New crisis at Cardiff University risks ‘irreparable damage’, say unions

Martin Shipton

Three trade unions have warned Cardiff University that its latest restructuring proposals risk causing irreparable damage and leave it dangerously close to a point of serious crisis.

In January 2025 the university announced plans to shed hundreds of academic roles and close a number of departmental Schools.

Following a forceful campaign launched by the University and College Union (UCU), the proposals were modified and fewer job cuts imposed.

Subsequently the university launched a further major proposal aimed at reducing the numbers of Professional Services (PS) staff employed.

Talks have taken place between the university’s senior management and the three unions that represent its employees.

Now UCU, Unison and Unite have written a joint letter to the university’s Chief Operating Officer and University Secretary, Dr Paula Sanderson, expressing alarm at the implications of the proposals.

In a section headed Capacity, workloads and wellbeing crises, the letter states: “We are dangerously close to a point of serious crisis, risking irreparable damage to this university and the ability to deliver essential services. We are all aware that considerable reputational damage was caused last year, whereby student admissions have plummeted, even among home students and in schools that were not in scope through AF [the 2025 cuts programme known as Academic Futures].

“With PS staff, we have a workforce that can no longer operate with existing levels of staffing gaps, a situation exacerbated by increasing work-related stress, illness and long-term sickness created by recruitment ‘controls’ and uncertainty. This was acknowledged by the management in our Wellbeing Meeting on 22 January, who shared OH [Occupational Health], EAP [Employee Assistance Programme] and the Staff Wellbeing Survey data, which confirms: i) an ongoing increase in the uptake of the Vivup [EAP] service; ii) greatest spikes in the uptake corresponding with the most intensive periods of formal consultations (May and October); iii) a regular and increasing demand to extend services beyond the standard 6 sessions, deemed clinically necessary in all but one case; iv) the findings in the Staff Wellbeing Survey, which ran in December 2025 and was completed by 1296 staff, reflects the same negative picture highlighted by the UCU and Unison wellbeing surveys undertaken earlier in the year.

“In the context of such an adverse impact on health and wellbeing due to how the management of change has been executed, the broken trust and low morale risk a further institutional and operational breakdown, especially at a time when the UEB [University Executive Board] are asking more of both PS and academic staff.

“We urge university management and Council to seriously rethink the speed and nature of the PS restructures, and to re-open a meaningful conversation with staff and the trade unions. This would help towards repairing relations, rebuilding trust and boosting morale – the vital foundations of the incredible work and goodwill of our staff, who keep this institution running.

“Currently there are over 1000 staff in scope for the PS restructure, many of whom feel that the AF has had a preferential treatment to PS consultations. We hope that Council and university management will review their approach and provide the same level of commitment with PS consultation, which is not only fair and equitable, but also because this affects a considerable body of the workforce whose labour ensures the operational success of this institution on a daily basis.”

Consultation

The unions also raise concerns about the way the PS consultation was handled, saying that as a result they cannot endorse the formal consultation as meaningful.

They say that unlike the Academic Futures consultation, the Vice Chancellor attended none of the PS consultation meetings and has not engaged with affected PS staff or trade unions.

The letter states: “The PS consultations essentially comprised high-level briefings, where the time was largely taken up by presentations, and we were not given an opportunity to have a meaningful discussion. No documents were shared with us ahead of meetings and no useful data provided or discussed, even though we continually asked for working drafts on structures and roles that we could consult members on.

“We appreciate the lessons learned from AF in not providing us with a fait accompli proposal at the outset, but this went to the other extreme and made it impossible for us to negotiate when absolutely no information, or at the very least a proposal outline, was shared with us.

“ … For the PS consultations, there was no meaningful or transparent feedback mechanism, nor significant evidence on how staff feedback has shaped the published Business Case. Our members maintain that the engagement events were merely paying lip service (similar to the webinars), with no genuine responses to staff recommendations or specialist knowledge.

“ …The Business Case was published with multiple errors, typos and formatting inconsistencies, including omissions of entire areas of service. This is another demonstration of rushed and unrealistic deadlines, which are forcing staff to push through incomplete plans and implement changes without adequate preparation or planning. Our members have noted that if any of them were to produce work of this standard or repeatedly make these kinds of mistakes, they would be subject to performance management and disciplinary actions, not to mention that these proposals are meant to reflect collective efforts of the highest level of operational and managerial competencies, as well as our institutional excellence.”

‘Partnership’

We asked Cardiff University to respond to the points made by the unions. A spokesperson for the university said: “We have received the joint letter from our three campus trade unions. We have already met with their representatives to discuss many of the concerns raised. We remain committed to partnership and collaborative working and engaging fully with all our impacted staff.

“The letter contains a number of inaccuracies which we will respond to, in full, in due course.”