10 June 2008

Ms Carolyn Kennett
Chair
Staff Consultative Group
Macquarie University

Dear Carolyn 

RE: Response to Resolutions
& Report of the Implementation Review Sub-Committee

Further to the SCG Meeting of 2 April 2008 I wish to offer the following response to the issues identified in the Resolutions and in the report of the Implementation Review Sub- Committee.

Resolution 13/08 – Contribution to University Service

It was identified at the 2 April SCG meeting that a joint letter to the manager of SCG members would be developed identifying the importance of release time for the work of the SCG. I understand that Andrea Lerche has forwarded a draft letter to you for your consideration and feed back. 

The issue of University Service has been discussed at length at the last 2 SCG meetings. I have had an opportunity to further consider the issues raised by the SCG related to your request for the development of a University Service policy and the issues that were raised on University Service in the context of the PDRP process. 

In this regard I will request that the PDRP Form and process be amended to include a section for University service at the end of this year. Clearly there will be circumstances where the supervisor cannot provide feedback on the quality of this service but the form will allow for the contribution to be noted.

Separately, we will be reviewing the Position Description template. As a part of this process I am willing to include a statement that identifies that contribution to University Service is a usual expectation of all staff members.

Resolution 14/08 – Report of the IRSC

Interpretation of Enterprise Agreement – Long Service Leave

The Long Service Leave provisions both in the current Enterprise Agreement and the previous Enterprise Agreement 2003 – 2006 identify a minimum period of 7 days. Therefore there has been no change to the application of this provision.

Despite the fact that there is no clause in the current Enterprise Agreement explicitly addressing the cash out of Long Service Leave the University has continued to deal with requests for the cash out of Long Service Leave based on the difference between the State and Federal provisions.

This matter will be given appropriate consideration in the next round of bargaining.

PDRP Recommendations (recommendations 1-3)

The PDRP process will continue to be refined with a major review to be undertaken following the first complete cycle. It will be at this point that I will give further consideration to the SCG recommendation concerning the implementation of 360 degree feedback. As identified at the 2 April SCG meeting significant thought will need to be given to the rollout of this aspect of the process.

I note your recommendation with respect to having a representative from the ER team attend training to respond to industrial issues/questions. To address this issue I have spoken with the training team to ensure that any ER/industrial issues are promptly referred to the ER team post the training session. 

I consider this a more appropriate strategy for responding to potential industrial issues/questions given that the attendance at each training session by a ER team member is highly labour intensive when the needs/issues of groups  may be highly diverse. It is  also more appropriate for sensitive industrial issues to be dealt with in an individual rather than a group setting.

I acknowledge that the manner in which supervisors communicate the PDRP process with their staff is important and should not be framed in the context of pass and fail. I am hopeful that the training together with the engagement of mentors has gone some way to model the type of language that is appropriate to facilitate the PDRP process.

Your Say Survey – Inclusion of IT Contractors

The Contractors currently engaged in ITS have been included in the Your Say survey however there is the capacity to clearly identify these respondents separately to University employees.

Academic Restructure – Proposal to Centralise IT at the University (recommendation 4)

It is important to note that the “Proposal to Centralise IT at the University” is not a Change Proposal document. The University will comply with the consultation requirements under the Enterprise Agreement if and when the current explorations related to the organization of IT Services moves to a formal Change proposal.

Recruitment & Selection Policy (Recommendation 6)
 
I have noted your additional comments with respect to the requirement that positions (a) undergo a competitive selection at 12 months, (b) the Direct Appointment provisions and (c) the guidelines on composition of selection committees.

Related to (a) if the concern is around the implication for conversion from Fixed term to continuing then the University should review the rigour of its processes related to conversion.

Related to (b) the circumstances for a direct appointment are varied. The number of instances where the University has determined to make a direct appointment have been minimal. I am therefore not persuaded to change this aspect of the policy.

Related to (c) we are currently in the process of developing shortlisting interview and selection committee guidelines to underpin the policy document.

Resolution 15/08 – Space Policy

The Space Policy has been the subject to significant discussion over recent weeks. A Working Party to be chaired by the Vice Chancellor has now been established to examine key issues, and strategies for moving forward.

Yours sincerely

Tim Sprague
Director
HUMAN RESOURCES