Tied up in Notts

November 22, 1996

Some misconceptions are reported in your article "Staff Vote for PRP Salary Scheme" (THES, November 8).

Union representatives were sent copies of the scheme rules so that they were able to advise their members: this was made clear to the representatives in a covering letter which accompanied each copy of the rules.

Furthermore, the explanatory booklets sent to each member of staff made it clear that the rules were open to inspection by any employee who wished to do so; indeed, members of staff did avail themselves of this opportunity.

The scheme had been designed following a significant investment by the university and its advisers: the scheme rules contained some commercially sensitive information which is of value to the university.

This was why access was restricted to members of staff. Once the union representatives had queried the copyright restrictions, explanations were provided to them and they were encouraged to advise their members.

No further explanations were sought by the union representatives and so it seems rather strange that they should complain to a newspaper after the scheme has been introduced rather than talking to the employer before the closing date passed.

M. S. Hedges Finance director University of Nottingham

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments