| Motion | Recommendation | ||
| 1 | SWG report and recommendations | HEC | Remit, because the last bullet point is potentially unconstitutional and could be used to silence negotiators Oppose if not remitted* |
| 2 | Call for indefinite strike action | Sheffield | Against, in favour of later motions |
| 3 | Indefinite action USS | HEC | For |
| 4 | Escalate to indefinite action with local consultation | Manchester | For |
| 5 | ASOS and strike action (composite) | Dundee / Ulster / Liverpool | For |
| 6 | Industrial Action Plan | University College London | For |
| 7 | Action to win | Glasgow | For |
| 8 | USS – Escalating industrial action | Nottingham | Against, only ‘moving towards’ boycott |
| 9 | Assessment boycott as a core part of our UK-wide strategy | Newcastle | For, although no specific resolves |
| 10 | Escalation of USS Dispute | ACC | Against, no resolves and could be used by GS to undermine action |
| 11 | UCU HEC invitation to UUK to ACAS collective conciliation | Bristol | Against, because it would likely create a delay and the demand is unrealistic** |
| 12 | Next steps in the disputes | Newcastle | For |
| 13 | Planning now for action next academic year | Cambridge | Against, due to the mistaken call for an aggregated ballot |
| 14 | Co-ordinating effective UK-wide action | Liverpool | For |
| 15 | Striking out of teaching term | Leeds | Against |
| 16 | Maximum effective action | Edinburgh | For |
| 17 | Compiling regional calendars to assist timing of industrial action | Heriot-Watt | For, if amended Otherwise oppose (risk of delay) |
| 17A.1 | Dundee | For | |
| 18 | Call for a return to aggregated strike ballots | Southampton | Against (aggregated ballot) |
| 19 | No decoupling of Four Fights and USS | Dundee | For |
| 20 | UCU HE members to decide future HE strike action | Bristol | Against |
| 21 | Branch Delegates Meetings | Edinburgh | For |
| 22 | Pay deductions for striking members with external funding | ACC | For |
| 23 | Negotiations before valuation | Glasgow | Against, because it weakens the negotiator’s position and there are better prospects in campaigning over DRCs Consequentials: rules out 26 resolves “a” (no detriment) which has been remitted |
Notes
*Motion 1. The Remit and Standing Orders for the SWG are intended to go via the NEC processes. Any changes in normal expectations must be made via standard Congress rule change process (2/3 majority etc), and corresponding implementation. While “Terms of Reference” may sound innocuous and indeed are proposed in good faith, they cannot be put in place for one committee in a manner that is distinct from that for all other. This poses risks in interpretation, implementation and consistency of process. As there is no option to take the motion in parts, were remission to fall, the SWG report should be voted down.
Existing policy would still continue to apply should the report be not passed.
**Motion 11. “Notes 4” is incorrect. The ACAS resolution of reduction in benefits similar to the current one was rejected by members; the JEP proposal came out of discussion between the previous GS and employers, and there was no second JEP proposal.