply not an option.

Compensation for missed teaching

Posted on by

Request compensation for disrupted teaching or learning

If your teaching or learning has been disrupted because of industrial action, you have the right to request financial compensation.

You can use this quick form to contact the Provost directly:

imperial-compensation.pages.dev

It takes less than a minute.

What you can request compensation for

Under Office for Students (OfS) guidance, compensation applies to any significant disruption, not just fully cancelled classes.
You can request compensation for any of the following:

1. Missed teaching

  • Lectures, labs, classes, seminars, workshops, or tutorials that did not take place.
  • Cancelled supervisions or office hours.

2. Reduced teaching quality

  • A session taught by a cover lecturer instead of the module lead or specialist.
  • Teaching that was rushed, shortened, or delivered without the normal level of explanation or support.
  • Missing lecture recordings, slides, or notes due to industrial action.

3. Inadequately staffed sessions

  • Labs or practicals run with fewer demonstrators or supervisors than normal.
  • Classes where the usual opportunities for questions, feedback, or guidance were absent.

4. Loss of support or continuity

  • Delayed or cancelled tutorials, feedback sessions, or project meetings.
  • A change in teacher that disrupted continuity or reduced the level of support.

5. Any impact on the academic experience you were promised

If the quality, consistency, or delivery of your programme has fallen below what Imperial advertised, you can cite this in your request.

Poster with QR code directing to compensation form

Resource for staff to download and use in their own communications with students.

Joint Trade Unions demand transparency over Imperial’s pay benchmarking

Posted on by

In brief (if you don’t have much time)

The Imperial Joint Trade Unions (JTU) have written to the University Negotiating Team (UNT) to raise serious concerns about the College’s handling of the 2018 Pay Benchmarking Working Group recommendations, the lack of transparency in its pay strategy, and the wider pay dispute that has led to strike action this term.

In 2018, staff were told their views would help shape principles for fair pay. The Working Group that followed recommended that pay for academic, research and teaching staff be benchmarked to the upper quartile of national comparators and the median of international comparators. These recommendations, informed by a wide staff consultation, were never shared with staff and have since been quietly ignored.

Instead, the College has adopted a weaker “median to upper quartile” position, reducing pay benchmarks and the value of salaries relative to comparator institutions. The JTU’s letter highlights contradictions and misinformation in the College’s account of events and makes two formal requests:

  1. An independent external investigation into how and why the 2018 recommendations were set aside; and
  2. An immediate return to negotiations with a significantly improved pay offer.

These demands form part of the JTU’s wider call for a fair settlement in the current Imperial pay dispute. The College has not yet responded to either request.

Read on for a deeper dive

In 2018, the then President launched a review to ensure that salaries were “commensurate with our position as a world-leading institution.” Staff were invited to contribute, and the Pay Benchmarking Working Group—chaired by Professor Nigel Brandon—was established to guide the process. The Working Group concluded that pay should be benchmarked to the upper quartile of national comparators and the median of international comparators. These principles were designed to keep Imperial’s pay competitive and to demonstrate respect for staff contributions.

However, the recommendations were never disclosed to staff, and management has since claimed—falsely—that its current approach is “consistent” with the 2018 principles. After being challenged by the unions, senior management admitted that only some principles had been adopted, with Professor Brandon claiming the Provost’s Board had decided in July 2021 not to implement the recommendations in full. When asked for evidence, he deferred to the College’s lead on pay, Audrey Fraser, who asserted instead that the decision was taken in April 2021.

The cited Board summary does not support either account; it simply records approval to continue and expand benchmarking work, not to weaken the standards. Likewise, a July 2021 statement from the then Provost reaffirmed the use of international benchmarks, entirely consistent with the 2018 principles. Despite multiple requests, no formal record of any decision to disregard the Working Group’s recommendations has been provided.

Errors, contradictions, and credibility

The JTU has also raised concerns about major errors in calculating the College’s median benchmark, which overstated Imperial’s relative pay levels by up to 35%. These flawed figures were used to justify cutting real pay, with this year’s 2% imposed increase falling far below inflation.

The Provost told Heads of Department that the benchmarking error “has not materially affected our position,” while the President told Felix that the data was “not so flawed that it would change our offer.” These statements confirm that no corrective action will be taken as long as pay remains above the median—a stance that treats further erosion down to that level as “immaterial.”

Why this matters

The JTU believes these failures reveal a serious breakdown of governance, transparency, and integrity. The 2018 consultation was presented as a genuine effort to rebuild trust; instead, staff input has been disregarded while the College continues to prioritise major infrastructure and capital projects over addressing the long-term erosion of staff pay.

These issues are not separate from the ongoing pay dispute: they are central to it. The erosion of pay, the refusal to negotiate meaningfully, and the lack of accountability over pay benchmarking all form part of the same pattern.

Consultation must be meaningful, governance must be accountable, and staff deserve pay that reflects their contribution to Imperial’s success. Misleading accounts and professions of concern are no substitute for material action. 

For more information about the ongoing Imperial pay dispute and recent strike action,

Imperial College Management… get your numbers right!

Posted on by

Imperial college management have consistently justified imposing a below inflation pay award by citing benchmarks. Last week, prompted by JTU questions, senior management admitted they had massively exaggerated our standing in these benchmarks, having not noticed an error of over 30% in some categories (see figure below) when they made their offer.

What has been revealed is a steady decline in the relative pay of Imperial Staff, whereas in 2018 Imperial staff were paid on average 18% better than our London competitors, this is now below 4%. Despite being under similar pressures, other London institutions have been able to close the gap – unlike Imperial, they have prioritised protecting the value of staff pay!

The JTU have now done further digging, and have looked into the PTO job family pay scales. It looks like the benchmarking management have been using here is also highly questionable. This time, it’s not because of a calculation error, but rather that management have chosen an inconsistent comparison set, ignoring the London Russell group. In fact, it’s impossible to verify if their calculation is even plausible.

However, we can make such a comparison of the average PTO salaries between Imperial and the London Russell group: HESA produce a dataset that allows such a calculation for non-academics and this shows we have been paying less, on average, for recent years:

If management were serious about rewarding staff according to their ambitions for Imperial, they should request a direct grade-by-grade comparison from UCEA, as they have for academics (though this time they should carefully check UCEA’s working). Relying instead on an obscure, and indirect, benchmark means they are simply ignoring whether they can attract the best staff compared to the rest of the London Russell group.

The JTU have urgently requested a return to negotiations, particularly in the light of these shortcomings. Management have so far to refused to negotiate, claiming that the errors are “immaterial”. In response, we suggest basing a pay offer on wildly inaccurate or indirect benchmarks is neither in the best interests of staff nor the longer-term interests of College’s ambitions. Until management address the shortcomings of the basis of their offer, we are left with little choice but to go on strike.

Our first day of action saw record numbers at the picket lines. It’s therefore clear that staff at Imperial do not have such a cavalier attitude to data as our management. Indeed, Imperial would hardly have the world ranking it currently enjoys if we followed management’s lead.

Let’s make tomorrow even bigger!

The 2025-26 pay dispute and industrial action

Posted on by

Why We’re Striking

Staff at Imperial College London have given everything in recent years — teaching record numbers of students, producing world-class research, and keeping this university running through a pandemic and beyond.

Yet while management praises our efforts, they have imposed a real-terms pay cut which now amounts to 9% since 2018, alongside increasing workloads and rising student:staff ratios.

We have tried talking. We have presented the facts. We have offered reasonable solutions.

Management’s response? Impose a below-inflation 2% pay rise and reject meaningful negotiations.

We cannot and will not accept this. We are taking strike action on the following dates:

7–8 October | 27–28 October | 13–14 November | 25–28 November

We do not want to strike. But we cannot be expected to work more while we see the value of our pay further eroded.

What We Asked For

The Joint Trade Union (JTU – UCU, UNISON & Unite) pay claim is simple:

  • Pay: 7.2% uplift on all salaries (which would have restored real-terms pay to 2018 levels) plus a £2,000 lump sum to offset income lost through years of sub-inflation increases.
  • Leave and wellbeing: 30 days annual leave (in line with other universities), 2 weeks paid carers’ leave, and a working group on moving to a 4-day working week.

These are modest, affordable, and fair claims we are willing to negotiate.

Our pay claim in full is here.

What Management Has Imposed

  • 2% pay rise — less than half the rate of inflation.
  • A small increase in paternity leave, taken from shared parental leave.
  • 1–2 extra College closure days per year, with no increase in flexible annual leave.

There were supposed to be negotiations with the unions on this, but management refused to even discuss their offer.

The full management pay award, imposed from 1/8/25 is here.

Why Imperial Can Afford a Fair Deal

Imperial is one of the wealthiest universities in the UK, not only in assets, but most importantly in terms of its operations.

  • More than £2 billion in net assets, gaining more than £250 million in the last accounting period.
  • £81 million cash flow from operations last year, up £25 million.
  • £55 million increase in teaching income in 2024 alone — more than enough to fund our entire claim
  • Staff costs falling as a share of income, even as workloads rise

Imperial’s finances are healthy. There is no excuse for cutting staff pay in real terms.

The JTU response to the pay award is well worth reading, and is here.

National vs. Local Pay Bargaining — What’s the Difference?

Most UK universities take part in national pay bargaining, where pay scales are negotiated centrally between unions and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA).

Imperial left this system in 2005, meaning our pay is set through local bargaining — direct negotiations between Imperial’s management and its trade unions.

This is why our dispute is local. But our fight is part of a wider national picture, with staff across the country rejecting below-inflation pay offers.

We Are Not Alone

  • Universities across the UK are in dispute over pay
  • NHS doctors, teachers, and transport workers are also fighting falling real-terms pay
  • Staff everywhere are saying: enough is enough

What You Can Do to Support Striking Staff

If you are a member of staff

  • Join the union if you haven’t already – you can join UCU here, and then:
  • Join the strike action!
  • Respect the picket lines — do not cross the picket lines
  • Do not cover for striking colleagues, nor let managers know about your intentions in advance
  • Attend rallies, speak up in meetings, and help spread the word

If you are a student

  • Talk to your lecturers — ask about the strike and why it matters
  • Write to College management demanding fair pay for staff
  • Share messages of support on social media and with the Student Union
  • Persuade your colleagues to vote for a motion of support

If you are a member of the public

  • Share our story online and in your networks
  • Write to your MP about funding and pay in Higher Education
  • Donate to strike funds to support those losing pay while fighting for fairness

Together We Win

We have been patient. We have been reasonable. Management has left us no choice.

We deserve pay that keeps up with the cost of living, workloads that are manageable, and conditions that respect staff and students alike.

We will keep fighting until Imperial comes back with a realistic, fair offer. 

Request regarding university investments

Posted on by

Imperial UCU letter to the President, sent 17/1/25, and the response from the Provost, received 14/2/25:

—–

Dear Professor Brady,

Imperial College UCU branch are writing to you on behalf of UCU members to request greater transparency regarding the University’s investment and research partnerships. Specifically, we seek a full disclosure of any investments in, and links with, companies that engage in trade with Israel, and a review of the University’s position regarding these relationships.

It has been noted that Imperial College has both direct and indirect holdings in companies involved in supplying the Israeli military. Evidence suggest that direct holdings account for approximately 26% of the total value of all direct investments, spanning 17 companies. This has raised concerns among some stakeholders regarding the ethical implications of these investments, particularly considering rulings and statements made by international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Furthermore, information obtained through a Freedom of Information request indicates that Imperial College has received research funding totalling over £7 million over the past five years from companies such as BAE Systems, Caterpillar, and Rolls Royce—organisations which have been reported to supply arms and military equipment to Israel. This raises questions regarding the alignment of such partnerships with the UN Principles of Responsible Research and the University’s broader ethical commitments.

We understand that University representatives have participated in meetings with concerned students to discuss these issues. At a recent ‘Investment Forum’ facilitated by the Student Union,  Provost Ian Walmsley stated that the University “does not comment on geopolitical events”, despite emailing all Imperial College students in March 2022 to explicitly condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In response to questioning, neither the Provost nor the other senior management representative, Robert Kerse, were able to explain how the above investments and funding arrangements align with international human rights frameworks and responsible research principles, so clarity is still sought on these matters.

In a recent statement dated 20 June 2024, United Nations experts called for an immediate cessation of arms transfers to Israel, citing potential violations of international human rights and humanitarian laws. The statement also urged arms manufacturers, including BAE Systems, Caterpillar, and Rolls Royce, to review and halt such transfers, even under existing licenses, to mitigate any risk of complicity in international crimes.

Given the significance and urgency of these concerns, we kindly request that the University provides a comprehensive response addressing the following points:

  1. A full disclosure of the University’s investments in companies trading with Israel.
  2. An explanation of how these investments and research partnerships align with the University’s ethical policies and the UN Principles of Responsible Research.
  3. Any steps the University plans to take in light of the recent UN statement and evolving international legal frameworks.

We trust that you will treat this matter with the seriousness it warrants and look forward to receiving your response at your earliest convenience.

Regards,

                   Imperial UCU

—–

Dear Imperial UCU 

Many thanks for your email to Professor Brady, below.

Our ‘engage for change’ strategy is central to our overall approach to investment, seeking to drive societal benefit in a positive direction by aligning our strengths in research, teaching and innovation with our investment practices in a coherent way in order to maximise impact. Through this, we actively contribute to tackling critical environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) challenges. By engaging with companies, we are aiming to influence change that will have a positive impact on companies and on the planet.

All investments via the Endowment are made in accordance with our domestic and international legal obligations, as well as the policies and procedures that govern the activities of the university, such as our Council’s Investment Strategy and our Socially Responsible Investment Policy. Additionally, our Relationships Policy establishes the governance framework that is applied to all of Imperial’s third-party relationships. The Relationships Policy includes an established process for consideration of relationships and an escalation procedure to the Relationships Review Committee for proposed (or existing) relationships including decisions about relationships concerning Specially Designated Fields of research, sensitive counterparties and countries.

We review and publish our full fund holdings on a quarterly basis. Where a specific investment is identified to be non-compliant with current policy, we engage with our investment managers and investment consultants to address the concern.

Imperial is also a signatory of the UN Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI), which were developed by an international group of institutional investors reflecting the increasing relevance of ESG issues to investment practices. The majority of the Endowment is managed by external investment managers, who are also PRI signatories and are instructed to apply screening and monitoring processes in line with the university’s regulations.  As a founding member of the Responsible Investment Network for Universities via ShareAction, we work with like-minded investors to amplify our efforts.

We value hearing the views of our community and continue to welcome opportunities and channels for engagement. For example, ICU recently organised a forum for the student community at which our students were able to raise issues concerning our investment policy directly with the Provost and Chief Operating Officer. We intend to work with ICU officers on future fora, while the regular In Conversation and Professional Services fora provide opportunities for staff to raise their questions with the President and other members of UMB.

All best wishes,

Ian

Ian Walmsley CBE FRS

Provost

Chair in Experimental Physics

Imperial College London

Imperial College 2024-25 pay offer ACCEPTED and pay disputes concluded

Posted on by
On 4/4/24 we were able to inform Imperial UCU members that the members of all three Imperial College affiliated trade unions voted to ACCEPT the College pay award for 2024-25.
The Joint Trade Union (JTU) pay negotiation team informed College management that the pay award has been accepted by the unions, and that this has formally ended the trade dispute over pay that has been running for approximately 3 years.
While this is good news, it is not without several caveats. We include below the full acceptance email sent to the College Negotiating Team (CNT) on the matter, where we also provide them with the principal features of the membership free text survey responses that outline membership sentiment and recognised shortcomings in the offer.
Regarding UCU members free text survey responses we have read and appreciated all of them, and will address every aspect in good time. For now we would just like to thank everyone who provided a response, and add that we especially appreciate the numerous expressions of gratitude and support that came in.

—–

Acceptance email to College management on the 2024-25 pay award

From:
Sent: 04 April 2024 18:26
To:
Subject: JTU response to the full & final pay offer 2024-25

Dear College Negotiating Team,

The JTU pay negotiation team are happy to report that members of all three trade unions have voted to ACCEPT the College’s “full & final pay offer” for 2024-25. We therefore:

(a) Accept the 2024-25 Imperial College pay offer, as detailed in emails exchanged on 14/3/24 and outlined on the College webpage and

(b) Formally end the long-running trade disputes over pay between all three trade unions and Imperial College.

We also feel it important to provide you with insights into the full range of views expressed. Each union provided members with the option of adding a comment alongside their vote on whether to accept or reject the pay offer. Each union received several constructive and useful comments; we provide a summary of the principal features of the comments that we think it is useful for the CNT to bear in mind:

The primary feature was that many members of all three unions took the time to express gratitude to the JTU side of the pay negotiations specifically, citing the difficulty of the role in the face of negotiating with the CNT in pay negotiations previously.

There were also a significant number of comments expressing dissatisfaction with the magnitude of the pay offer, noting that while it goes some way to restoring the spending power of College salaries after the pay cuts caused by high inflation over the last few years, it does not go far enough, and that the College could easily afford more, should it wish to. There were pointed remarks about the fact that only a small proportion of the USS savings were going to staff.

Two features of the pay offer were subject to extensive negative criticism:

(i) The “top up” for those above the £120K threshold was noticed by several members who expressed strong resentment that there should be what is perceived to be an enhanced financial protection for super-earners.

(ii) The CNT tactic from the 2023-24 pay negotiations of providing an offer of a £500 one-off payment which would be (and was) subsequently removed when the pay offer wasn’t accepted has clearly caused deep resentment. Members have variously and severally brought this up, referring to it as a “bribe”, a “threat”, and “act of blackmail”. Although not exactly the same, the explicit threat to withdraw the £1,000 consolidated payment was seen by many members as similar. Some stated they have rejected the offer on principle on this basis. You will recall our lengthy dialogues over this very point; the JTU would like to avoid this condition featuring in the future.