Statement on the Association of Colleges(AoC) recommendation on pay and conditions claim 2025/26
The joint trade unions met with the college employers' representatives from the AoC on 17 September for the second meeting under the National Joint Forum agreement (NJF). The meeting was organised in order that the AoC could make a pay recommendation, which they had failed to do when the NJF met in June. The trade unions were also expecting further clarification on other elements in the joint claim.
The joint trade union pay claim was submitted in April.
The outcome of the first NJF meeting in June.
The AoC offer on pay and related matters can be found in Appendix 1 of the PDF.
Our evaluation of the offer is that it is disappointing and doesn't move us nearer the sector levels changes we need in FE.
On pay the recommendation of 4% for those colleges that can afford it will make little difference to staff working in FE who have in recent years endured low pay awards and seen their pay fall further behind staff working in schools and sixth form colleges. For the lowest paid staff, a 4% increase will be negligible, and the recommendation fails to address the compression of pay, particularly at the lower end of the scale. We need ring fenced investment on pay to close the pay gap that means all colleges are obliged to pay the increase.
We desperately need fully funded and binding national pay bargaining in FE.
All staff need a pay rise and the joint unions' view is that all staff should get at least 4% and those employers that can pay more should pay more. There should also be an underpin to ensure a meaningful pay increase for the lowest paid staff.
On national bargaining, we need binding pay outcomes and a new sector level negotiating and funding framework that establishes a level playing field on pay. Talks outside the NJF with the AoC on this issue have stalled. We need to get around the table and start to scope out the issues and make progress. The current national level process is failing all sides and gives the impression to those outside the sector that because the NJF exists we must have functioning national pay machinery. We do not.
On living wage accreditation, our core position is that the NJF should have a reasonable expectation that all employers would be accredited. The lack of accreditation reflects badly on the sector.
On workload, the working group set up two years ago has stalled and it is some way off concluding its work and making some recommendations. We need national agreements like other parts of education to regulate excessive hours and protect staff wellbeing.
The joint trade unions welcome the AoC offer of joint work on FE funding and on seeking to reverse the cuts to adult skills funding. Combining our efforts and taking the case directly to government makes sense. We look forward to developing this work with the AoC.
Overall, it's another disappointing outcome to a very unsatisfactory process.