Transcript Slide 1

Implementing the new
Workload Policy
Heads of School Workshop
April 2010
Structure of the session
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction and overview
How well do you know the Workload Policy?
Review of the context
Draft Guidelines
Scenarios and report back
Other issues
Next steps
Purpose of the session and guidelines
• Develop shared understandings across the
Schools
• Empower School leaders to allocate the
workload confidently and equitably taking into
account work responsibilities not ‘counted’ in
the metrics process
• Empower HoS to make on balance judgements
aligned with the principles of equity and
transparency
Key concepts
Negotiation
Flexibility
Transparency
Equity
On balance
How well do you know the
workload policy?
The context
• Workloads are an employment & industrial relations
issue within a legal framework
• The ACU Staff Enterprise Agreement 2005 – 2008 sets
out the “rules” for workload allocation:
• “Staff shall not normally teach more than 4 units in any
one semester
• Staff will normally accumulate the equivalent of 360
contact hours per year … This includes 336 contact hours
of teaching, supervision and administration and 24
contact hours of other approved academic related
activities as defined by the policy”
The context
• The Academic Workloads Policy has been revised and
the 360 “loaded” hours has become 1000 hours of
teaching, supervision and administration and up to
500 hours for research.
• Heads of School must be careful not to allocate more
than 1000 hours of teaching and related work – a
breach of the Agreement could lead to a dispute
which could be referred to either Fair Work Australia
or the Federal Court.
The Context
• The Enterprise Agreement also expects that staff “…
will be available for scheduled School, Faculty and
University meetings, and for interaction and consultation
with students and colleagues on a reasonable basis
during the course of the daytime hours of University
operation and/or other times in the case of other
teaching patterns.
• The details of such availability shall be made publicly
available to students, colleagues and the relevant Head
of School. The manner in which these details will be
published and recorded is to be determined by the Head
…”.
The Legal Context
• The “availability” provisions have to be balanced
against the “Right to Request Flexible Working
Arrangements” which is one of the National
Employment Standards (NES) of the Fair Work Act.
• Staff who are responsible for a child under school
age (or a child up to 18 years of age who has a
disability) now have the right to request flexible
working arrangements.
• These include changes in hours of work, changes in
patterns of work and changes in location of work.
The Context
• The request must be lodged by a staff member in
writing with a copy to HR
• The University can reject a request for flexible
working arrangements “only on reasonable business
grounds”.
• The University must respond to the request in
writing within 21 days, and if the request is refused,
“ …the written response must include details of the
reasons for the refusal”.
The Context
• HR has updated the Guidelines for Work/Life
Balance Arrangements to include a “Right to
Request Flexible Working Arrangements”.
• Staff making such a request are asked to
consider the potential impact on their School
including on their colleagues
• Heads of School may need to consult with the
Timetabling Unit regarding formal requests
The Legal Context
• The other legal consideration is that under
Occupational Health and Safety law, staff
members must have an unpaid break of at
least 30 minutes after they have worked for 5
hours.
Draft Guidelines
Scenarios
Scenarios – Report back
Workload and Research Issues
Should we be using the research active
definition to allocate workload?
Current Situation
• 350 for research active
• 350 for PhD
• Amount allocated for
papers would not cover the
time spent in researching
the literature, collecting and
analysing data and writing
the publication
Possible alternatives?
• Take the whole idea of
research active out of the
workload (keep PhD)
• Allocate higher workload for
those who produce outputs
to compensate for the “real
time” it takes to do research
RECOMMENDATION: As research intensive and teaching intensive positions will
affect these issues, we should not change the policy now but should keep it as an
issue to be raised at that time
Staffing levels and quality of publications
• What do we expect of
research for a Level A versus a
Level E academic?
• What do we expect of the
Level E academic with a
significant administrative role
(HOS, Associate Dean) versus
the Level E academic who is
doing no administration?
• What are our expectations
regarding the quality of
journals in which academics
publish?
• Should workload be used to
reward those who publish in
quality journals?
RECOMMENDATIONS
That there should be no difference in
the expectations for Level A and E
with regard to research output at this
time. Research intensive and
Teaching intensive should have
different expectations.
That workload should not be used to
reward publishing in A or A* journals.
The research office should consider
other reward options.
Collaborative Research
• Does the current workload
policy cater for fostering
collaborative research?
• How do we encourage
senior staff to mentor
others and to write papers
with them?
• Workload for writing a
refereed journal article is
150 split pro-rata between
authors - How do we make
the split?
• How should the formal
research mentoring
program be recognised in
the workload model?
RECOMMENDATIONS
Split can be negotiated by the
writing team and percentage
contribution of each team member
recorded on Research Master
Mentoring program should have
workload associated with it – no
suggested hours at the moment as
program is still being developed
Fostering new research in your school
• What if staff in your school have
not been doing research in the
past or have been publishing in
the non-HERDC recognised
journals and conferences?
• What about the person who is
not research active but wants to
start a new research project now
and needs time to collect data
etc?
• What about the new staff
member at ACU?
• Does the teaching-research nexus
that we aspire to affect decisions
regarding research hours for
“teaching intensive” staff?
RECOMMENDATION
An amount of 150 hours may be
allocated by the HOS for general
research and scholarly activity to
those staff who are not undertaking
a PhD and who are not yet research
active. A clear understanding of
what each staff member will
achieve during those 150 hours
should be negotiated at the time of
the staff member’s annual
performance review.
Academic streaming
Goal 4 of the ACU Strategic Plan states that:
“The University will establish an appropriate staff profile…”
The University’s Transitional Plan states that:
• 4.2.4 Appropriate academic staff “streaming” policy and
procedures are developed and implemented
• (the University will) … implement streaming of academic
staff members into 3 categories – research intensive,
teaching and research and teaching intensive
• The Timeframe is to “Deploy by 2011 academic year”
Other Issues – Open Discussions
Software issues
New unit
Edit and
deactivate
Adding a row
Hours for
research
(not equal)
Number of
students
changed from
4 to 24
Will not
automatically
update hours
to be taught
and marked
Hours are
not
updated
Use of Excel vs
HTML
Future changes to the Policy?
Next steps
• Complete the Guidelines
– Projects vs non-projects
• Lunch-box sessions for assistant HoS and
others
• Sessions for new Heads of School
• Others?????
Thank you