26 March 2008

Ms Carolyn Kennett
Chair
Staff Consultative Group
Macquarie University

Dear Carolyn 

RE: Response to Report of the SCG Implementation Review Sub Committee
Report of 5 February 2008

The following summarises my responses to the issues raised in report of the Implementation Review Sub Committee report tabled at the 5 February 2008 SCG meeting. 

Academic Workload

In discussions with the Provost it has been determined that the process for setting Academic Workload should be reviewed. Given the other significant projects currently in train in 2008, our current planning is for this review to occur in 2009. It is anticipated that the data collection for this process will commence in the 2nd half of 2008 in preparation for the review.  Clearly, we will consult with the SCG on developments with this exercise as the year progresses.

It is agreed that the provisions under the Academic Workload Clause of the Enterprise Agreement should be followed. If a staff member has concerns related to the appropriate application of the Academic Workload Clause then these issues can be dealt with in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Clause of the Enterprise Agreement. 

Personal Leave

Your report refers to a situation where a staff members pay was suspended due to non-submission of a leave application. The decision to withhold a staff members pay is a joint decision between the supervisor the Head of the area, generally with advice from Human Resources considering the relative merits of the case. I would note that it is only in rare and extreme situations that the University would take action to withhold a staff members pay. In fact I am only aware of a couple of instances of this nature since my appointment with Macquarie.

We are currently in the process of reviewing all Human Resources delegations.   The delegations document will include the delegations in relation to personal leave. Once we have a draft we will consult with supervisors and Heads concerning the new HR delegation requirements and we will be seeking feedback from the SCG on this policy. Moreover, as part of the process of automating HR forms we will be reviewing the process of submitting personal leave forms and how and by whom they are signed off.

Research Active vs Actively Engaged in Research 

You may recall that this issue was specifically raised in the context of the SCG’s feedback on the OSP policy. This matter was clarified in our response to the Working Party Report on OSP and Promotions policy. In the University’s response to the Working Party report and following consultation with the DVC Research the University generally agreed with the SCG’s recommendations and that the definition in the policy would be altered to “staff who can demonstrate through research outputs or staff starting a research career” will be considered to be actively engaged in research.

SCG Process

The SCG provides an important mechanism for feedback on University policies and EA implementation issues. As identified in the SCG meeting of 5 February 2008 the SCG has to date played an important role in influencing University decision making particularly related to the rollout of the PDRP process and in the modification of policies.

An important principle in negotiation and consultation is that you cannot agree to agree. Management has to consider and respond to each SCG recommendation based on the content of a recommendation. We cannot agree a priori to receive a recommendation positively in advance of receiving or considering that recommendation, just as we would not expect the SCG to agree to receive management responses positively without seeing them.

Election Process

The election processes for the vacant electorates are in train and Human Resources will assist the SCG in facilitating the filling of casual vacancies while this process is undertaken.

 

Yours sincerely

Tim Sprague
Director
HUMAN RESOURCES