LSE UCU Successfully Negotiates Changes to the Academic Annex

On 12 October 2026, after more than two years of intensive negotiation, LSE UCU reached an agreement with senior management on changes to the LSE Academic Annex. The negotiated result strengthens employment protections for academic staff. The new Annex and related documents were endorsed in a unanimous vote of LSE UCU branch members, and were accepted by the LSE Academic Board on 11 November 2026. Here is our summary of these changes.

Background

The Academic Annex is the local version of the “Model Statute” that was inserted into LSE’s Articles of Association in 1993 under the Education Reform Act 1988. It covers redundancy, disciplinary, capability, appeals and grievance procedures for academic staff. By inserting provisions on redundancy and “good cause” dismissals into universities’ governing documents, the legislation abolished tenure in the UK while installing safeguards against arbitrary use of new powers to dismiss academic staff. In 1994, the School adopted byelaws to elaborate the Academic Annex procedures and incorporated them into employment contracts, following agreement by the Joint Negotiating and Consultative Committee (JNCC). UCU has always taken a strong interest in protecting these procedures from changes that might weaken their safeguards.

The Annex originally covered Lecturers, Senior Lecturers, Readers, Professors, Research Officers, and Research Fellows directly. It covered certain other academic staff through contractual terms and conditions. Since July 2022, the Annex, via the Articles of Association, has directly covered staff on the New Research Staff Career (NRSC) track, Education Career Track (ECT), Policy Fellow Career Track, and New Academic Career (NAC) track. However, the Annex and byelaws have not been amended since their adoption.

Both the School and Union have long agreed that certain updates are needed, but we have differed strongly on several key points. Negotiations were started, stopped and restarted numerous times over twenty years, reaching an impasse each time. With fresh determination, both sides agreed to try again in September 2024 and have met monthly (or more) since then. We are happy to report that we concluded an agreement on 12 October 2026.

Academic Board adopted three resolutions in December 2024, expressing to Council its view that any proposed changes should align with the following points:

• The role of Academic Board nominees and independent members of Council in Annex procedures provides important safeguards of academic freedom.
• The equal standing, treatment and protections of the different staff categories covered by the Annex should be protected as a matter of justice and fairness.
• Academic Board should have full sight of proposed amendments to the Academic Annex before these are considered at the relevant meeting of Council.

While UCU negotiates for its members – as distinct from, but overlapping with a significant share of, Academic Board membership – we are confident we have achieved an outcome consistent with these resolutions.

Explanation of Key Changes

Coverage

Firstly, all staff currently covered by the Academic Annex will continue to be covered and will retain equal standing under the revised version. The revised paragraph 3(1) incorporates the extant article 14.3 in the Articles of Association. This outcome is consistent with the Board’s resolution from 2024. We have also retained all additional rights for staff who were previously awarded the status of Appointed Teacher of the University of London.

There are several changes in the initial paragraphs of the Annex. Some timescales in procedures have been elongated or clarified; others have been shortened. We have ensured they can be varied to accommodate extenuating circumstances. We have also agreed on tightening language that could justify good cause dismissals in paragraph 5, strengthening academic freedom safeguards.

Amendment on redundancy and good cause dismissals

An important change is in paragraph 7(2). Without this amendment, redundancy and good cause (i.e. capability or conduct) dismissals are formally possible only via procedures in the Annex. For example, the School is not at liberty to offer a voluntary redundancy scheme, and UCU could not negotiate one to avoid compulsory redundancies, such as in the event of the closure of a Department.

This amendment creates the possibility for dismissal on these grounds outside Annex procedures, but only where a collective agreement has been negotiated with UCU, signed by the branch chair, UCU Regional Official and Chair of Council or their delegate, and ratified by the UCU branch. This ensures managers cannot easily dismiss academic staff, while creating an opportunity for formal, written agreements to be made that could be beneficial for staff. This will become the case for research and policy staff, as outlined in the next section. We believe the arrangement is to the benefit of all parties, retaining the structural integrity and staff coverage of the Annex while potentially providing more options for staff who face a sometimes inevitable-seeming dismissal.

Role of the Chair of Council and Relevant Expertise

In order to reach agreement on retaining a single Annex redundancy procedure for all four academic staff groups, we have agreed that the Chair of Council may act unilaterally as the appropriate body (instead of Council as a whole) for decisions in Part II, except where redundancies relate to the closure, merger, or restructuring of a Centre, Department, Institute, or similar unit of the School.

This creates a process the School and Union think is reasonable for managing redundancies while ensuring the equal standing of research and policy staff. We do not consider this a significant change or weakening of protections for any other group of academic staff. Council retains the power to reverse any decision taken by the Chair, who must report their decision to Council as soon as possible. Staff and student members of Council retain their ability to rally a ‘veto’ on redundancies; the main difference in practice is that they may exercise it ex post after the redundancy process commences, rather than deliberating ex ante.

By retaining the requirement for Council first to deliberate where proposed redundancies relate to a restructure, closure or merger of a unit, we believe the situation will not change for the majority of staff. The Chair could generally only exercise this power in relation to certain research and policy staff because proposals on NAC and ECT redundancies, and redundancies of larger groups of research and policy staff, would be difficult to justify in circumstances other than a restructure, closure, or merger.

The role of Council will shift in relation to other Annex procedures, but in all cases responsibility still rests with Council. We believe this is consistent with AB’s first resolution from 2024. The revised Annex retains requirements for independent external participants in Annex procedures, but they would not need to be Council members. UCU has come to accept that Council members wish to be relieved of the obligation to participate in the practical implementation of these procedures. We prioritised retaining the independence of participants in the bodies formed for Annex procedures, while ensuring responsibility remains with Council. The Annex retains an option for Council members to participate, if they are willing, and we have agreed a new ‘Process for Managing Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Behaviour’ policy, incorporated in the Annex byelaws by reference, in relation to external participants.

We believe this is an opportunity to ensure that appropriate expertise is available, whereas Council members may be appointed for qualities other than their knowledge of the UK higher education sector. The revised Annex thus helps to ensure not only independence, but also relevance. For example, a Redundancy Committee must include a member with ‘knowledge and experience of Higher Education’. Importantly, appeals hearings will continue to be heard by a barrister, solicitor or judge of at least ten years’ standing who is not contracted by the School. No member of Council appears to meet such a qualification at present.

Clarifications to Bye-Laws

The revised Annex byelaws clarify that nominations of staff for different procedures come from the Academic Governance, Appointments and Nominations Committee (AGANC) of the Board, and where relevant, members are then selected from the pool of nominees by the VCAB. This provides certainty on what process should be followed. For the Redundancy Committee in particular, we have also improved the process: the VCAB must seek to ensure that at least one member of the Redundancy Committee is an academic from the same category as staff who are at risk of redundancy. We think this will strengthen consultations on avoiding redundancy, as staff in the same career track might be better-placed to consider how this could be achieved.

Gross Misconduct

We understand the section on gross misconduct, in paragraph 22, may raise concerns for some colleagues. As one of the longest blocks of new text to be inserted into the Annex, it might seem like a novel list of reasons for which you can be fired. We understand the apprehension, but we believe it is a positive addition, and our legal counsel was unequivocal that this amendment is helpful, not harmful. Paragraph 22(1) provides a definition of gross misconduct consistent with the statutory definition: it is conduct serious enough to destroy the employment contract and make future working relations impossible. Paragraph 22(2) clarifies that rights to exercise academic freedom must be considered when assessing whether conduct is gross misconduct. Paragraph 22(3) presents a list of examples of conduct that may constitute gross misconduct. The Acas Code states that employers’ disciplinary policies should include such a list, making this update a requirement.

At present, there are no clear examples of gross misconduct in the Annex, and it would be up to the disciplinary tribunal, then potentially the appeals tribunal, to determine if conduct meets the threshold. Any barrister or solicitor appointed to hear an appeal would likely rely on examples from appellate case law – as would an Employment Tribunal – or on the equivalent list in the School’s PSS disciplinary policy, which is not as constricted as the list we have negotiated. By specifying a relatively narrow list of examples with tightened language, it will become harder to justify claims that other conduct not on the list is gross misconduct.

It should also be noted that some items on this list are already defined as gross misconduct elsewhere in employment contracts – for example in the Alcohol and Drugs Policy, which is incorporated into academic staff terms and conditions. It is important to understand that conduct such as that listed may not ipso facto be gross misconduct. The conduct is only gross misconduct if it is serious enough to destroy the employer-employee relationship and the conduct does not fall under academic freedom protections.

Removal for Incapacity on Medical Grounds

We have negotiated a number of changes in Part IV, Removal for Incapacity on Medical Grounds. We believe these provide greater clarity on the procedure and stronger and clearer rights for staff.

Grievance Committee Appeals

As a final point, we note that it will now be possible to appeal a decision of the Grievance Committee, using the Annex appeals procedure. This is not currently permitted in the Annex grievance section, which is no longer Acas compliant. Academic staff members’ rights will be considerably strengthened by the revision.

Research and Policy Staff Redundancies

As noted above, we have concluded a separate collective agreement to be adopted under the revised paragraph 7(2) of the Annex. By reaching a compromise on this point and creating an alternative, we have been able to retain the equal standing of all staff under the revised Annex in a way that all parties consider acceptable. This compromise establishes a standing voluntary redundancy scheme for research and policy staff. Opting into the scheme removes the affected staff member from any selection pool for compulsory redundancy but retains options for individual consultation on redeployment and other ways of avoiding redundancy. The procedure ensures the School must still look for ways to avoid redundancy and, importantly, that staff receive a fair level of compensation if that is not feasible.

For research and policy staff, the voluntary redundancy procedure will include a redundancy payment that is significantly higher than the statutory redundancy payment that is the only guaranteed payment under the Academic Annex procedure. This is designed to reflect the ‘premium’ attached to remitting one’s contractual rights to the full academic freedom safeguards in redundancy proceedings. UCU’s policy is to pursue equal enhanced redundancy pay for all staff, and to work to avoid compulsory redundancies.

Preventing research and policy staff redundancies is particularly challenging under the School’s current funding and employment models. That is why one of the most important outcomes of these negotiations is that the School and UCU have agreed on terms of reference for a working group within the JNCC structure on improving research and policy staff job security, as well as conditions for career development and progression. This is a significant achievement, including provisions on improving bridge funding at LSE and on developing better workforce planning to maximise retention of current staff. We believe it may be only the second collective agreement in the UK higher education sector that commits to exploring pooled funding models to strengthen employment security for researchers.

Conclusion

We believe the revised Academic Annex represents a significant improvement in academic staff’s terms and conditions, with all the important protections that were present in the extant version retained for all categories of staff, while strengthening key elements and introducing new provisions that we expect to benefit all parties.

LSE UCU Negotiating Committee (JNCC delegation) 2026/27

Ian Higham (Chair of LSE UCU; Co-Chair of the JNCC)
Will Byrd (Anti-Casualisation Officer)
Remco Heesen (Branch Committee Member)
Bryan W Roberts (Equality Officer)
Fran Tonkiss (Branch Committee Member)