An issue that strikes at the heart of higher education

An employment tribunal brought by two University of Oxford academics is set to be an eye-opener, believes Chris Blackhurst

Teaching students, particularly at a high-class university, should be a profession to aspire to (iStock/Getty)

Be honest: when you think of zero-hours contracts, the University of Oxford does not jump to mind. The hallowed educational institution seems too in-the-clouds, too high-level, to be involved in anything so low-rent.

Yet, Oxford is a major user of the device, so much so that it’s up there – or down there, depending on your point of view – with the traditional followers of the gig economy: the fast-food joints, discount retailers, bars, minicab firms, and the rest.

Now, two academics are suing the historic university for employing them as casual workers. The duo, both lecturers on Oxford’s creative writing course, were employed on fixed-term “personal services” contracts for 15 years.

Alice Jolly and Rebecca Abrams maintain that they should be considered employees and entitled to workplace rights. They’re bringing their claim on behalf of hundreds of University of Oxford tutors on such contracts. In all, 70 per cent of Oxford teaching staff are thought to be employed in this way.

The university makes PAYE and pension deductions on their payslips, but argues that Jolly and Abrams are independent providers of their services. That’s a claim that surely defies logic, something you would think such an intelligent body would understand. The employment tribunal is due to be heard in Watford.

Ryan Bradshaw, a solicitor at Leigh Day, is advising the Oxford pair. Bradshaw is relying on the landmark 2021 Supreme Court ruling against Uber, which found that their drivers were employed by the company and not self-employed.

Law for Change, which funds lawsuits with social implications, is backing Jolly and Abrams. It’s doing so because it is concerned about the erosion of lecturers’ employment rights in higher education institutions, and hopes that other lecturers at other universities follow suit.

Jolly and Abrams are claiming unfair dismissal after their contracts were not renewed. They believe the university was fed up with their union campaigning. They’re also seeking payment for holidays, since under their contracts they did not receive holiday pay.

The likes of Jolly and Abrams are presented externally by Oxford as university tutors, which rightly makes them, in the eyes of the world, people of stature. They’re highly educated and smart. If the university’s publicity is to be believed, they rank among the world’s best. Let’s face it, who would not like to go by the title of lecturer at the University of Oxford? It’s an aspirational job, right at the pinnacle of the education tree.

Yet, they’re put on contracts not dissimilar to those held by people who flip burgers and sell trainers (and no, there’s nothing wrong with either of these things, but I am sure you would agree that the roles are very different).

Remarkable, too, is that Oxford is spending money on this at a time when it is the university’s own students who are facing zero hours of teaching, as lecturers take strike action. Surely there has to be a cleverer use of the university’s cash than running up a legal bill on a case? Oxford has previously said it will not comment on the individual case while it is pending.

Universities, it would seem to me, are very good at charging students for their teaching and accommodation, but meanwhile, the people who give the courses their value are on zero hours.

Instead of sitting on the fence in regard to the strikes, the government needs to intervene and burrow deeper. The pay of workers in higher education fell by 17 per cent between 2009 and 2019, while university vice-chancellors are paid an average of £270,000 plus benefits, with some of their number receiving £400,000 or more.

Let us not forget, the lecturers tend to be paid only for their time spent lecturing. Preparation, marking, setting exams, administration of the course, getting to know the students better – these do not enter the equation.

Something is not right here. Universities are raking in substantial amounts from tuition fees – more for overseas students – and charging for rooms. Many of them are developing lucrative sidelines in selling conference and leisure facilities. They’re also creating spin-off businesses, commercial partnerships and science parks. They’re expanding their philanthropical fund-raising.

It raises the question of what they are using all that money for. Where is it going?

The tendency is to believe the universities when they moan – as they do, frequently – about how hard-up they are. Certainly, some of them find themselves on the wrong end of repeated government efforts to encourage the creation of additional higher education places, the provision of more courses.

I believe it is definitely the case that there are establishments that should not be classified as universities, and that offer subjects that should not carry degrees. There are also those who rely on international students, and have been clobbered these past few years by Brexit, Covid-19 and travel lockdowns.

That, though, is not Oxford. The dreaming spires have some serious navel-gazing to do.