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.

BenchmarkUCU_21Nov2025-2

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,