Hundreds of employees at St Andrews University could either lose their jobs or be transferred to positions on lower pay grades, union officials have claimed.
The dire warning is contained in an unprecedented “open letter” sent to the institution’s principal Louise Richardson.
The letter is signed by officials from Unite, Unison and UCU.
Representatives of St Andrews University Students’ Association have also added their names to the powder-keg document.
The lowest paid and vulnerable members of staff will, they warn, be hardest hit by a “restructuring” exercise being considered by university chiefs.
The way the university delivers its catering and IT services is at the heart of the issue, with officials at the institution admitting a “limited number” of redundancies could result.
However, staff unions and the students’ association are warning of far more severe consequences.
“We are taking the unusual step of writing a joint open letter about the restructuring that is happening in various parts of the university,” they state.
“We are doing this because of the damaging effects upon hundreds of people, including some of our lowest paid and most vulnerable members of staff.
“Our staff are the most important asset of the university. Their loyalty and dedication are key to our success.”ConcernsThe letter outlines a number of areas of concern.
“We feel that the current restructuring is having a corrosive effect, leading to a sense of uncertainty, unfairness, and fear,” it states.
“We do not accept that the case for restructuring has been made convincingly or that staff and students have been properly involved in the decision-making processes.”
Union officials claim a lack of information from management has had a devastating impact on morale, insisting there has been “no clear information” regarding the proposed changes.
“Snippets have come out in dribs and drabs,” the letter states. “Sometimes contradictory information has come from different sources.
“In certain cases people have heard informally about changes that would, if implemented, have profound effects upon them.”
“This breakdown of communication has increased anxiety throughout the university community, creating a climate where rumour thrives and where people don’t know quite what to believe.”
The letter calls for the principal to personally investigate the issue as a matter of urgency.
“At the root of these anxieties is the fear that terms and conditions for many staff will be adversely affected by the changes even if they do not actually lose their jobs,” it continues.
“For some this may mean being transferred to jobs on lower grades.”SupportThe unions and students’ association insist Ms Ramsay must “support rather than undermine” vulnerable staff.
“We call on you to give a commitment that, whatever changes are made, they will not be to the detriment of the terms, conditions and income of staff currently in post,” they add.
External relations vice-principal Stephen Magee admitted some positions were at risk but denied any suggestion that “hundreds” could lose their jobs.
“The university is currently undertaking reviews and restructuring in our residential and business services and IT services/business improvements units,” he said.
“Our single aim in both these reviews is to respond positively to sustained requests from students and staff for improvements in our catering and IT services, not to cut jobs.”
Mr Magee described the case for change as clear, insisting students surveys have highlighted a need for improvements in catering.
He also pointed out that staff and students expect “world class” IT systems. “The university is legally compelled to inform all staff that their posts may be at risk of redundancy,” Mr Magee continued.
“There is no question, however, of this university making hundreds of people redundant … it will not happen.”
Mr Magee said he understood the “very real apprehension and upset” felt by some staff. However, he insisted only “a very small number” actually face losing their jobs.
“It is very regrettable that the process negotiated between university leadership and trades unions compels us to send letters to a large number of people when in fact only a very small number may be at risk of redundancy,” he continued.
“This is undoubtedly a cause of unnecessary anxiety, as are misleading public claims about our reviews.
“We have asked the unions to join with us in doing everything possible to alleviate unnecessary anxieties and hope that they will respond positively to this invitation.”