Implementing the new Workload Policy

Heads of School WorkshopApril 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 GuidelinesScenarios

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?

RECOMMENDATIONSThat 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?

RECOMMENDATIONSSplit 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?

RECOMMENDATIONAn 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

Adding a row

Edit and deactivate

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