Menopause is a workplace issue, it is a trade union issue, it is everyone’s issue and for that reason Lancaster University needs a menopause policy. However, the employer is refusing to accept this. The idea and research for a menopause policy was developed by Lancaster University Women’s Network from 2018 onwards and supported by the trade unions. In April 2021 the policy document (which included a two-page policy and extensive guidelines) was, without warning, substantially amended and unilaterally downgraded by the employer to guidance only. The guidance was presented as a fait accompli to the Network, to the unions, to the University’s EDI committee and on Monday (21st June) at the Vice Chancellor’s meeting.
Every month the unions meet with the employer in a formal, minuted Communications and Consultation Meeting (CCM), chaired by the Director of Strategic Planning and Governance. CCM meets this Monday (28th June 2021), and unions had jointly submitted a paper on the proposed Menopause Policy. The unions had invited two of their women members, Pam Pickles and Rachel Beauchamp, recognised by their employer for their outstanding service, to speak to the paper. The agenda item was pulled and their voices, speaking on behalf of members, have been silenced.
This is a joint unions statement in support of retracting menopause guidance and reinstating policy. Policy and guidance are not the same, policy is enforceable, guidance is not.
Following the establishment of Lancaster University Women’s Network in 2018 it became clear that support for and recognition of the challenges faced by staff in relation to the menopause and perimenopause was an issue. After gathering interest among the network and through wider university communications a grassroots group was established to pull together a menopause policy for Lancaster University. The group shared in their experiences and research on policies elsewhere and Pam Pickles took on the task of drafting a menopause policy for the university, spending several months researching, drafting and refining the policy while also consulting widely on its content. One of the drivers for Pam doing this was because of her own incredibly positive experience of going through a difficult menopause and being well supported by her line manager and colleagues, proof that there was good practice already at Lancaster – this wasn’t a project set to shame the institution but it was born out of celebration and positive experiences! It is to be noted that the group were not doing this work under the radar, the institution’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Team were informed from the very offset and were supportive of this work being undertaken.
In late 2019 this policy was handed to the university EDI Team for consideration and progression through the necessary channels to hopefully enact the policy for the university. Envisioning that this would be a relatively straightforward process – who would object to a policy that supports approximately 50% of the workforce?
After promises that the document was being reviewed and a lot of prompting from Rachel Beauchamp in LU Women’s Network there was finally some hope when the policy was presented by UNISON on behalf of the Network at the CCM on the 26th November 2020. The policy was positively received and promises were made on the development of a timeline for how the policy would be presented and worked through the various committees.
Then, silence. It all went quiet and there was an assumption that the policy was working its way through the various internal channels. In April the Women’s Network was presented with the guidance document – no explanation about the change from policy, during a meeting in May the unions spotted that the policy was now being referred to as ‘guidance’ and challenged the change in language, and then the June EDI Committee was informed that it would now be a menopause guidance document rather than a menopause policy. All of this is a result of decisions made within the University’s governance system, with zero discussion with the trade unions, Pam Pickles or the original group that started this work.
This isn’t just the trade unions that are being ignored in this fight. This is hard working, committed LU staff that are being pushed aside; those who committed their own personal time to form a group and research, develop and write a policy that has been completely disregarded without any explanation. Over Pam’s 18 years of service to Lancaster she has shown exemplary commitment to the institution; serving on Senate, winning a Dean’s award, completing internal training and development. She has done EVERYTHING that our employer would want a member of staff to do yet she hasn’t been included in any discussions or even offered a courtesy email on the development of her work. What message is that giving to those staff who are committed and are actively trying to make the institution a better place?
Over the past couple of weeks trade unions have been offered a number of reasons as to why this has progressed as guidance rather than policy:
- Guidance is more flexible. For who? Policies are reviewed on a regular basis and if they require changes they can happen! What could really be meant is that guidance can be changed easily and quietly without anybody noticing.
- Guidance avoids adding to an already long list of policies. This justification sends a worrying message – why cut off here? How many policies is too many? Who decided this number?
- Guidance complements and supports our existing policies. If the existing policies were sufficient to support staff experiencing the menopause then why do so many staff feel unsupported, alone, punished and in some cases forced out of their roles?
These justifications were repeated again in a wider forum at the recent All Staff Meeting but they just don’t hold any weight. Why are they so resistant to this? What is it about the female anatomy that is so terrifying to our decision makers?
The 2020 People Strategy which is still being promoted on the institutional website states that the university pertains to ‘Celebrate diversity within our workforce, recognising how all staff contribute to and enhance the overall success of the university’ this certainly isn’t the case on this occasion. It identifies one of the core values as ‘Working together to support the development of the university’ again, not being shown here. Finally, it lists one of the institution’s behaviours as ‘Engage with, hear from and listen to all staff as the university continues to develop and pursue its aspirations’, humorous really under the circumstances!
Introducing a menopause policy at Lancaster University could have been an easy win. It could have been a perfect way to show support and solidarity with the workforce. It could have been a perfect way to show commitment to the Athena SWAN agenda. It could have provided some positive publicity to an institution that is still battling with a mean hourly gender pay gap of 25.03%. But it isn’t, the employer has dug their heels in and is refusing to have a discussion with us on this. Despite following all the correct processes it has even been removed as an agenda item on our next CCM. Why are they refusing to discuss this with members? What are they hiding? What are they wanting to avoid saying?
This is a fight that does not end here. Your trade unions are in agreement, staff are in agreement, there should be a menopause policy at Lancaster University and we will not be silenced with a weak tick boxing exercise of ‘menopause guidance’.
We encourage members to email the Vice Chancellor (a.j.schofield@lancaster.ac.uk) and Deputy Vice Chancellor (s.bradley@lancaster.ac.uk) to ask that the university demonstrates its commitment to EDI and support for staff wellbeing by adopting menopause guidance as policy as was originally intended.
Lancaster University Branches of UCU, UNISON and Unite
