A response to UTAG's unwarranted intrusion in the GAUA-TUSAAG industrial action

We have taken note of the statement issued by the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG) on August 10, 2026, titled “UTAG rejects GAUA claims of discrimination over Market Premium disparities in public universities,” as well as the subsequent statement issued by the UTAG–University of Energy and Natural Resources Chapter on August 13, 2026, titled “UTAG-UENR’s Position on the Deliberate Disruption of University Operations by GAUA-UENR.”

Having carefully considered both statements, we find it necessary to respond because the interventions by UTAG have gone considerably beyond expressing an opinion on a matter of public interest.

For many years, GAUA, UTAG, TUTAG and TUSAAG have co-existed within Ghana’s university system with a shared commitment to collegiality, mutual respect and the collective advancement of higher education.

Despite representing different categories of university employees and, at times, pursuing distinct professional and industrial interests, the associations have generally respected one another’s mandates and operated within their respective spheres.

Against this longstanding tradition of professional coexistence, the recent and unusually pronounced intervention by UTAG in the GAUA–TUSAAG industrial action is therefore both unexpected and difficult to reconcile with the established practice of mutual respect and restraint.

The circumstances and intensity of the intervention inevitably invite legitimate questions as to what has occasioned this departure from the convention of allowing each recognised association to pursue matters concerning its own members through the appropriate channels.

We wish to make it clear from the outset that GAUA and TUSAAG are not contesting, challenging or seeking to diminish any of the gains, benefits, allowances or remuneration enjoyed by members of UTAG.

At no point have GAUA or TUSAAG demanded that Teaching Staff surrender their Market Premiums, relinquish OTSA, suffer a reduction in salary or forfeit any legitimate benefit negotiated on their behalf.

We have not petitioned Government for the withdrawal of any legitimate entitlement enjoyed by Teaching Staff.

Our concerns relate to the remuneration of Senior Members (Administrative and Professional) and the substantial disparities that currently exist within the Market Premium regime, among others.

The Market Premium Disparity And The Integrity Of The Single Spine Salary Structure

The outcome of the last comprehensive Job Evaluation for determining the relative value of jobs dates back to 2012, when non-teaching positions scored 138 points against 114 points for teaching positions.

Following an appeal by the then CEO of the FWSC and in the interest of industrial peace, the non-teaching score was stepped down and aligned with teaching at 114 points. This negotiated compromise has remained the historical basis of the current Market Premium regime.

There has been no subsequent comprehensive Job Evaluation establishing that teaching positions have acquired a higher relative market value than equivalent non-teaching positions.

GAUA and TUSAAG further understand that the arrangement arising from the last negotiations was an interim adjustment pending further discussion and determination of a permanent formula, and was never intended to become a permanent remuneration regime by administrative practice.

The present application is therefore problematic both substantively and procedurally.

Non-teaching staff do not enjoy certain additional allowances available to teaching staff, including OTSA; consequently, if the interim adjustment was intended to bridge a remuneration gap, the formula should have recognised this structural deficit and provided an adjustment to bridge it.

Instead, incorporating teaching-related allowances into the basis of the interim adjustment, without addressing the corresponding deficit of non-teaching staff, has compounded rather than bridged the disparity, producing a monumental differential in Market Premiums between positions on corresponding SSSS grades.

Market Premiums may address genuine labour-market pressures, but they should not override national Job Evaluation outcomes or transform an interim arrangement into a permanent system of unequal compensation without a fresh, transparent and evidence-based assessment.

The central demand of GAUA and TUSAAG is therefore for a fair, transparent and objectively defensible formula that corrects rather than entrenches the existing disparity.

A Professor on Grade 25 receives approximately GH¢12,452 in Market Premium, while a Registrar on Grade 25 receives approximately GH¢6,050. The difference is approximately GH¢6,402 per month, representing more than 100 percent of the Registrar's Market Premium.

At Grade 24, an Associate Professor receives approximately GH¢11,608, compared with approximately GH¢5,349 for a Deputy Registrar.

At Grade 22, a Lecturer receives approximately GH¢11,184, while a Senior Assistant Registrar receives approximately GH¢3,612. These are not marginal differences. They are substantial disparities that warrant objective examination.

Pointing out this anomaly does not constitute an attack that teaching staff are undeserving of their remuneration. It simply brings to fore the legitimate conclusion that the compensation architecture has become internally disproportionate.

That is the conclusion that should be subjected to evidence and review rather than being dismissed through general statements about differences in professional responsibilities.

UTAG's argument about the historical 114 percent Market Premium also requires a more careful examination.

The appropriate question is therefore not whether history prevents differentiation. The question is what evidence justified the subsequent differentiation and whether that evidence remains valid today.

If labour-market conditions have changed, let the evidence demonstrate the change. If recruitment and retention pressures have become significantly different between the professional groups, let the evidence demonstrate those differences.

If certain academic disciplines face exceptional international competition, let that evidence be considered. But the same evidence-based standard should apply when determining the remuneration of Administrative and Professional Staff.

The UTAG-UENR Intervention And The Need For Due Process

The subsequent UTAG-UENR statement dated 13 August 2026 raises a different and even more troubling concern.

That statement moves beyond the national remuneration debate and makes serious allegations concerning the conduct of GAUA-UENR and individual University officers.

If there has been interference with University infrastructure, Management has the authority to investigate. If an officer has breached institutional regulations, the established disciplinary procedures should be followed.

If there has been an alleged criminal offence, the competent law-enforcement authorities should investigate. A union statement cannot substitute for an investigation, and an allegation cannot automatically become a finding.

The specific targeting of the Director of Information Technology also deserves caution. The Director of IT is an institutional officer whose responsibility is to the University and its governance structures.

If UTAG possesses credible evidence that the University's information technology infrastructure was deliberately interfered with, the appropriate course is to submit that evidence to Management and request an independent investigation.

It is inappropriate for a union to publicly determine the culpability of an institutional officer before being heard. The same principle applies to the alleged incident involving the Director of Health Services.

UTAG’s Intensified Intervention And The Double Standard On Industrial Action

It is necessary to question UTAG’s intensified intervention in a dispute where GAUA and TUSAAG have not sought to take away any benefit enjoyed by UTAG members.

If UTAG considers that its interests are affected, it should defend them through the established bargaining and statutory processes rather than seek to dilute or redirect a dispute to which it is not a party.

Equally, UTAG’s characterisation of GAUA and TUSAAG’s withdrawal of services as deliberate disruption is difficult to reconcile with its own history of industrial action, which has also affected teaching, results processing, project supervision and committee work.

The disruption arising from the current action does not demonstrate manipulation; it demonstrates the indispensable role of Administrative and Professional Staff in the functioning of the Universities.

Applying a different standard to their industrial action therefore amounts to a clear double standard

Conclusion

GAUA and TUSAAG will not be distracted from the substantive matters. We will continue to ask why comparable grades have produced such extraordinary Market Premium disparities. We will continue to ask what objective evidence supports the present structure.

We will continue to ask what happened to the historical 114 percent arrangement. And we will continue to demand meaningful engagement through the appropriate labour-relations mechanisms.

Our message to our UTAG colleagues is therefore simple and respectful, although necessarily firm. We are colleagues. We are not competitors.

We are not asking you to surrender your gains. We are asking Government to address our own legitimate concerns. If UTAG cannot support our position, we ask that it at least respect our right to pursue it.

GAUA and TUSAAG understand our mandate. We understand the evidence supporting our position. We understand the statutory and institutional mechanisms available to us.

If UTAG does not recognise the legitimacy of that demand, then it should respect the autonomy of GAUA and TUSAAG and allow the appropriate statutory and bargaining institutions to determine the matter.