An academic who successfully sued Oxford University last year for employing her and her colleague on “sham” gig economy contracts has criticized the institution for its attempts to minimize the impact of their legal victory. Alice Jolly and Rebecca Abrams, both acclaimed authors, spent 15 years teaching at Oxford’s prestigious creative writing course, yet they were employed on zero-hours “personal services” contracts, often earning just £23 an hour. Following their challenge of these employment conditions, Oxford agreed to offer them better contracts. However, this promise was not fulfilled, and without any employment rights, they were not renewed.
In January, after a long legal battle in which Jolly describes the university’s legal team as aggressive, a judge ruled in favor of Jolly and Abrams, categorizing them as employees. This was seen as a significant moment for staff across Oxford and other universities working on insecure contracts. Yet, this week, Jolly expressed her belief that Oxford has not learned from the case, emphasizing her loss of employment, the lack of a formal apology, and the absence of any acknowledgment that the ruling might affect other staff members. Jolly has also hinted at her resistance to any attempts by the university to enforce non-disclosure agreements, arguing that her silence should not be a condition of settling the matter.
It has previously been reported that a significant portion of core tutorial teaching at Oxford is conducted by academics on hourly-paid or precarious fixed-term contracts. Jolly, initially thinking her contract was unusual, came to realize many academics faced similar employment insecurity, making it difficult for them to secure mortgages or experience long-term job stability. This situation, while an “open secret,” prompted her and Abrams to challenge the status quo legally.
The charitable litigation fund, Law for Change, which supported the case, hoped it would improve contract rights for lecturers at Oxford and aid others working on exploitative contracts across academia. Despite being proud of their accomplishment against a powerful institution, Jolly doubts whether other Oxford academics will have the financial means or courage to pursue similar legal actions. The legal team for the university, she mentioned, likened their work to that of tradespeople and cleaners during the legal proceedings, highlighting the financial and emotional toll of the process.
Reflecting on the upcoming court hearing in July to determine compensation, Jolly acknowledges the daunting nature of legal battles against such an institution without adequate legal representation. Oxford University has been approached for comment but has not yet responded.
In addition, concerns have been raised by Prof. Wyn Evans, an advocate against bullying in academia, about the use of non-disclosure agreements by universities to silence employment disputes. He suggests a significant amount of public money is currently being used to cover up employment issues rather than used to improve staff treatment. Zelda Perkins, who initiated a campaign against NDAs in cases of exploitation, views Jolly and Abrams’ actions as having the potential to change how universities exploit their staff, indicating a motive for such institutions to keep such cases quiet.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/08/ive-lost-my-work-and-been-ostracised-oxford-university-accused-of-failing-to-act-after-ruling-on-sham-contracts
