All 18 members of the bindery at the University Library are to lose their jobs after dramatic restructuring proposals were approved by management.

The plans, which were approved by the Library Syndicate, were circulated to staff on Wednesday, when they were informed of the closure of the bindery department.

Staff members have alleged to Varsity that they received no prior consultation about the planned closure before being told on 7th October.

A university spokesman confirmed that the Library Syndicate had approved these changes to preservation and collection care as “reserved business”, which are not included in publicly available minutes.

In response, one bindery employee told Varsity: “Staff feel that the matter has been handled secretly, and very badly.”

The move comes as part of a broader restructuring of the University Library’s Preservation Policy.

In the most recent version of the policy, released to management in May 2015 and obtained by Varsity, it states: “Where possible all materials, modern and antiquarian, are preserved in their original format.”

The document also notes that “the [conservation and preservation] measures taken will be within the constraints of budgets, staffing and other resources”.

A university spokesman confirmed to Varsity that this policy change, “along with the shift from print to electronic publication”, directly resulted in the closure of the bindery.

“The revised approach will place a new emphasis on the long-term preservation of material in its original state, retaining original features such as binding as well as the printed content for future research,” he told us.

Despite its publication date of May 2015, one member of the bindery told Varsity that they and their colleagues had only been informed of the closure on Wednesday.

The spokesman admitted that the consultation process with affected staff was currently “ongoing”.

“Everyone is disappointed”

The Library Syndicate, whose membership is primarily appointed by the Council and the General Board of the Faculties, is charged in the university’s Statutes and Ordinances with “exercis[ing] a general oversight over all matters relating to the administration, staffing, and financial resources” of the library.

Jobs at the Conservation Department, which is linked to but distinct from the bindery, are said not to be affected.

A university spokesman told us: “We are working with staff to seek to identify alternative roles for them within the university to minimise the impact of the proposed closure.”

Varsity understands that six jobs in the Conservation Department are available to bindery staff as part of the restructuring.

However, one bindery employee told us that the jobs require a skill set “significantly different” from the jobs in the bindery, and that recruitment for these posts is being opened to candidates other than those who are losing their jobs.

“It is just a case of people applying for jobs if they want them,” they told us, alleging that “no training ha[d] been offered” to bindery staff to help them relocate.

“Everyone is disappointed… Most are going to have to look elsewhere.”

Will Smith, local Branch Secretary of Unite the Union which represents the bindery workers, criticised the university's treatment of staff members. 

"The Library knew that this was on the cards several years ago" he said. "At no time over this period did they offer bindery staff training in transferable skills such as IT or basic administration. The University has a policy that staff can only attend training for skills that are suitable for their job, and I am told by staff who requested this training that it was refused on this basis."

"The training is being offered now, and Unite is working with the university to ensure that the training is put in place - but it is inevitably too little too late, and many staff will leave the library without having the basic skills to help them find another job."

Robin Mansfield, an ex-manager of the UL bindery, paid tribute to staff and the department.

“When I consider the skills lost and the wonderful service the Bindery provided to Library readers over a period of probably in excess of eighty years, it is a great loss to the Library and to Cambridge University as a whole.”

“We all feel like we’ve been badly treated”

Tensions with staff have flared in response to the creation of three new senior management positions at a time when the library has to find three per cent budget cuts for this year.

Only one of these positions has so far been filled. Instead of sourcing recruits through the university’s Human Resources Division, the university is paying “executive recruitment” firm Berwick Partners to source candidates.

The document Shaping the Future of Library Services circulated to library colleagues, updated in August 2015, outlines the “enhanced senior leadership capacity” the managers will bring.

“The Library is working with Berwick Partners (Odgers Group) to help us recruit our three new senior leadership team roles,” the document states.

University Librarian Anne Jarvis outlines “two main first steps” in the programme Shaping the Future of Library Services, neither of which mentions the planned closure of the bindery despite being published four months after the Preservation Policy.

“Staff do not feel listened to or appreciated,” one former bindery employee told us.

“The relationship between management and employees is strained, which is not surprising considering the quite appalling way some people have been treated following previous restructuring of UL departments.”

A former member of staff told us that the closure of the bindery “will be a blow to staff morale at the University Library”.

“However, it was already quite low to begin with,” they said.

They also spoke to Varsity of their disappointment that money was being spent on the appointment of three news senior managers and on initiatives like the recently released ‘SpaceFinder’ app, first announced in 2015, which allows students to find study spaces matching their particular preferences, at a time when an entire department is being closed and budgets are being squeezed.

The university declined to respond to questions regarding why there had been a five month delay between the issuing of the new Preservation Policy and its circulation among staff members, whether they could guarantee that alternative jobs within the university would be found for those affected, and whether other jobs and departments in the University Library were safe from the restructuring plans.

An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that staff had already been made redundant. The university's consultation means that the staff will only be made formally redundant if no other post for them is found in the university.