Restructures and redundancies are often presented as unavoidable responses to financial pressures. NEU reps should challenge this narrative. Financial difficulties may be real, but decisions about how to respond to them are choices.
Employers should be expected to justify their proposals, explain why alternatives have been rejected and demonstrate why redundancies are necessary.
Understanding and challenging the employer’s business case is a key part of resisting redundancies and developing collective alternatives.
Scrutinising financial information
Effective bargaining depends on access to information. Reps should request the financial information being used to justify redundancy proposals and scrutinise the assumptions underpinning the employer’s case. Financial accounts, budget forecasts and staffing projections can all help workplace groups assess whether redundancies are genuinely necessary.
For multi-academy trusts (MATs), this may include trust accounts and financial statements. The NEU’s guidance on funding in MATs (see Resources) contains additional information on how academy trust funding operates, how funding is allocated within trusts and the financial information that may be useful when scrutinising redundancy proposals.
For maintained schools and academies, the Department for Education’s (DfE) financial benchmarking and insights tool (FBIT) can provide useful information on spending patterns, reserves and financial trends (see Resources).
Financial forecasts are based on assumptions and should always be tested against local circumstances and workplace realities.
Challenging claims that ‘there is no money’
One of the most common arguments used to justify redundancies is that there is ‘no money’. While the education system remains under significant financial pressure, employers still make choices about how resources are allocated. Staffing reductions are only one possible response to financial difficulties and should always be treated as a last resort because of their impact on staff, pupils and educational provision.
Where reserves exist, reps should ask whether they could be used to create time to explore alternatives to compulsory redundancies.
Employers should explain why other options have been rejected before staffing reductions are pursued.
NEU reps should also scrutinise spending priorities across the organisation. In academy trusts, executive pay can represent a significant area of expenditure. During restructuring exercises, staff are often asked to accept job losses while senior leadership costs remain untouched. Trust accounts can help reps understand how resources are being distributed across the organisation and identify areas where alternative savings could be made. The NEU’s leveraging MAT finances toolkit (see Resources) is useful when examining spending priorities and financial decisions.
Developing alternatives with members
Leadership does not have a monopoly on solutions. Teachers and support staff often have a far better understanding of how the school operates and where savings could be made without cutting jobs. Workplace groups should use this knowledge to identify alternatives and challenge employer assumptions.
Workplace meetings, surveys and member discussions can help identify alternatives, develop bargaining priorities and strengthen
the union’s negotiating position. Involving members in developing alternatives builds confidence, organisation and unity around shared demands.