Annual Workforce Profile Report 2006-2007w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/pdf/2007_annual_report.pdf · Annual...

Annual Workforce Profile Report 2006-2007As at 31 March 2007

Human Resources UnitAugust 2007

INTRODUCTION The Annual Workforce Profile Report is produced by the Human Resources Unit and is intended to provide managers with local, corporate and benchmarking data to assist them to:

• acquire a greater understanding of the University of South Australia’s workforce • identify trends and gaps in the workforce, and • assess and measure human resource strategy success.

This report includes a range of human resource indicators that are intended to provide a snapshot of workforce issues. The indicators provide the basis of continuous monitoring of corporate strategies, a measure of the human resource capacity of the University. Trends against the measures for the previous two years are also provided. The trend analysis for each indicator can be used to plan, implement and evaluate human resource policies and initiatives. The human resource indicators included in this report are listed in the Table of Contents. BENCHMARKING Benchmarking information for most indicators is included and information has been obtained from the following sources:

• Department of Education, Science & Training (DEST) data 2006 • Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007, 2006 Census Data • Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, Year Book Australia 2005 • Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program 2007 – HR Performance Indicators for

the period 2004 – 2006 (Queensland University of Technology [QUT]) • Government of South Australia, Office of Public Employment Workforce Analysis 2006 • University of South Australia Annual Workforce Report 2004-2005 & 2005-2006 • Mercer HR Consulting, Human Resource Effectiveness Monitor 2006 • Advancing the AVCC Action Plan for Women, Cross Institution comparisons based on

2006 data, prepared by QUT for the Australian Technology Network (ATN) • University of South Australia Corporate Plan 2007-2009 • University of South Australia Corporate Performance Report 2006.

DATA REPORTING The data in this report is based on annual data provided to DEST and is either static as at 31 March 2007 or reflects data captured from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. The exception is casual employment where data is based on calendar year (1 January to 31 December 2006). The following should be noted in this year’s report:

• The Portfolio: Access and Learning Support changed its name to Portfolio: Academic at the beginning of 2006. Tables with historical data have changed to reflect the new name.

• Document Services and Security & Grounds Staff are included in the data for Professional Staff.

CONTACTS For further advice and information please contact the Director: Human Resources, Shard Lorenzo or the Remuneration and Workforce Strategy Team in the Human Resources Unit: Bernice McGrath Consultant: Remuneration and Workforce Strategy Phone: Extension 21613 [email protected] Greg Charnley Manager: Remuneration and Workforce Strategy Phone: Extension 21641 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�

mailto:[email protected]�

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Results Overview: 2004–2005, 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 1 Executive Summary 3 PART A: WORKFORCE PROFILING 5 1. Workforce Size 5 2. Employment Type – Non-Casual 9 2.1 Continuing and Fixed-Term Staff 9 2.2 Employment Type by Division and Portfolio 11 3. Casual Staff 15 4. Staff Turnover 21 5. Length of Service 27 6. Diversity 29 6.1 Indigenous Employment 30 6.2 Youth Employment 33 6.3 Female Participation 35 6.4 Country of Birth 40 6.5 First Languages 42 6.6 Disability 44 7. Age 47 7.1 Age Profile 47 7.2 Age and Gender 49 7.3 Age and Classification 51 7.4 Strategy to Address Age Profile – Graduate Recruitment 52 8. Staff Qualifications 53 8.1 Academic Staff Qualifications 53 8.2 Professional Staff Qualifications 56 9. Supported Researchers 59 10. Career Development 61 10.1 Academic Promotions 61 10.2 Professional Staff Reclassifications 64 10.3 Higher Duties Opportunities for Professional Staff 67 10.4 Professional Experience Program 69 10.5 Staff Study Support 70 11. Leave 71 11.1 Planned and Unplanned Leave 71 11.2 Recreation Leave Liability 74 11.3 Long Service Leave Liability 76 11.4 Family Friendly Leave Initiatives 78

PART B: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE & INJURY MANAGEMENT 81 Workers Compensation 81 1 Total Number of Workers Compensation Claims & Types of Injury or Illness 81 2 Total Number of Days Lost 83 3 Total Cost of Claims 84 4 Incidence Rate 85 5 Frequency Rate 86 6 Average Time Lost Rate 87

TABLES

Table 1 Continuing and Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE by Academic and Professional and Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2005, 2006 and 2007

Table 2 Total FTE numbers and percentage change by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2005, 2006 and 2007 (including casuals)

Table 3 Academic and Professional Staff by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Table 4 Employment Type by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007 reported by FTE (excluding casuals)

Table 5 Casual Hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio, 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Table 6 Total University Summary of Casual Hours and FTE by Award and Work Type, 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Table 7 Academic Casual Hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio and Work Type, 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Table 8 Professional Casual Hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio, 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Table 9 Casual Hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio and Gender, 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Table 10 University-wide Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised by Academic and Professional, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 11 Number of Involuntary and Voluntary Staff Separations by Gender, Academic and Professional, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 12 Voluntary Separations and Recruits, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 13 Recruitment by Age, Gender, Academic and Professional, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 14 Indigenous Employment as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2007

Table 15 Youth Employment as a Percentage of Professional Staff (FTE) as at 31 March 2007

Table 16 Professional Staff Youth Employment (FTE) by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Table 17 Female Staff Percentages by Academic and Professional and Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Table 18 Staff Gender (headcount) across all Classifications as at 31 March 2007

Table 19 Staff Profile as a Percentage by Country of Birth as at 31 March 2007

Table 20 First Language as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2007

Table 21 Number of Staff who identified as having a Disability as at 31 March 2007

Table 22 Median Age of Academic and Professional Staff by Gender, as at 31 March 2007

Table 23 Age Profile Compared to Australian Universities and South Australian Population, as at 31 March 2007

Table 24 Classification by Age Profile (headcount) as at 31 March 2007

Table 25 Graduate Commencements in 2007, FTE

TABLES (cont.) Table 26 Academic Staff Highest Qualification as a Percentage of Academic Staff by

Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Table 27 Academic Staff Highest Qualification as a Percentage of Academic Staff by Academic Classification as at 31 March 2007

Table 28 Professional Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of Professional Staff by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Table 29 Supported Researchers, by Division / Portfolio, 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006

Table 30 DEST Reportable Publications, Points Allocated and Headcount, 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

Table 31 Number of Applications Received for Academic Promotion for 2006 Round

Table 32 Number of Successful Applications for Academic Promotion for 2006 Round

Table 33 Academic Application for Promotion Rate and Academic Promotion Rate for 2006 Round

Table 34 Number of Applications for Reclassification, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 35 Number of Applications for Reclassification by Division / Portfolio, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 36 Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Substantive Classification Level, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 37 Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Division / Portfolio, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 38 Number of Academic Staff who Accessed Professional Experience Program by Division / Portfolio, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 39 Number of Staff Paid Staff Study Support by Division / Portfolio, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 40 Planned, Unplanned and Total Leave Annualised by Academic and Professional, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 41 Planned and Unplanned Leave Annualised by Division / Portfolio for all Staff and Total University, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 42 Average Recreation Leave Liability for Academic and Professional Staff by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Table 43 Long Service Leave Liability Average Days for Academic and Professional Staff by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Table 44 Take up of Family Friendly Leave Initiatives by Division / Portfolio, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 45 Total Number of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 46 Total Number of Days Lost Due to Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 47 Total Cost of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 48 Incidence Rate, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 49 Frequency Rate, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Table 50 Average Time Lost, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

FIGURES

Figure 1 Continuing, Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE total Percentages by Academic and Professional and University-wide as at 31 March 2007

Figure 2 Academic and Professional Staff by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Figure 3 Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised by Division / Portfolio, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Figure 4 Length of Service for Academic Staff as at 31 March 2007

Figure 5 Length of Service for Professional Staff as at 31 March 2007

Figure 6 Length of Service for Total University as at 31 March 2007

Figure 7 Total Male and Female Staff by Classification

Figure 8 Academic Staff by Age and Gender as at 31 March 2007, headcount

Figure 9 Professional Staff by Age and Gender as at 31 March 2007, headcount

Figure 10 Claims by Injury or Illness, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Annual Workforce Profile Report 2006-2007

Page 1

Results Overview: 2004–2005, 2005–2006 and 2006–2007

PART A: WORKFORCE PROFILE

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007

1. Workforce Size FTE (including casuals) FTE FTE FTE Total Staff 2445.4 2509.4 2633.6

Total number of Payment Summaries issued 6013 6043 6333

2. Staff Numbers (excluding casuals) FTE Percentage FTE Percentage FTE Percentage Academic Staff 919.8 43.8% 956.2 44.2% 1009.8 44.6% Professional Staff 1183.0 56.2% 1205.4 55.8% 1256.2 55.4% Continuing Staff 1662.8 79% 1661.0 77% 1698.3 75% Fixed-Term Contract Staff 440.0 21% 500.5 23% 567.7 25% Total Staff (FTE) Non-Casual 2102.8 2161.5 2266.0 Total Staff (headcount) Non-Casual 2226 2287 2412 Ratio of professional staff to academic staff (FTE) 1.29 1.26 1.24

3. Casual Employment FTE Percentage FTE Percentage FTE Percentage Academic staff, FTE and as a percentage of total

academic FTE 245.4 21.0% 255.49 21.1% 281.0 21.8%

Professional staff, FTE and as a percentage of total professional FTE 97.3 7.6% 92.36 7.1% 86.6 6.5%

Total casual staff, FTE and as a percentage of total FTE 342.7 14.0% 347.85 13.9% 367.6 14.0%

Academic staff, total casual hours 255,759 hours 276,321 hours 315,714 hours Professional staff, total casual hours 177,020 hours 168,102 hours 157,675 hours

4. Staff Turnover Headcount % turnover Headcount % turnover Headcount % turnover Voluntary Separation 183 8.2% 225 10.0% 209 8.9% Involuntary Separation 118 5.3% 65 2.9% 88 3.7% Total Staff Separation 301 13.5% 290 12.9% 297 12.6%

5. Length of Service - Average Years Academic 10 years 1 month 10 years 1 month 10 years Professional 9 years 7 months 9 years 4 months 9 years 1 month

6. Diversity - percentage of Workforce Indigenous Staff (Headcount) 1.17% 1.53% 1.40% Youth (16 to 24) (FTE Professional Staff) 5.1% 6.0% 6.3% Female academic staff (headcount as % of all

academic staff) 45.0% 46.7% 46.6%

Female professional staff (headcount as % of all professional staff) 65.0% 66.5% 65.3%

Female total staff (headcount as % of total staff) 56.0% 57.8% 57.0%


Page 2

PART A: WORKFORCE PROFILE (cont)

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007

7. Age Academic Median Age 48 years 49 years 49 years Professional Median Age 42 years 42 years 41 years

8. Staff Qualifications Academic Staff Qualifications - Doctorate 46.5% 50.5% 54.8% Professional Staff Qualifications – Bachelor or higher 28.3% 30.0% 31.2%

9. Supported Researchers

Number of Supported Researchers 273 292 349

DEST reportable publications, points allocated 758.9 (2003 data)

670.4 (2004 data)

764.8 (2005 data)

10. Career Development

Academic Staff Promotions (Level B to E) 40 37 31 Academic Promotion Application Rate 8.2% 6.3% 5.8% Academic Promotion Rate 4.5% 4.1% 3.2% Professional Staff Reclassification Applications 40 21 36 Professional Staff Higher Duties Opportunities 406 402 372 No. of staff who accessed Professional Experience

Program Leave 80 72 76

11. Leave (No. of days taken per staff member)

Unplanned Leave 6.2 6.3 6.7 Planned Leave 27.5 21.5 21.3 Average Rec Leave Liability: Academic Staff 17.7 16.7 16.8 Average Rec Leave Liability: Professional Staff 17.1 16.7 16.2 Average Long Service Leave Liability: Academic Staff 55.6 56.3 53.0 Average Long Service Leave Liability: Professional Staff 46.9 44.5 42.0

11. Family Friendly Leave Initiatives

No of staff who took up family friendly leave initiatives 68 760 893

PART B: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE & INJURY MANAGEMENT

WorkCover Claims Registered 56 54 53 Number of lost time claims 22 22 25 Total Days Lost 537 801 469


Page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following is a summary of the key findings contained in this report: Workforce Size The total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff (including casuals) for 2007 was 2633.6, an increase of 124.2 FTE (4.9%) since 2006. The ratio of professional staff to academic staff was 1.24. This represents a decrease from 1.26 in 2006. Of the total FTE University staff, 64.5% are employed on a continuing basis, 21.5% on a fixed-term basis and 14% on a casual basis. Turnover The total turnover for the University has decreased marginally over the last 12 months from 12.9% in 2006 to 12.6% in 2007. Voluntary turnover has also decreased from 10.0% in 2006 to 8.9% in 2007, whereas involuntary turnover has increased from 2.9% in 2006 to 3.7% in 2007. Length of Service As at 31 March 2007, the average length of service for academic staff was 10 years while the average length of service for professional staff was 9 years 1 month. Indigenous Employment The percentage of staff that identify themselves as Indigenous origin has decreased over the last year from 1.53% of total headcount in 2006 to 1.40% in 2007. Youth Employment The percentage of professional staff under the age of 25 has increased from 6.0% (72.7 FTE) in 2006 to 6.3% (79.5 FTE) in 2007. Female Participation As a total percentage, women comprise 57.0% the University’s non-casual workforce. Women account for 46.6% of all academic staff and 65.3% of professional staff. At the senior levels, women represent 27.1% of academic staff at Academic Level D and above and 39.6% of professional staff at level HEO10 and above. Age Profile As at 31 March 2007 the median age for academic staff was 49 years and professional staff 41 years. University-wide the median age was 45 years. The highest proportion of staff were in the 45-54 age group (30.4%) followed closely by the 35-44 age group (27%). A total of 50.3% of the workforce were in the 45 years and over age group. Supported Researchers The number of supported researchers has increased from 292 in 2005 to 349 in 2006. Academic Staff Qualifications As at 31 March 2007, 54.8% of academic staff held a doctoral qualification. The percentage of staff holding a doctoral qualification at the same time in 2006 was 50.5%.


Page 4

Academic Promotions 55 academic staff applied for promotion in the 2006 round (27 women and 28 men). Of these, 31 were successful (16 women and 15 men). The academic application for promotion rate for the 2006 round was 5.8%, down from 6.3% in 2005. As a comparison, the Australian Universities Benchmarking Program 2007 showed the average academic application for promotion rate for all universities for 2006 to be 7.2% and for ATN universities 9.2%. The academic promotion rate for the 2006 round was 3.2%, down from 4.1% in 2005. As a comparison, the Australian Universities Benchmarking Program 2007 showed the average academic promotion rate for all universities in 2006 was 4.9% and for ATN universities 6.1%. The benchmarking reveals that both the academic application for promotion rate and the academic promotion rate for UniSA are lower than the national average. Professional Staff Reclassification A total of 36 applications were received for professional staff reclassification. Of these, 25 (69.4%) were reclassified to a higher level. Professional Experience Program (PEP) At total of 76 academic staff (7.1% of total academic headcount) were recorded as accessing PEP leave during the reporting period. This represents an increase of 4 from the previous year. Planned and Unplanned Leave The unplanned leave rate for 2007 was 2.7%, meaning that on average staff members took 6.7 days off as unplanned leave. The total planned leave rate was 8.6%, equating to approximately 21.3 days off per year for each staff member. Leave Liability The average recreation leave liability for 2007 was 16.5 days per staff member. This has decreased slightly from 16.7 days in 2006. A new process to reduce excess recreation leave was implemented in 2006 and this is reflected in the decreased leave liability. The average long service liability for 2007 was 46.9 days, a reduction on the 49.7 days recorded in 2006. Family Friendly Leave Initiatives In the reporting period ending 31 March 2007, a total of 893 staff benefited from the University’s family friendly leave initiatives, an increase of 133 from the previous year. Workers Compensation In the reporting period ending 31 March 2007, there was a total of 53 workers compensation claims registered, representing 2.2% of staff. This compares to 54 claims in 2006. A total of 469 days were lost to 25 lost time workers compensation claims.


Page 5

PART A: WORKFORCE PROFILING 1. WORKFORCE SIZE Description

Table 1 (over page) shows the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) continuing, fixed-term and casual staff by Division and Portfolio and Academic and Professional as at 31 March 2005, 2006 and 2007. Casual FTE data is compiled across the University for the period 1 January to 31 December each year utilising the DEST formula (see page 17). For reporting purposes please note the following:

• Portfolio Pro Vice Chancellors and Executive Directors, along with their Executive Officers and Personal Assistants are reported within Chancellery. This is consistent throughout the report. Divisional Pro Vice Chancellors are reported within their respective Divisions.

• For 2005 the Centre for Regional Engagement (CRE) (formerly known as the Whyalla Campus) is reported in the Portfolio: Academic.

• For 2006 and 2007 the CRE is reported in the Portfolio: Organisational Strategy and Change.

• Document Services and Security Staff are included in the data for Professional Staff. Figure 1 below shows the total percentages for continuing, fixed-term and casual staff FTE as at 31 March 2007. Figure 1: Continuing, Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE total percentages by Academic

and Professional and University-wide as at 31 March 2007

53.6%

74.9%64.5%

24.6%

18.6%

21.6%

21.8%

6.5%14.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Academic Professional University-wide

CasualFixed-TermContinuing


Page 6

Table 1: Continuing and Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE by Academic and Professional and Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2005, 2006 and 2007

31 March 2005 31 March 2006 31 March 2007

Continuing Fixed-Term Casual TOTAL Continuing Fixed-Term Casual TOTAL Continuing Fixed-Term Casual TOTAL Division/ Portfolio

Acad Prof Acad Prof Acad Prof Acad Gen Total FTE Acad Prof Acad Prof Acad Prof Acad Prof Total

FTE Acad Prof Acad Prof Acad Prof Acad Gen Total FTE

Division: Business 124 115.5 18.2 10.8 66.86 16.62 209.06 142.92 351.98 124.05 94.60 17.30 20.10 56.93 14.96 198.28 129.66 327.94 129.55 90.9 20.4 19.9 63.64 13.51 213.59 124.31 337.90

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 234.1 99.6 40.9 14.01 90.84 20.42 365.84 134.03 499.87 245.70 100.70 47.60 22.30 104.33 21.34 397.63 144.34 541.97 253.1 106.1 65.6 17.06 108.78 15.54 427.48 138.70 566.18

Division: Health Sciences 126.3 87.49 74.73 28.23 35.55 9.48 236.58 125.20 361.78 131.00 90.91 76.05 31.43 35.12 8.56 242.17 130.90 373.07 135.9 87.66 73.55 47.7 43.71 4.25 253.16 139.61 392.77

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & Environment

127.8 89.9 71.13 15.7 47.06 8.80 245.99 114.40 360.39 129.33 90.90 76.83 19.20 50.83 7.37 256.98 117.47 374.45 125.33 88 90.75 19.5 57.81 10.54 273.89 118.04 391.92

Chancellery 1 19.6 3.6 10 0.42 0.43 5.02 30.03 35.05 0 21.40 3.60 11.80 0.01 0.40 3.61 33.60 37.21 0 21.2 4.6 10.7 0.21 0.84 4.81 32.74 37.54

Portfolio: Academic* 32 237.56 8.9 29.15 3.91 24.14 44.81 290.85 335.66 17.00 224.84 5.80 32.12 1.09 15.71 23.89 272.67 296.56 19 243.05 5.8 39.04 0.25 20.10 25.05 302.19 327.24

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0 146.3 0 22.7 0 6.16 0.00 175.16 175.16 0.00 129.89 0.00 17.80 0.07 7.30 0.07 154.99 155.06 0 126.08 0 21.4 0 6.22 0.00 153.70 153.70

Portfolio: International & Development 0 61.65 0 8 0.16 5.64 0.16 75.29 75.45 0.00 65.40 0.00 12.00 0.17 7.83 0.17 85.23 85.40 0 68.13 0 16 0.01 6.00 0.01 90.13 90.14

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change**

0 110.4 0 15.58 0.03 4.15 0.03 130.13 130.16 16.00 132.67 5.30 23.40 5.81 6.38 27.11 162.45 189.56 16 137.52 5.4 25.3 5.81 7.15 27.21 169.97 197.19

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 13 36.6 44.13 24.2 0.57 1.43 57.70 62.23 119.93 12.00 34.60 48.60 29.33 1.13 2.51 61.73 66.44 128.17 13 37.73 51.8 33.23 0.75 2.49 65.55 73.45 139.00

University Total 658.2 1004.6 261.59 178.37 245.40 97.27 1,165.19 1,280.24 2,445.43 675.08 985.91 281.08 219.47 255.49 92.36 1211.64 1297.75 2509.39 691.88 1006.37 317.9 249.82 280.97 86.63 1290.75 1342.82 2633.57

* Portfolio: Academic was restructured at the beginning of 2006 when the name was changed from Access and Learning Support. Centre for Regional Engagement (Whyalla) is reported in this Portfolio for 2005. ** Portfolio: Organisational Strategy and Change was restructured at the beginning of 2006. Centre for Regional Engagement (Whyalla) is reported in this Portfolio for 2006 and 2007.


Page 7

Summary

Total staff (FTE) as at 31 March 2007 was 2633.57. University-wide, 64.5% of staff were employed in continuing appointments with 21.5% on fixed-term contracts and 14% were employed on a casual basis. Of the total academic staff FTE (1290.8), 53.6% were employed in continuing appointments, 24.6% on fixed-term contracts and 21.8% were employed on a casual basis. The percentage of academic casual staff employed has increased slightly during the reporting period. Of the total professional staff FTE (1342.8), 74.9% were employed in continuing appointments, 18.6% on fixed-term contracts and 6.5% were employed on a casual basis.

Trend

Total FTE (including casuals) 2005 2006 2007

University Total 2445.4 2509.4 2633.6

Percentage of Academic Staff employed on a casual basis 21.0% 21.1% 21.8%

Table 2: Total FTE numbers and percentage change by Division / Portfolio as at

31 March 2005, 2006 and 2007 (including casuals)

31 March 2005

31 March 2006

31 March 2007

Division and Portfolio Total FTE Total FTE Total FTE

Change in FTE from 2006 to

2007

% change from 2006

to 2007

Division: Business 351.98 327.94 337.90 +10.0 3.0%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 499.87 541.97 566.18 +24.2 4.5%

Division: Health Sciences 361.78 373.07 392.77 +19.7 5.3%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 360.39 374.45 391.92 +17.5 4.7%

Chancellery 35.05 37.21 37.54 +0.3 0.9%

Portfolio: Academic 335.66 296.56 327.24 +30.7 10.3%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 175.16 155.06 153.70 -1.4 -0.9%

Portfolio: International & Development 75.45 85.40 90.14 +4.7 5.6%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 130.16 189.56 197.19 +7.6 4.0%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 119.93 128.17 139.00 +10.8 8.5%

University Total 2445.43 2509.39 2633.57 +124.2 4.9%


Page 8

Total staff numbers (including casuals) have increased by 124.2 FTE (4.9%) across the University since 2006. When compared to 2005, total staff numbers have increased by 188.2 FTE (7.7%). As shown in Table 2, all Divisions and Portfolios experienced an increase in FTE staff numbers for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, with the exception of the Portfolio: Finance and Resources where a small decrease in FTE occurred. The largest increase in FTE was in the Portfolio: Academic (30.68 FTE, 10.3% increase). This was due to an increase in staff numbers when Campus Central was incorporated into the Student and Academic Services Unit. Across the Divisions, the largest increase in FTE occurred in the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences (24.21 FTE, 4.5% increase).


Page 9

2. EMPLOYMENT TYPE – NON-CASUAL 2.1 CONTINUING AND FIXED-TERM STAFF Description

Figure 2 and Table 3 show the number of FTE continuing and fixed-term staff (excluding casual staff) by Academic and Professional and Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007. Figure 2: Academic and Professional Staff by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Division:Business

Division:Education, Arts

& SocialSciences

Division: HealthSciences

Division:InformationTechnology,

Engineering &the Environment

Chancellery Portfolio:Academic

Portfolio:Finance &Resources

Portfolio:International &Development

Portfolio:Organisational

Strategy andChange

Portfolio:Research &Innovation

FTE

Academic Professional

Table 3: Academic and Professional Staff by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

FTE % FTE numbers Headcount Division / Portfolio

Academic Professional Academic Professional Total Academic Professional Total

Division: Business 57.5% 42.5% 149.95 110.80 260.75 156 120 276

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 72.1% 27.9% 318.7 123.16 441.86 345 136 479

Division: Health Sciences 60.7% 39.3% 209.45 135.36 344.81 230 143 373

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 66.8% 33.2% 216.08 107.50 323.58 224 111 335

Chancellery 12.6% 87.4% 4.60 31.90 36.50 5 34 39

Portfolio: Academic 8.1% 91.9% 24.80 282.09 306.89 26 308 334

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0.0% 100.0% 0 147.48 147.48 0 151 151

Portfolio: International & Development 0.0% 100.0% 0 84.13 84.13 0 89 89

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 11.6% 88.4% 21.40 162.82 184.22 22 171 193

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 47.7% 52.3% 64.80 70.96 135.76 67 76 143

University Total 44.6% 55.4% 1009.78 1256.19 2265.97 1075 1339 2412


Page 10

Summary

Total staff (headcount) as at 31 March 2007, excluding casuals, was 2412 and the total staff FTE excluding casuals was 2266. The ratio of professional staff to academic staff was 1.24 (per FTE). Of the 2266 FTE staff, 55.4% were professional staff (slightly lower than 55.8% for 2006) and 44.6% were academic staff (an increase from 44.2% in 2006). The distribution of academic and professional staff varied across Divisions due to different administrative and technical structures. Across the four Divisions, the Division of Business had the highest percentage of professional staff (42.5%) and the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences had the lowest (27.9%). Trend

University Total (excluding casuals) 2005 2006 2007

University Total (FTE) 2103 2162 2266

University Total (headcount) 2226 2287 2412

Ratio Professional Staff to Academic (FTE) 1.29 1.26 1.24

Over the 12 month reporting period, total FTE staff numbers (excluding casuals) increased by 104.5. In comparison to 2006, the largest areas of FTE growth were in the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences (increase of 25 FTE) and the Division of Health Sciences (increase of 15 FTE). The ratio of professional staff to academic staff has continued a downward trend since 2005 (1.29), 2006 (1.26) down to 1.24 in 2007. This may be explained by the gradual increase in academic staff numbers over the three year reporting period. The change in the percentage of academic staff across Divisions for the three year period differs. The Division of Business (2005: 53%, 2006: 55% and 2007: 58%) and the Division of Health Sciences (2005: 63%, 2006: 63% and 2007: 61%) had the lowest percentage of academic staff as a proportion of total staff FTE in the Division. The Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences (2005: 71%, 2006: 70% and 2007: 72%) and the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment (2005: 65%, 2006: 65% and 2007: 67%) had the highest percentage of academic staff. Benchmarking

The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program 2007 data (sample size 32 universities) reported the average ratio (headcount) of professional to academic staff across the sector in 2006 was 1.36. The customised report for ATN universities reported the ATN professional to academic staff ratio as 1.49. UniSA’s professional to academic staff ratio for 2007 was 1.24. This places UniSA at 0.12 points lower than the university average, and 0.25 points lower than the ATN average. The following benchmarking information is obtained from DEST based on 2006 data utilising FTE figures. For universities in a group, the number and percentage of staff has been averaged.


Page 11

Ratio of Professional

Staff to Academic Staff

Percentage of Academic Staff

Percentage of Professional Staff

All Australian universities 1.33 43.0% 57.0% ATN universities 1.42 41.3% 58.7% Adelaide University 1.22 45.0% 55.0% Flinders University 1.41 41.5% 58.5% UniSA 1.26 44.3% 55.7%

The DEST data reveals that, UniSA’s ratio of professional to academic staff (1.26) is lower than the ATN average (1.42) and lower than the average for all Australian universities (1.33). 2.2 EMPLOYMENT TYPE BY DIVISION / PORTFOLIO Description

Table 4 on the following page shows the percentage of staff (FTE) employed as continuing or fixed-term by Division / Portfolio. This indicator reflects the flexibility of the organisational structures across the University. Summary

As at 31 March 2007, 75% of staff were employed on a continuing basis and 25% on fixed-term contracts (excluding casual staff). When casual staff are included in the employment profile, 64.5% of all staff are employed as continuing, 21.5% as fixed-term and 14% as casual. The areas with the highest fixed-term contracts include:

• Portfolio: Research & Innovation (63%, 85 FTE staff on fixed-term contracts) • Chancellery (42%, 15 FTE staff on fixed-term contracts) • Division of Health Sciences (35%, 121 FTE staff on fixed-term contracts) • Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment (34%, 110 FTE

staff on fixed-term contracts).

The high number of fixed-term contracts in the following areas is directly related to: • the number of Senior Management Group members on individual senior contracts in

Chancellery; • the number of staff on research contracts in the Portfolio: Research and Innovation and

the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment; and • the number of staff on specific task, project and research contracts in the Division of

Health Sciences (a high number of these contracts are for the South Australian Centre for Rural and Remote Health).


Page 12

Table 4: Employment Type by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007 reported by FTE (excluding casuals)

Continuing Fixed-Term Contract Percentage of FTE

Part-time Part-time Division and Portfolio Full-time FTE FTE Headcount

Total FTE

Full-time FTE FTE Headcount

Total FTE Cont Fixed-

Term

Division: Business 206.0 14.45 20 220.45 30 10.30 20 40.30 85% 15%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 330.0 29.20 48 359.20 59 23.66 42 82.66 81% 19%

Division: Health Sciences 197.0 26.56 40 223.56 98 23.25 38 121.25 65% 35%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 206.0 7.33 13 213.33 101 9.25 15 110.25 66% 34%

Chancellery 19.0 2.20 3 21.20 13 2.30 4 15.30 58% 42%

Portfolio: Academic 218.0 44.05 67 262.05 37 7.84 12 44.84 85% 15%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 118.0 8.08 11 126.08 20 1.40 2 21.40 85% 15%

Portfolio: International & Development 57.0 11.13 15 68.13 15 1.00 2 16.00 81% 19%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 139.0 14.52 22 153.52 28 2.70 4 30.70 83% 17%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 48.0 2.73 5 50.73 80 5.03 10 85.03 37% 63%

University Total 1538.0 160.25 244 1698.25 481 86.72 149 567.72 75% 25%


Page 13

Trend

University Total (percentage of FTE) 2005

2006 2007

Continuing 79% 77% 75%

Fixed-Term 21% 23% 25% For the period 2005 to 2007 there was a slight decrease in the percentage of staff members on continuing appointments and a corresponding increase in the percentage of staff on fixed-term contracts. Benchmarking

At June 2006, 63.0% of the SA Public Sector workforce was employed on a continuing basis. Fixed-term contract staff accounted for 27.7% of the workforce, with casual staff making up the remaining 9.3%. The long-term trend across the public sector workforce has been that the proportion of people appointed on a contract basis has continued to increase. The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2006 DEST data utilising FTE figures. For universities in a group, the number and percentage of staff has been averaged. DEST uses the terminology tenured term, limited tenure and other tenure. For comparison to UniSA, tenured term has been interpreted as continuing and limited tenure and other tenure has been interpreted as fixed-term. The DEST data relates to staff in current roles at the time of data collection, i.e. higher duties and secondments are reported as limited tenure even though those staff members may hold continuing substantive positions. Based on the data in the table below and the definition of continuing and fixed-term positions as described above, UniSA’s percentage of continuing staff is below the national average for universities and also below the ATN average.

Percentage of Continuing

Percentage of Fixed-Term

All Australian universities 67.4 32.6 ATN universities 67.3 32.7 Adelaide University 55.9 44.1 Flinders University 68.4 31.6 UniSA 63.0 37.0


Page 14


Page 15

3. CASUAL STAFF Description

Casual staff are engaged by the hour and paid on an hourly basis. The data used describes the utilisation and payment of academic and professional casual staff across the University for the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006. It does not include any payments made outside these dates for work performed during the period. Full-time equivalence is derived using the prescribed DEST formula:

FTE = (hours worked) (F x N)

F = factor based on average hours worked per week for various staff categories prescribed as:

• 9 for lecturing staff • 25 for tutors and supervisors • 35 for marking, research and all other non-academic staff

N = number of weeks worked per year for various staff categories prescribed as:

• 28 for lecturing, tutoring and supervisory staff • 52 for marking, research and all other non-academic staff

The following definitions are prescribed by DEST and used within the tables:

• Lecture – where the work performed is lecturing.

• Tutor – where the work performed is supervising or conducting demonstrations, tutorials or workshops.

• Other – where the work performed is marking, research and all other work including all non-academic activities.

This data is presented as follows:

• Table 5 shows total casual hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio.

• Table 6 shows total University casual hours and FTE by award and work type.

• Table 7 shows the breakdown of casual academic staff hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio and work type.

• Table 8 shows casual professional staff hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio.

• Table 9 shows casual hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio and gender.


Page 16

Table 5: Casual Hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio, 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Division / Portfolio Number of hours FTE

Division: Business 93,661 77.15

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 144,372 124.34

Division: Health Sciences 66,503 47.96

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 83,240 68.34

Chancellery 1,901 1.04

Portfolio: Academic 37,031 20.35

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 11,314 6.22

Portfolio: International & Development 10,938 6.01

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 18,616 12.97

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 5,814 3.24

Grand Total 473,390 367.62

Table 6: Total University Summary of Casual Hours and FTE by Award and Work Type,

1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Award Work Code Number of hours FTE

Lecture 12,776 50.71

Tutor 72,595 103.71 Academic – Non Research

Other 142,857 78.50

Academic – Non Research Total 228,228 232.92

Academic – Research Other 87,486 48.07

Academic - Research Total 87,486 48.07

Academic Total 315,714 280.99

Professional – Administrative Other 143,980 79.11

Professional – Research Other 13,695 7.52

Professional Total 157,675 86.63

Grand Total 473,390 367.62


Page 17

Table 7: Academic Casual Hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio and Work Type, 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Division and Portfolio Work Code

Number of hours FTE

Lecture 3,245 12.88 Tutor 16,603 23.72 Division: Business Other 49,217 27.04

Total: Division: Business 69,065 63.64

Lecture 4,711 18.70 Tutor 32,860 46.95 Division: Education, Arts & Social

Sciences Other 78,526 43.15

Total: Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 116,097 108.80

Lecture 593 2.35 Tutor 10,688 15.27 Division: Health Sciences Other 47,478 26.09

Total: Division: Health Sciences 58,759 43.71

Lecture 3,954 15.69 Tutor 10,340 14.77 Division: Information Technology,

Engineering & the Environment Other 49,768 27.34

Total: Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 64,062 57.80

Chancellery Other 378 0.21

Total: Chancellery 378 0.21

Portfolio: Academic Other 448 0.25

Total: Portfolio: Academic 448 0.25

Portfolio: International & Development Other 25 0.01

Total: Portfolio: International & Development 25 0.01

Lecture 273 1.09 Tutor 2,052 2.93 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy &

Change Other 3,274 1.80

Total: Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 5,599 5.82

Tutor 52 0.07 Portfolio: Research & Innovation Other 1,229 0.68

Total: Portfolio: Research & Innovation 1,281 0.75

Grand Total 315,714 280.99


Page 18

Table 8: Professional Casual Hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio,

1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Division and Portfolio Number of hours FTE

Division: Business 24,596 13.51

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 28,275 15.54

Division: Health Sciences 7,744 4.25

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 19,178 10.54

Chancellery 1,523 0.83

Portfolio: Academic 36,583 20.10

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 11,314 6.22

Portfolio: International & Development 10,913 6.00

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 13,016 7.15

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 4,533 2.49

Total 157,675 86.63


Page 19

Table 9: Casual Hours and FTE by Division / Portfolio and Gender, 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006

Division and Portfolio Gender Code

Number of hours FTE

Female 49,237 36.57 Division: Business

Male 44,424 40.58

Total: Division: Business 93,661 77.15

Female 98,347 82.93 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences

Male 46,025 41.41

Total: Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 144,372 124.34

Female 45,177 32.44 Division: Health Sciences

Male 21,326 15.52

Total: Division: Health Sciences 66,503 47.96

Female 22,961 17.23 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment Male 60,279 51.11

Total: Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 83,240 68.34

Female 1,098 0.60 Chancellery

Male 803 0.44

Total: Chancellery 1,901 1.04

Female 25,896 14.23 Portfolio: Academic

Male 11,135 6.12

Total: Portfolio: Academic 37,031 20.35

Female 4,486 2.47 Portfolio: Finance & Resources

Male 6,828 3.75

Total: Portfolio: Finance & Resources 11,314 6.22

Female 7,776 4.27 Portfolio: International & Development

Male 3,162 1.74

Total: Portfolio: International & Development 10,938 6.01

Female 10,338 7.64 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change

Male 8,278 5.33

Total: Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 18,616 12.97

Female 2,210 1.21 Portfolio: Research & Innovation

Male 3,604 2.03

Total: Portfolio: Research & Innovation 5,814 3.24

Total Female 267,526 199.59

Total Male 205,864 168.03

Grand Total 473,390 367.62


Page 20

Summary

A total of 473,390 casual hours were worked during the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006, equating to 367.62 FTE. Casual academic staff accounted for 76.4% of total casual FTE (280.99). Casual research academic staff accounted for 48.07 of FTE or 17.1% of the total academic casual FTE. Fifty four per cent of casual FTE (199.59) were women. Total University FTE, including casuals was 2633.6, with casual staff representing 14% of the workforce. Casual academic staff represent 21.8% of the academic staff workforce and casual professional staff represent 6.5% of the professional staff workforce. Across all Divisions and Portfolios, the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences accounted for the highest casual number of hours and FTE, followed by the Division of Business. Trend

Casual Reporting 2004

(for the year 1/1/04 to 31/12/04)

2005 (for the year 1/1/05

to 31/12/05)

2006 (for the year 1/1/06

to 31/12/06)

University total casual hours 432,779 444,423 473,390

University total FTE 342.67 347.85 367.62

Over the past 12 months, there was an increase of 28,967 hours in total casual hours (representing a 6.5% increase) and an increase in total FTE of 19.77 (5.7%). The increase in total hours and FTE is consistent with the overall increase in total FTE numbers across the University. Benchmarking

The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2006 DEST data utilising FTE figures. For universities in a group, the number of casuals has been averaged. Average or Number

of FTE Casuals Percentage of Total

Workforce

All Australian universities 340 14.9%

ATN universities 450 15.7%

Adelaide University 405 14.4%

Flinders University 225 12.9%

UniSA 350 13.9% Estimated casual numbers (FTE) for all Australian universities ranged from zero at Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education in the Northern Territory to 1,130 at the University of Melbourne. Of the ATN universities, UniSA recorded the lowest number of FTE casual staff, with 350, compared to the highest of 649 FTE at Queensland University of Technology (2006 DEST data).


Page 21

4. STAFF TURNOVER Description

For the purposes of this report, turnover includes both voluntary and involuntary turnover and excludes casual staff. Voluntary turnover represents the number of staff (headcount) who initiated termination of employment and includes:

• resignation; • voluntary redundancy; and • retirement.

This indicator monitors the unplanned loss of skills and impacts on productivity and costs of rehiring and training. Whilst some turnover is healthy, very high levels of turnover may be indicative of management or organisational culture issues, skills shortages, competitor strategies, employee dissatisfaction and individual performance. However, turnover can also represent an opportunity to introduce new skills, facilitate change in the workplace and be functional for the particular area. Involuntary turnover represents the number of employer-initiated terminations of employment and includes:

• expiration of fixed-term contract employment; • redundancy; • dismissal; and • employment not continuing after probation.

Dismissals and probation terminations of employment are a guide to the effectiveness of recruitment and selection procedures, training, performance management and workforce planning. Turnover represents the ratio of staff that left the organisation to the average number of staff employed over a 12 month period. It has been calculated with the following formula: Number of Staff terminated (headcount) x 100%

Average No. of staff for the 12 month period Figure 3 (over page) shows voluntary and involuntary turnover annualised by Division / Portfolio from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. Table 10 (over page) shows voluntary and involuntary staff turnover annualised from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 for academic and professional staff. Table 11 (over page) illustrates the information by gender and academic and professional for the same period.


Page 22

Figure 3: Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised by Division / Portfolio,

1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Div : Business Div : Ed., Arts &Soc. Science

Div : HealthSciences

Div : Info.Tech.,Eng., & Env.

Chancellery Portfolio:Academic

Portfolio:International

andDevelopment

Portfolio : Org.Strategy and

Change

Portfolio :Research &Innovation

Portfolio :Resources

Grand Total

Involuntary Voluntary Grand Total

Table 10: University-wide Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised by

Academic and Professional, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Academic Professional Total University

Involuntary 4.5% 3.1% 3.7%

Voluntary 6.5% 10.8% 8.9%

Total Turnover 11.0% 13.9% 12.6%

Table 11: Number of Involuntary and Voluntary Staff Separations by Gender, Academic

and Professional, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Gender Award Involuntary Voluntary Total

Academic 28 34 62 Female

Professional 31 93 124

Total: Female 59 127 186

Academic 19 34 53 Male


Total: Male 29 82 111

Total 88 209 297

Separations


Page 23

Table 11 shows that for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 there were a total of 297 separations (including both involuntary and voluntary separations). There were 209 voluntary separations (68 academic staff and 141 professional staff). Of the 209, 127 were women and 82 were men. The total University-wide turnover (including both involuntary and voluntary separations) for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 was 12.6%. As shown in Figure 3, turnover was relatively consistent across the Divisions, ranging from 13.6% in the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment to 11.6% in the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences. The turnover in the Portfolios varied and ranged from 15.4% in Chancellery to 8.0% in the Portfolio: Finance and Resources. In the latter case, this represents a significant reduction from 24.8% in from the previous year, which was mainly due to the restructuring of the Services Unit. The total number of women that separated from the University during the reporting period was 186, representing 62.6% of all separations. This is slightly higher than the proportion of female staff within the University (57.0%). This is an increase on last year’s figures (152 female separations representing 52.4% of all separations). The total number of female academic staff leaving the organisation was 62, representing 53.9% of academic staff separations. This is higher than the proportion of female academic staff within the University (46.6%) and is significantly more than the previous year (40 separations representing 39.2% of academic staff separations). Recruitment It is important to analyse turnover data and compare the number of voluntary separations, i.e. resignation, retirement and voluntary redundancy, with the number of recruits. The analysis in Table 12 shows that the University is currently recruiting more people than it is losing through voluntary separations, particularly in the younger age groups. This is reflected in the increase in total FTE staff across the University over the past 12 months (see Table 1). The only age groups where separations outnumbered recruits were in the 55-64 and 65+ age groups. It would be reasonable to assume that there would be fewer recruitments and more retirements in these older age groups. Table 12: Voluntary Separations and Recruits, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Age Group Voluntary Separations Recruits 15 to 24 11 43 25 to 34 58 100 35 to 44 48 80 45 to 54 48 58 55 to 64 39 13 65+ 5 0

Totals 209 294


Page 24

As shown in Table 13 below, women accounted for the majority of new recruits during the reporting period (193), representing 65.6% of total recruits. This reflects the University’s gender profile, where women make up 57.0% of total staff numbers. Women dominate in all age groups, except for the 45-54 age group. In the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, women were recruited in academic disciplines at a greater rate than men, particularly at the lower academic levels. A total of 117 academic staff were recruited, comprising 63 women and 54 men, with women representing 53.8% of all academic recruits. The data presented in this section reveals that over the reporting period while 62 female academic staff exited the University, 63 new female academic staff were recruited. This movement is reflected in the percentage of female academic staff across the University which has remained constant over the past few years Table 13: Recruitment by Age, Gender, Academic and Professional,


Age (Years)

15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total

Women 0 23 20 16 4 0 63 Academic

Men 2 14 14 21 3 0 54

Academic Total 2 37 34 37 7 0 117

Women 31 48 33 15 3 0 130 Professional

Men 10 15 13 6 3 0 47

Professional Total 41 63 46 21 6 0 177

Grand Total 43 100 80 58 13 0 294 Trend

Total University 2005 2006 2007

Involuntary 5.3% 2.9% 3.7%

Voluntary 8.2% 10.0% 8.9%

Total Turnover 13.5% 12.9% 12.6%

The total turnover for the University has decreased over the last 12 months from 12.9% in 2006 to 12.6% in 2007. Voluntary turnover has also decreased from 10.0% in 2006 down to 8.9% in 2007, whereas involuntary turnover has increased from 2.9% in 2006 to 3.7% in 2007. Benchmarking


Page 25

The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program 2007 (sample size 32 universities) reports the average turnover rate as 19.0% (includes expiration of fixed-term contracts) for the calendar year 2006. The average turnover rate for the ATN universities is 17.9%. In comparison, UniSA’s total turnover of 12.6% for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 is significantly lower than the average for all Australian universities and the ATN universities. The average voluntary (employee initiated) turnover rate for Australian universities for 2006 is 10.6% and 9.9% for ATN universities. The voluntary turnover rate at UniSA is marginally lower at 8.9%. The Mercer Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor 2006 reports the average total turnover for all industries with staff numbers above 1000 is 17.7%. Across all Australian industries the voluntary turnover has decreased slightly from 17.5% in 2005 to 17.3% in 2006.


Page 26


Page 27

5. LENGTH OF SERVICE Description

Figure 4 shows the length of service (as a percentage) for continuing and fixed-term academic staff from commencement date at UniSA or the previous amalgamated institutions. Figure 5 shows continuing and fixed-term professional staff length of service and Figure 6 (over page) shows length of service for the total University. For reporting purposes the information has been grouped into the following:

• less than 6 months • 6 months to 3 years • 3 to 7 years • 7 to 15 years • 15 plus years

Figure 4: Length of Service for Academic Staff as at 31 March 2007

Less than 6 months7%

6 months - 3 years19%

3 - 7 years22%7 - 15 years

23%

15 + years29%

Figure 5: Length of Service for Professional Staff as at 31 March 2007



3 - 7 years25%

7 - 15 years22%

15 + years23%


Page 28

Figure 6: Length of Service for Total University as at 31 March 2007



3 - 7 years23%

7 - 15 years23%

15 + years26%

Summary

As at 31 March 2007, over a quarter of staff (26%) have greater than 15 years service with UniSA or the previous amalgamated institutions. There are some differences between professional and academic staff when looking at length of service, for example 29% of academic staff have completed over 15 years of service compared to 23% of professional staff. However the figures for staff with 7-15 years of service are similar for both academic and professional staff, while the proportion of staff who have completed between 6 months and 7 years service is higher for professional staff. The average length of service for an academic staff member is 10 years as at 31 March 2007. The average length of service for a professional staff member is 9 years and 1 month at the same date. Trend

Average length of service 2005 2006 2007

Academic 10 years 1 month 10 years 1 month 10 years

Professional 9 years 7 months 9 years 4 months 9 years 1 month

The average length of service for academic staff has remained consistent over the past three years, while the average for professional staff decreased slightly over the period. Benchmarking

No data currently available.


Page 29

6. DIVERSITY This section contains diversity profiling indicators (Indigenous employment, youth employment, female participation, country of birth, first languages and disability). UniSA encourages management practices that create and sustain an environment where all staff can achieve their potential in contributing to the corporate objectives. The University acknowledges the benefits of a diverse workforce and the valuing of differences among staff. Recognising a broad range of experiences, values and skills within the workforce enhances organisational performance. A number of recent initiatives reflect UniSA’s commitment to diversity:

• In 2006, the Equity and Diversity Roadshow, a short informative session on equity and diversity at UniSA, was presented to over 500 staff. The aim of the roadshow was to remind all staff of their obligations under various anti-discrimination legislation as well as the University’s policies in this area and to direct staff to available resources. The Equity and Diversity Roadshow will continue throughout 2007.

• Multi-access suites have been created and are now available to all members of the University community. These suites provide a dignified, private and appropriate space that supports the needs of parents, breastfeeding mothers and people with disabilities or medical conditions who need an area to rest or to conduct disability-related cares.

• The Equity and Diversity website continues to be updated to provide an effective resource for staff and managers.

The following initiatives implemented in previous years will continue to be supported:

• Provision of Indigenous cultural awareness training for non-Indigenous staff.

• Embedding the staff equity and diversity function within all teams across the HR Unit.

• Addressing equity issues in employment in the Staff Attitude Survey.

• Provision of a multi-faceted Women and Leadership program.

• Establishment of flexible family and culturally friendly work practices.

• Provision of equity and diversity training development opportunities.

• Enhanced provisions for maternity leave, partner leave and flexibility in working hours.

The Staff Diversity Survey, a confidential data collection process, was initiated in 2000 to gather data on the diversity attributes of the workforce. Currently 61% of staff have completed and returned the Staff Diversity Survey. This has been decreasing over the three year reporting period from 69% in 2005 and 65% in 2006.


Page 30

6.1 INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT Description

Indigenous staff are those who identify themselves as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin. Table 13 shows Indigenous employment as a percentage of staff by Division / Portfolio and total University as at 31 March 2007. This percentage is calculated as:

Number of Indigenous Staff (headcount) x 100% Total Staff (headcount) The data in Table 14 is sourced from a confidential database, maintained by the Consultant: HR Services (Indigenous and Employment Schemes) and is based on interviews with staff members. Due to the small number of Indigenous staff across the University, the data is shown as a percentage and does not include the actual number of Indigenous staff within each Division / Portfolio. Table 14: Indigenous Employment as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2007

Division / Portfolio Indigenous 2007 (% Headcount)

Division: Business 0.04%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 1.20%

Division: Health Sciences 0.08%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment

Chancellery

Portfolio: Academic

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0.04%

Portfolio: International & Development

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 0.04%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation

Total Across the University 1.4%

Summary

The HRU database indicates that the percentage of staff that identify as being of Indigenous origin is 1.4%. UniSA remains committed to achieving a target of 2% Indigenous employment across the University.


Page 31

Current strategies to achieve this target include:

• Ongoing support and commitment to the role of Consultant: HR Services (Indigenous and Employment Schemes) and the services this provides.

• Annual review of the Indigenous Employment Strategy and the range of initiatives it incorporates.

• Provision of Indigenous cultural awareness training for non-Indigenous staff.

• Mentoring and support networks for Indigenous staff.

• A focus on young Indigenous people through the Youth Traineeship scheme and the Structured Training and Employment Project through the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.

• Funding for professional development of Indigenous staff who are newly appointed to UniSA, calculated as 20% of the employee’s base salary plus on-costs at the time of appointment for a 3 year period.

These strategies are supported by the Indigenous Employment Advisory Group (which includes community members). Further information about strategies to increase the Indigenous employment participation rate is available on the HR Unit website.

Trend

2005 2006 2007

Indigenous employment as a percentage of total staff (headcount) 1.17% 1.53% 1.40%

The percentage of staff that identify as Indigenous has decreased over the last year from 1.53% of total headcount in 2006 to 1.40% in 2007. However, data post 31 March 2007 indicates an increase to 1.49% and a projected 1.65% by December 2007. It is also worth noting the increasing number of casual Indigenous staff across the University not included in the data presented in this report. This casual employment provides pathways and opportunities for Indigenous staff to gain ongoing employment. Achieving the 2% goal for Indigenous employment continues to pose a challenge for the University. However, ongoing support and commitment to the role of Consultant: HR Services (Indigenous and Employment Schemes) and the services this provides will assist in achieving this target. Strategic Indigenous Cultural Awareness Program All staff are provided with the opportunity to attend cultural awareness training across the University. The following figures reflect the attendance at the training program since 2004. Positive responses to the training provided indicates the effectiveness of the program, which will be delivered annually.

2004 2005 2006

Staff Attendance 209 127 122


Page 32

Benchmarking

The ABS 2006 Census of Population and Housing information indicated that 1.7% of the South Australian population was identified as Indigenous. This figure was calculated using the total Indigenous population and is reported by the following age groups.

Age Group Indigenous Population Percentage of Total Population of South

Australia

0-4 years 2980 3.4%

5-14 years 6310 3.3%

15-24 years 5030 2.5%

25-44 years 6837 1.7%

45-64 years 3491 0.9%

65 years and over 907 0.4%

Total 25,555 1.7%

As at June 2006, 1.37% of the SA Public Sector workforce was identified as Indigenous, an increase from 1.14% in June 2005. The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2006 DEST data utilising headcount figures. For universities in a group, the number of Indigenous staff has been averaged.

Percentage of Indigenous Staff

All Australian universities 0.83

ATN universities 0.89

Adelaide University 0.68

Flinders University 1.48

UniSA 0.83

Benchmarking against other universities indicates that UniSA fits within the average of all Australian universities in relation to the percentage of Indigenous employees. It should be noted, however, that the data provided to DEST is based on information sourced from the Staff Diversity Survey. The confidential database maintained by the Consultant: HR Services (Indigenous and Employment Schemes) presents a more accurate picture of Indigenous employment at UniSA. For 2006 this database indicated that 1.53% of staff identified themselves as being of Indigenous origin.


Page 33

6.2 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT Description

Youth employment at UniSA is defined as the employment (continuing and fixed-term) of professional staff between 16 and 24 years of age. This is shown as a percentage of staff (FTE non-casual):

Total Youth Employed (FTE) x 100% Total Professional Staff (FTE)

The intention is to increase the participation rate of young people less than 25 years of age within UniSA to reflect the diversity and characteristics of the student population and South Australian community. Further information regarding youth employment strategies can be found on the HR Unit website. Table 15 reports youth employment as a percentage of professional staff as at 31 March 2007. Table 15: Youth Employment as a Percentage of Professional Staff (FTE)

as at 31 March 2007 Continuing and Fixed-term (excludes casuals) Youth 2007 (% FTE)

Total professional staff under 25 6.3%

UniSA’s commitment to youth employment is reflected through the Youth Traineeship Scheme. In 2006 the HR Unit undertook an extensive review of the scheme and as a result the Scheme was centrally coordinated to bring greater focus to this area. The HR Unit continued to work with Stones/Muirdens Business College to provide opportunities for traineeships. In this reporting period, a further four traineeships commenced and one traineeship was extended for a further 12 months. Table 16 reports professional staff youth employment (FTE) by Division / Portfolio. The data includes young people employed on the Youth Traineeship Scheme. (All professional staff employed on the Youth Traineeship Scheme are employed in full-time positions.) Table 16: Professional Staff Youth Employment (FTE) by Division / Portfolio

as at 31 March 2007

Division / Portfolio Continuing Fixed-term Total

Division: Business 7.0 5.0 12.0

Division: Education, Arts & Social Science 4.0 1.4 5.4

Division: Health Sciences 2.0 13.0 15.0

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 8.0 1.0 9.0

Chancellery 0.0 1.6 1.6

Portfolio: Academic 7.3 6.9 14.2

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 3.0 0.0 3.0

Portfolio: International & Development 1.0 5.0 6.0

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 2.0 8.8 10.8

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 1.0 1.5 2.5

Grand Total 35.3 44.2 79.5


Page 34

Summary

Youth employment represents 6.3% of total professional staff numbers (non-casuals), with 44.4% of staff employed under the age of 25 years in continuing employment and 55.6% on fixed-term contracts. The Division of Health Sciences has the highest number of professional staff youth employed (15 FTE) due to ongoing strong commitment to the Youth Traineeship Scheme and the higher number of HEO3 positions.

Trend

2005 2006 2007

Youth Employment as a percentage of Professional Staff (excluding casual staff) FTE 5.1% 6.0% 6.3%

Over the three year reporting period, the percentage of professional staff under the age of 25 as a proportion of the total professional workforce has increased by 1.2%, from 5.1% in 2005 (60 FTE), 6.0% in 2006 (72.7 FTE) to 6.3% (79.5 FTE). The largest increase during the reporting period in the number of FTE professional staff under the age of 25 occurred in the Portfolio: Academic with an increase of 7.3 FTE professional staff under 25, mainly within the Library. Benchmarking

The proportion of employees in the 15 to 24 years age cohort in South Australian Public Sector was 5.8% as at June 2006. This continues the overall trend of decline in recent years. DEST data shows that the average percentage of professional staff across all Australian universities under 25 years of age is 5%. However this data uses headcount and not FTE. Data is unavailable for individual universities or groups of universities.


Page 35

6.3 FEMALE PARTICIPATION

Description

Table 17 shows the percentage of full-time equivalent (FTE) academic and professional female staff within each Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007. For reporting purposes Portfolio Pro Vice Chancellors and Executive Directors, along with their Executive Officers and Personal Assistants are reported within Chancellery. This is consistent throughout the report. Divisional Pro Vice Chancellors are reported within their respective Divisions. Table 17: Female Staff Percentages by Academic and Professional and Division /

Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Division / Portfolio Academic

Staff (FTE)

Professional Staff (FTE)

Total

Division: Business 37.2% 85.8% 57.8%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 58.7% 73.8% 62.9%

Division: Health Sciences 60.2% 71.2% 64.5%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 21.4% 58.3% 33.7%

Chancellery 78.3% 84.3% 83.6%

Portfolio: Academic 67.7% 72.0% 71.7%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources - 41.8% 41.8%

Portfolio: International & Development - 79.3% 79.3%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 76.6% 48.4% 51.7%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 29.5% 53.2% 41.9%

Total Across University 46.6% 65.3% 57.0%

Table 18 (over page) reports staff gender (headcount data) across all classifications for academic and professional staff by continuing and fixed-term appointments as at 31 March 2007.


Page 36

Table 18: Staff Gender (Headcount) across all Classifications as at 31 March 2007

Due to the incidence of part-time staff members holding multiple positions the headcount total for part-time positions does not add up.

Continuing staff Fixed-Term staff Totals

Full-time Part-time Full-time Part-time Total Grand Total

Occupational Classifications

F M F M F M F M F M

Vice Chancellor 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1

Pro Vice Chancellor 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 4 7

Executive Directors 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2

Academic Staff (T&R) Level E 20 49 2 4 3 21 0 4 25 78 103

Academic Staff (T&R) Level D 22 50 1 2 0 5 2 3 25 60 85

Academic Staff (T&R) Level C 110 138 8 4 6 9 0 0 124 151 275

Academic Staff (T&R) Level B 108 78 25 11 17 21 8 3 158 113 271

Academic Staff (T&R) Level A 34 18 8 2 20 13 8 2 70 35 105

Academic Staff (Research) Level E 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 7 8

Academic Staff (Research) Level D 2 6 1 0 1 4 0 0 4 10 14

Academic Staff (Research) Level C 5 2 1 0 3 16 2 3 11 21 32

Academic Staff (Research) Level B 1 1 0 0 18 33 6 6 25 40 65

Academic Staff (Research) Level A 1 1 1 0 36 34 27 10 65 45 110

Professional Senior Executives (Level 10 & above) 8 6 1 0 5 16 1 0 15 22 37

Professional Staff HE09 22 24 2 1 1 7 0 1 25 33 58









Trainee 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 4 3 7

Grand Total 861 677 212 32 226 255 106 43 1405 1007 2412


Page 37

Figure 7: Total Male and Female Staff by Classification

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Senior

Man

agem

ent

Academ

ic Le

vel E

Academ

ic Le

vel D

Academ

ic Le

vel C

Academ

ic Le

vel B

Academ

ic Le

vel A

HEO10HEO9

HEO8HEO7

HEO6HEO5

HEO4HEO3

HEO2HEO1

Trainee

Hea

dcou

ntFemale Male

Figure 7 reports an equal proportion of women and men in senior management roles. Men outnumber women at academic levels C, D and E, whereas women outnumber men at academic level A and B. While men currently dominate the senior academic levels there are positive signs of more women coming though in the junior academic levels. Summary

Women comprise 46.6% of academic FTE staff and 65.3% of professional FTE staff across all classifications. Women comprise 57.0% of the total FTE workforce (excluding casuals). At the senior academic levels (Vice Chancellor, Pro Vice Chancellors and Academic Level D and above), of the 207.8 academic staff 56.2 are women (27.1%) and 151.6 are men (72.9%). Of the 38.1 senior professional staff at HEO10 and above (including the Executive Directors), 15.1 are women (39.6%) and 23 are men (60.4%). At the lower professional staff levels (HEO4 and below) there are 497 professional staff; of these 379 are women (76.3%) and 118 are men (23.7%). The University 2007 Key Performance Indicator (KPI) targets for women are:

Academic staff – all levels: 47% Academic staff – Academic Level D and above: 30% Senior professional staff – HEO10 and above: 42%

Despite a gradual improvement in the University’s KPI targets for women over recent years, the 2007 targets still have not been achieved, with female academic staff at all levels representing 46.6% (target 47%), female academics at Level D and above representing 27.1% (target 30%) and senior professional women HEO10 and above representing 39.6% (target 42%).


Page 38

Strategies to achieve these targets are outlined in the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Plan and the Equal Opportunity for Women in Workplace Report. They have also been included in the Workforce Planning section of the HR website. These strategies include providing support in encouraging women to apply for academic promotion, providing resources for women to complete doctoral qualifications and ensuring women have appropriate professional development opportunities incorporated in their performance management plans. The University has been accredited with the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace (EOWA) Employer of Choice for Women status annually since 2003. Trend

2005 2006 2007

KPI target Actual KPI target Actual KPI target Actual

Female Academic staff – all levels 47% 45.0% 48% 46.7% 47% 46.6%

Female Academic Staff – Level D and above 29% 27.3% 30% 28.3% 30% 27.1%

Female Professional staff – all levels n/a 65.0% n/a 66.5% n/a 65.3%

Female Professional staff – HEO10 and above 43% 40.0% 44% 42.1% 42% 39.6%

Percentage of women in the UniSA workforce n/a 56% n/a 57.8% n/a 57.0%

Female academic staff numbers at all levels have remained fairly static over the three year reporting period, from 45% in 2005, 46.7% in 2006 and 46.6% in 2007. Female professional staff at all levels have fluctuated slightly during the reporting period from 65% in 2005 to 66.5% in 2006 and 65.3% in 2007. Following an increase in 2006, the proportion of female professional staff HEO10 and above decreased during 2007 to 39.6%.

Benchmarking Women represent 50.8% of the total South Australian population (ABS 2006 Census). The proportion of women employed in the South Australian Public sector has increased steadily over time, and as at June 2006 women represented 64.9% of the public sector workforce. However, women accounted for only 29.6% of executive positions and 36.6% of senior management roles. The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program for 2007 (sample size 32 universities) reports the average proportion of women employed in the university sector to be 52.6%. The percentage of female academic staff is reported at 40.4% and professional staff 62.4%. Across the ATN universities, women account for 52.9% of total staff numbers, with 42.4% of academic staff and 61.4% of professional staff being women.


Page 39

The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2006 DEST data utilising headcount figures. For universities in a group, the number of staff has been averaged.

Percentage of

Female Academic

Staff

Percentage of Female

Professional Staff

Percentage of Females, Total

Staff

Percentage of Female

Academic Staff Level D

and above

All Australian universities 40.9% 63.3% 53.5% 22.9%

ATN universities 41.1% 61.5% 53.1% 26.2%

Adelaide University 33.6% 65.2% 50.9% 13.1%

Flinders University 49.9% 69.0% 61.2% 29.4%

University of SA 46.7% 66.5% 57.8% 28.3%

The Advancing the AVCC Action Plan for Women provides a cross-institution comparison based on DEST data. Because benchmarking utilising 2006 DEST data was not available when this report was released, the comparisons have been based on 2005 data. Analysis of this data for all 42 Australian universities (based on FTE figures), revealed the following:

• UniSA ranks 14th for representation of women in professional staff within the range of approximately 45% at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) in the ACT to 76% at the University of Notre Dame Australia in WA.

• UniSA ranks 12th for representation of women in academic staff within the range of approximately 58% at Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education in the Northern Territory, to 13% at the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania. In comparison to the ATN universities, UniSA ranks first.

• UniSA ranks 14th for representation of women in senior academic staff (Level D and above) within the range of approximately 86% at Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education to zero at ADFA. In comparison to the ATN universities, UniSA ranks third.


Page 40

6.5 COUNTRY OF BIRTH Description

Table 19 reports the staff profile by country of birth. This indicator reflects the multicultural nature of UniSA’s workforce and assists in measuring the increase in cultural diversity of the workforce. This data is collected through the Staff Diversity Survey. It is not compulsory for staff to complete the survey, hence no data is available for 38.7% of staff. Table 19: Staff Profile as a Percentage by Country of Birth as at 31 March 2007

Country of Birth Percentage

Australia 39.8% No information 38.7% United Kingdom 9.0% China 1.4% India 0.8% New Zealand 0.7% Malaysia 0.7% Italy 0.6% Germany 0.6% Netherlands 0.6% USA 0.6% Canada 0.5% South Africa 0.5% Other 5.5%

Summary

From the data available, the majority of UniSA staff (39.8%) were born in Australia, followed by the United Kingdom (9.0%). However, the figures will be skewed to a significant extent because of the high proportion of staff who do not provide this information. Note: 1% of staff numbers equates to approximately 23 staff. Countries of birth that make up the “Other” category include Poland, Hong Kong, Russia, Singapore, Vietnam, France, Ukraine, Philippines, Romania, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Bulgaria, Denmark, Ecuador, Fiji, Ghana, Greece, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tanzania, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Iraq, Israel, Korea, Latvia, Malta, Mauritius, Namibia, Peru, Portugal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan. Trend

2005 2006 2007

Non-Australian born 22.1% 22.4% 21.6%


Page 41

The percentage of staff who were born outside Australia has decreased slightly from 22.4% in 2006 to 21.6% in 2007. Benchmarking

Australian Bureau of Statistics data from the 2006 Census reports that 26% of the South Australian population was born overseas. The most common country of birth was the United Kingdom, followed by Italy, Germany and New Zealand. DEST data is unavailable for this indicator. In comparing the staff profile with the student profile (based on 2006 calendar year data), 56.7% of UniSA students nominated Australia as their country of birth. Other countries represented include: Hong Kong (6.9%), China (5.7%), Malaysia (5.4%), India (4.7%), Singapore (4.6%) and United Kingdom (2.9%).


Page 42

6.5 FIRST LANGUAGES Description

The measure of first language spoken by UniSA staff demonstrates the multicultural nature of the University and assists in measuring the increase in cultural diversity of the workforce. This data is collected through the Staff Diversity Survey. It is not compulsory for staff to complete the survey, hence no data is available for 38.7% of staff. (This figure differs slightly from the figure in Table 19 in that some respondents disclosed information on first language but did not indicate their country of birth). Table 20: First Language as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2007

Language Percentage

English 52.1% No information 38.9% Chinese 1.5% Mandarin 0.6% Greek 0.6% Polish 0.5% Russian 0.5% Italian 0.5% Other 4.8%

Summary

English remains the most common first language spoken by UniSA staff with 52.1% having an English speaking background. The percentage of staff speaking a first language other than English remains low with the top three non-English languages spoken being Chinese (1.5%), Mandarin ( 0.6%) and Greek (0.6). Languages that comprise the “Other” category include: Dutch, German, Cantonese, French, Hindi, Spanish, Bengali, Romanian, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Bulgarian, Filipino, Punjabi, Tamil, Arabic, Danish, Japanese, Kannada, Khmer, Korean, Latvian, Maltese, Persian, Serbian, Swahili, Swedish, Afrikaans, Asante, Berber, Bosnian, Elue, Finnish, Gujarati, Indonesian, Konkani, Malay, Marathi, Ngarrindgeri, Portuguese, Serbo-Croatian, Shona, Sinhalese, Slovak, Swiss German, Telugu, Tongan, Turkish and Urdu. Trend

2005 2006 2007

First language other than English 8.9% 9.2% 9.0%

The percentage of staff whose first language is not English has remained relatively steady over the three year period, ranging from 8.9% in 2005, 9.2% in 2006 and 9.0% in 2007.


Page 43

Benchmarking

Australian Bureau of Statistics data from the 2006 Census indicates that the percentage of South Australians who speak a language at home other than English at home was 16.6%, with the most common non-English languages being Italian (2.4%), Greek (1.7%), Vietnamese (0.9%) and Mandarin (0.6%). DEST data is unavailable for this indicator. In comparing the staff profile with the student profile, 62.7% of the UniSA student population nominated English as their first language (based on 2006 calendar year data). The following languages are spoken as a proportion of the student population: Cantonese (8.1%), Chinese (6.3%), Mandarin (4.8%), Vietnamese (1.6%), Malay (1.3%), Hindi (1.1%) and Tamil (0.9%).


Page 44

6.6 DISABILITY Description

Table 21 shows the number of staff (headcount) with a disability who chose to disclose this information in the Staff Diversity Survey. The data is reported as a percentage of total staff. Table 21: Number of Staff who identified as having a disability as at 31 March 2007

Number of Staff who identified as

having a Disability Percentage of Staff

(headcount)

Total University 61 2.53%

Summary

The number of staff identified as having a disability is 61 (2.53% of total non-casual headcount). Of the 61 staff, only 15 staff required a workplace adjustment (0.62%). In order to provide a culture that supports staff with disabilities, UniSA has undertaken several initiatives to provide a safe and inclusive working environment for staff with disabilities. These initiatives include:

• Promoting the support available to staff with disabilities and their managers as part of the Equity and Diversity Roadshow.

• Reviewing the University website and online environment in order to achieve an appropriate level of compliance with World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Guidelines.

• Developing the capabilities of human resource practitioners in the area of managing staff with mental health conditions

• Promoting the multi access suite initiative to ensure that staff with disabilities have a dignified, private and appropriate space to rest or undertake disability related cares.

• The University currently hosts the Regional Disability Liaison Officer (RDLO) position on behalf of the three South Australian universities, a range of government departments and the TAFE sector. The Director: Human Resources chairs a state-wide advisory committee for the RDLO initiative.

• UniSA also initiates employment of people with disabilities through its Youth Traineeship Scheme.

Trend

Percentage of staff who identified as having a disability 2005 2006

2007

Percentage of Staff (headcount) 3.23% 3.02% 2.53%

The number of staff who identified as having a disability has decreased over the reporting period from 72 in 2005, 69 in 2006 to 61 in 2007. The decrease in the percentage of staff who identified as having a disability may be due to the decreasing number of staff completing the Staff Diversity Survey (69% in 2005, 65% in 2006 down to 61% in 2007).


Page 45

Benchmarking

Across the Australian Public Sector, people with a disability represent 3.8% of ongoing Australian Public Service employees (as at 2004), down from 5.8% in the previous decade. However, when considering this data, it important to note that there is no consistent definition across the Public Sector as to what constitutes disability and reporting on disability is voluntary. In the South Australian Public Sector 1.5% (777 persons) reported an ongoing disability which required adaptation to their workplace. This compares with 0.62% of UniSA staff requiring a workplace adjustment. DEST data is unavailable for this indicator.


Page 46


Page 47

7. AGE

7.1 AGE PROFILE According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia's population aged 45 years and over has increased by 30% since 1995 1. In contrast, the number of children (aged 0-14 years) has increased by only 2.3%, and the number of people aged 15-44 years increased by 4.8%. This uneven distribution of growth reflects the gradual ageing of Australia's population, which inevitably impacts on labour market supply. The same ABS data also reports that the education industry employs the highest proportion of mature age workers, with 47% of people employed in this industry aged 45-64 years. The University’s age profile is consistent with this finding, with 50.3% of the workforce aged 45 years and over (see Table 23). The University-wide median age is 45 years, with 46 for men and 43 for women. Academic staff have a higher median age (49 years) than professional staff (41 years). Table 22: Median Age of Academic and Professional Staff by Gender as at 31 March 2007

Median Age

Male Female University-wide Academic 50 48 49


University-wide 46 43 45 Table 23: Age of Staff Compared to Australian Universities and South Australian

Population as at 31 March 2007

Percentage of staff in each age group % of staff Persons

15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55+ aged over 45 years

Division: Business 4.3 19.6 25.0 29.0 22.1 51.1 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 1.3 12.1 23.8 33.8 29.0 62.8 Division: Health Sciences 4.8 20.6 25.5 31.9 17.2 49.1 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 3.3 17.3 23.9 32.2 23.3 55.5

Chancellery 5.1 20.6 30.8 25.6 17.9 43.5 Portfolio: Academic 4.8 18.6 30.8 30.5 15.3 45.8 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 2.0 16.5 32.4 32.5 16.6 49.1 Portfolio: International & Development 6.7 36.1 29.2 21.3 6.7 28.0 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 5.7 20.7 30.6 25.9 17.1 43.0 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 2.1 32.1 30.8 23.8 11.2 35.0

Total UniSA 3.6 19.1 27.0 30.4 19.9 50.3

Australian universities 3.2 20.9 27.2 30.2 19.8 50.0

ATN universities 4.0 21.5 28.7 30.0 20.6 50.6

Current Population Age Profile for South Aust (ABS data) 13.3 12.3 14.5 14.3 27.1 41.4

1 Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, Year Book Australia 2005.


Page 48

As shown in Table 23, the highest proportion of UniSA staff are in the 45-54 age group (30.4%), followed closely by the 35-44 age group (27.0%). The proportion of UniSA’s workforce aged over 45 years is 50.3%. This is consistent with the average for all Australian universities (50.0%) and ATN universities (50.6%), however is significantly higher than for the current South Australian population profile (41.4%). The Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences had the largest proportion of staff aged over 45, with 62.8% of their total workforce in this age bracket, and 29% were aged over 55. This is followed by the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment, with 55.5% (23.3% aged over 55). Conversely, the Portfolio: International and Development had the lowest proportion of staff aged over 45 years (28.0%), followed by the Portfolio: Research & Innovation (35.0%). Trend

University 2005 2006 2007

Academic Staff Median Age 48 years 49 years 49 years

Professional Staff Median Age 42 years 42 years 41 years

University-wide Median Age 45 years 46 years 45 years

Over the three year reporting period, the median age of the workforce has remained relatively steady.


Page 49

7.2 AGE AND GENDER Figure 8: Academic Staff by Age and Gender as at 31 March 2007 (headcount)

69

117

192

154

28

75

127

189

108

3 112

0

50

100

150

200

250

15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+Age Group

Tota

l Aca

dem

ic S

taff

Male Female

Figure 9: Professional Staff by Age and Gender as at 31 March 2007 (headcount)

24

96

132 126

6259

220 226

105

5

277

7

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+Age Group

Tota

l Pro

fess

iona

l Sta

ff

Male Female


Page 50

Figures 8 and 9 show the age and gender breakdown for academic and professional staff across the University. For academic staff, there is a relatively even distribution of men and women in all age groups, except in the over 55 age group, where there are significantly more men. For professional staff, there are significantly more women than men in all age groups. The age groups with the highest numbers of staff were the 45-54 age group for academic staff and the 35-44 age group for professional staff.


Page 51

7.3 AGE AND CLASSIFICATION Background For the purposes of this report “Senior Staff” include: members of the Senior Management Group (SMG), Unit Directors, Division Managers, Division Director and Directors of Research Institutes. Heads of Schools and Deans are reported in their respective academic classifications. Table 24: Classification by Age Profile (headcount) as at 31 March 2007

Age Group Classification Level

15 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65+ Total

Senior Staff 8 15 11 2 36 Academic Level E 9 41 43 9 102 Academic Level D 17 41 38 3 99 Academic Level C 11 61 133 87 15 307 Academic Level B 49 90 113 74 10 336 Academic Level A 5 84 66 46 13 1 215 HEO10+ 1 4 9 6 20 HE09 9 16 19 14 58 HE08 16 44 41 17 118 HE07 49 62 55 21 1 188 HE06 8 70 72 44 18 2 214 HE05 13 61 70 59 23 3 229 HE04 37 84 90 70 37 5 323 HE03 15 29 45 44 25 158 HE02 3 1 3 2 9 HE01 0 Trainee 7 7

Totals 88 460 651 733 429 51 2412 Senior staff are all in the over 35 age group. Staff in the 15 to 24 age group are predominantly at the more junior levels with a small representation at academic level A and HE06. The 25 to 34 age group is represented in all classification categories except the more senior academic levels D and E. The 35-44, 45-54 and 55-64 age groups are represented at all levels from HE02 upward. Benchmarking The SA Public Service workforce profile has been ageing steadily over the last decade with the median age as at June 2006 being 45.3 years, compared with 41.4 years in June 1997. This is higher than the median age in the South Australian workforce, which according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics was 40.4 years as at June 2006.


Page 52

7.4 STRATEGY TO ADDRESS AGE PROFILE – GRADUATE RECRUITMENT Background Last year’s workforce profile identified that UniSA was below both the All Industries’ and Australian universities’ age profile in the 25-34 age bracket. As a strategy to increase the percentage of staff in this age bracket and address the current competitive labour market, UniSA introduced a graduate program in January 2007. Graduates have been employed in two categories: 1. The “Growing our Own” strategy, in which UniSA graduates are employed on a two year

fixed term contract incorporating four six monthly placements in different business units. This pilot program was implemented in January 2007 and is designed to extend their graduate competencies whilst broadening their business skills. It is expected that this program will be extended further in 2008.

The positions were advertised internally through the University’s career website and promoted directly to students through Program Directors and Course Coordinators. The first six graduates came from disciplines including Arts, Marketing, Business (includes Human Resources and International Studies), Psychology and Tourism & Hospitality. All had completed double degrees. It is expected that the graduates will secure continuing positions towards the end of their two-year fixed-term contract.

2. Those who have graduated from other universities, and are recruited directly into a position

requiring specific skills for a fixed term contract or continuing position. Table 25: Graduate Commencements in 2007, Headcount

Division / Portfolio Growing our own strategy (rotational)

Individual Positions

Fixed term Continuing Fixed term

Total

Division: Business 3 3

Division: Education, Arts and Social Science

Division: Health Sciences 1 1

Division: IT, Engineering & the Environment

Chancellery

Portfolio: Academic 4 1 5

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 1 1

Portfolio: International & Development 1 1

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 1 3 4

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 4 4

Grand Total 6 1 12 19


Page 53

8. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS 8.1 ACADEMIC STAFF QUALIFICATIONS Description

Table 26 reports academic staff highest qualification as a percentage of academic staff (headcount). Qualifications include doctorate, masters or other qualification for both continuing and fixed-term academic staff by Division / Portfolio. The Portfolios with academic staff are Portfolio: Academic, Portfolio: Research & Innovation and Portfolio: Organisational Strategy and Change. (The Portfolio Pro Vice Chancellors are included in Chancellery.) The percentage of academic staff with a doctorate is a corporate KPI. The 2007 corporate KPI target is 53%. Table 26: Academic Staff Highest Qualification as a Percentage of Academic Staff by


Division / Portfolio Doctorate Masters Other Total

Division: Business 51.9% 29.5% 18.6% 100%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 46.1% 29.6% 24.3% 100%

Division: Health Sciences 51.7% 27.4% 20.9% 100%

Division: Information Technology Engineering & the Environment 66.1% 15.2% 18.8% 100%

Chancellery 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 100%

Portfolio: Academic 38.5% 38.5% 23.1% 100%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 27.3% 50.0% 22.7% 100%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 94.0% 3.0% 2.9% 100%

University-wide 54.8% 25.1% 20.1% 100%

Table 27 (over page) shows academic staff highest qualification as a percentage of academic staff (headcount) by academic classification. Qualifications include doctorate, masters and other qualification for both continuing and fixed-term academic staff.


Page 54

Table 27: Academic Staff Highest Qualification as a Percentage of Academic Staff by

Academic Classification as at 31 March 2007

Division and Portfolio Doctorate Masters Other Total

Academic Staff (T&R) Level E 88.4% 7.8% 3.9% 100%

Academic Staff (T&R) Level D 84.7% 11.8% 3.5% 100%

Academic Staff (T&R) Level C 60.4% 28.7% 10.9% 100%

Academic Staff (T&R) Level B 35.1% 42.4% 22.5% 100%

Academic Staff (T&R) Level A 6.7% 31.4% 61.9% 100%

Academic Staff (Research) Level E 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Academic Staff (Research) Level D 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Academic Staff (Research) Level C 96.9% 3.1% 0.0% 100%

Academic Staff (Research) Level B 84.6% 3.1% 12.3% 100%

Academic Staff (Research) Level A 39.1% 20.0% 40.9% 100%

University-wide 54.8% 25.1% 20.1% 100%

Summary

As at 31 March 2007, 54.8% of academic staff held a doctoral qualification. This percentage is above the 2007 corporate KPI target of 53%. As at 31 March 2007, 100% of Academic Research Level D and E held a doctoral qualification, followed by 88.4% of Academic Level E (T&R) and 84.7% of Academic Level D (T&R) at 84.7%. Trend

2005 2006 2007

Percentage of academic staff with a Doctorate qualification 46.5% 50.5% 54.8%

In early 2005 the Senior Management Group endorsed Guidelines for the Commencement and Completion of Doctoral Qualifications for Academic Staff. Since this time, there has been a continual increase in the percentage of academic staff holding a doctoral qualification from 46.5% in 2005, 50.5% in 2006 to 54.8% in 2007. The steady increase in the percentage of academic staff who have completed a doctorate may be attributed to:

• more academic staff completing doctorates, • improved processes for capturing data at the local level, and • consistent recruitment practices of employing academic staff who have completed doctoral

qualifications. Procedures have also been developed for the appointment of academic staff who do not hold doctoral qualifications. These procedures provide for consideration to be given to candidates who


Page 55

are nearing completion of their PhD, or if the field of candidates is expected to be extremely limited due to the nature of the discipline, doctoral qualifications may not be required as an essential criterion.

Benchmarking

The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program for 2007 reported that 60.9% of academic staff within the survey population held doctoral qualifications in 2006 (32 universities were included in this sample). For ATN universities, 51.8% of academic staff held a doctoral qualification in 2006. This compares with 54.8% at UniSA. The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2006 DEST data utilising information based on completion (headcount) of a doctorate by research or coursework. Percentage of Academic Staff completion

of a Doctorate by Research or Coursework

All Australian universities 57.1%

ATN universities 52.9%

Adelaide University 67.4%

Flinders University 58.3%

UniSA 50.4%

This data reveals that UniSA has a higher percentage of academic staff with doctoral qualifications than the average for the ATN universities, however is lower when compared to the average of all Australian universities.


Page 56

8.2 PROFESSIONAL STAFF QUALIFICATIONS Description

Table 28 reports professional staff highest qualification as a percentage of professional staff (headcount). Qualifications include doctorate, masters, postgraduate, bachelor or other qualification for both continuing and fixed-term professional staff by Division and Portfolio. Advanced diploma, certificates and vocational courses are included in the ‘other’ category. Table 28: Professional Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of

Professional Staff by Division / Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Division and Portfolio Doctorate Masters Post-graduate Bachelor Other Not

recorded

Division: Business 0.8% 4.2% 7.5% 30.8% 22.5% 34.2%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 0.0% 5.2% 7.4% 19.1% 5.2% 63.2%

Division: Health Sciences 1.4% 2.8% 3.5% 23.8% 14.0% 54.5%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 0.0% 6.3% 4.5% 14.4% 7.2% 67.6%

Chancellery 2.9% 5.9% 5.9% 20.6% 2.9% 61.8%

Portfolio: Academic 0.0% 8.1% 8.1% 17.2% 10.7% 55.8%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0.0% 2.7% 2.7% 8.6% 13.3% 72.8%

Portfolio: International & Development 0.0% 10.1% 3.4% 14.6% 5.6% 66.3%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 1.8% 4.7% 2.3% 20.5% 7.0% 63.7%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 6.6% 7.9% 2.6% 34.2% 15.8% 32.9%

University-wide 0.9% 5.8% 5.2% 19.4% 10.8% 58.0%

Summary

Over half of all professional staff (58%) have not provided academic qualification data. However, from the data provided, 31.2% of professional staff have a qualification of bachelor or higher. Trend

2005 2006 2007

Percentage of professional staff with a bachelor qualification or higher

28.3% 30.0% 31.2%


Page 57

The percentage of professional staff who hold a bachelor qualification or higher continued to increase from 28.3% in 2005, 30.0% in 2006 to 31.2% in 2007. Professional staff will be encouraged to provide the University with details of their academic qualifications. The local Human Resource Officers will continue to pursue this.

Benchmarking

Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that 19.5% of the Australian population hold a bachelor degree or above (ABS, 2005).


Page 58


Page 59

9. SUPPORTED RESEARCHERS Description

The purpose of the Supported Researcher Scheme is to provide recognition and incentive to staff who have met defined research performance criteria in attracting research grants, publishing outputs and supervising higher degree research students to completion, and who contribute substantially to the University’s performance in the Institutional Grants Scheme. The proportion of academic staff across the University who are Supported Researchers is an indicator of research, research leadership and research training capacity. Academic staff employed for 12 months duration or longer, and adjunct staff who are not employed by another research institution, are eligible for consideration as Supported Researchers. Individual grants of approximately $1500 per annum are awarded to staff who qualify as Supported Researchers. The grants are to be spent on activities to further their research, such as conference attendances and small-scale equipment purchases. Table 29 reports the number of supported researchers, by Division / Portfolio for 2004, 2005 and 2006. As at 2006, there was a total of 349 Supported Researchers in the University (34.5% of all academic staff). This is slightly below the Corporate KPI target for 2006 of 37%. The University aims to increase the proportion of Supported Researchers to 40% in 2007. Table 29: Supported Researchers, by Division / Portfolio, 1 January 2004 to

31 December 2006 Division / Portfolio 2004 2005 2006

Division: Business 44 40 53 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 75 87 101 Division: Health Sciences 44 50 64 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 69 77 87 Chancellery 0 0 3 Portfolio: Academic 1 0 0 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 5 3 3 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 35 35 38

University Total 273 292 349

Table 30 provides data on the number of staff (headcount) who published DEST reportable publications in 2003, 2004 and 2005 (2006 data is not available until later this year). DEST points are allocated on contribution to the following publication types:

Books – authored research (unweighted) – 5 points Book Chapters – 1 point Articles in Scholarly Refereed Journals – 1 point Full written conference paper, refereed proceedings – 1 point

Points are reduced based on a person’s contribution, e.g. if a book has three authors, then each person would be allocated 1.66 points.


Page 60

Table 30: DEST Reportable Publications, Points Allocated and Headcount, 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005

Division/Portfolio 2003 2004 2005

Headcount Points Headcount Points Headcount Points

Division of Business 86 148.1 91 147.7 103 161.8 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 129 187.0 141 168.5 127 179.3 Division: Health Sciences 95 99.6 108 92.4 118 104.0 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 121 214.3 131 200.0 164 213.6

Academic 16 19.7 15 15.7 19 15.6 Chancellery 3 3.0 2 1.3 4 2.5 Portfolio: organisational Strategy and Change 2 0.7 1 2.0 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 73 86.8 44 44.8 57 86.0

University Total 525 759.2 532 670.4 593 764.8

Summary The number of supported researchers has increased over the three-year reporting period from 273 in 2004, 292 in 2005 to 349 in 2006. The highest numbers of Supported Researchers were in the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences (28.9% of the total), followed by the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment (24.9% of the total) The total points allocated for DEST reportable publications increased significantly in 2005 (764.8) when compared to 2004 (670.4), but were only marginally higher than in 2003 (759.2). The Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment scored the highest DEST points, with a total of 213.6 points (27.9% of the total), followed by the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences (179.3 points, 23.4% of the total).


Page 61

10. CAREER DEVELOPMENT

10.1 ACADEMIC PROMOTIONS Description

The mission of UniSA encapsulated in its positioning statement is ‘educating professionals, creating and applying knowledge and engaging our communities’. Academic promotion, at all levels, is based on the merit of the applicant’s contribution towards this mission as expressed through his/her role within the University. Academic promotion occurs once a year and is based on criteria outlined in the Academic Promotion Policy HR26. Table 31 shows the number of applications for promotion by gender and by the academic level applied for by the applicant. Table 31: Number of Applications Received for Academic Promotion for 2006 round

Application for promotion to Academic Level Total BUE EASS HSC ITEE OSC R&I

Male 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 Level B

Female 9 1 5 1 2 0 0 Male 12 0 3 3 4 0 2

Level C Female 10 2 5 3 0 0 0 Male 8 2 2 0 3 0 1

Level D Female 6 0 3 1 2 0 0 Male 5 2 1 0 1 0 1

Level E Female 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 Male 28 5 6 4 8 0 5

Total Female 27 3 14 5 4 0 1

University Total 55 8 20 9 12 0 6 Table 32 shows the number of successful promotions by gender and by the academic level applied for by the applicant. Table 32: Number of Successful Applications for Academic Promotion for 2006 round

Successful promotion to Academic Level

Total BUE EASS HSC ITEE OSC R&I

Male 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 Level B

Female 7 1 4 0 2 0 0 Male 10 0 2 3 3 0 2

Level C Female 8 2 4 2 0 0 0 Male 2 0 1 0 0 0 1

Level D Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Male 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Level E Female 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Male 15 0 3 4 3 0 5

Total Female 16 3 8 2 2 0 1

University Total 31 3 11 6 5 0 6


Page 62

Table 33 shows the academic promotion rate and the academic application for promotion rate by all academic staff and by gender. The academic application for promotion rate is the rate of academic staff applying for academic promotion. It has been calculated with the following formula:

Number of academic staff applications for promotion A – D x 100% Academic staff headcount Academic Levels A – D For the 2006 round of academic promotion, this formula equates to 55 applications for academic promotion divided by 957 academic staff headcount at Academic Levels A – D. The academic promotion rate is the rate of successful academic promotions. This index shows the rate of career progression for academic staff. It has been calculated with the following formula:

Number of academic staff promoted A – D x 100% Academic staff headcount Academic Levels A – D For the 2006 round of academic promotion, this formula equates to 31 academic promotions divided by 957 academic staff headcount at Academic Levels A – D. Table 33: Academic Application for Promotion Rate and Academic Promotion Rate

for 2006 Round

Male Female All Academic Staff

Academic Application for Promotion Rate 4.9% 5.6% 5.8%

Academic Promotion Rate 3.2% 3.3% 3.2%

Summary

Fifty-five staff applied for promotion in 2006: 27 women and 28 men. This is slightly less than the total applications received in 2005 (57), however there was an increase in the number of women applying for academic promotion (up from 21 in 2005) and a decrease in the number of men applying (down from 36 men in 2005). Thirty-one staff were successful when applying for academic promotion for the 2006 round, comprising 16 women and 15 men. This compares with 37 successful promotions in 2005 (13 women and 24 men). The highest number of academic staff applying for promotion in 2006 in any one Division was in the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences with 36% of total applications (20 applications). As shown in Table 33 the academic application for promotion rate for women was 5.6% compared with 4.9% for men. The academic promotion rate for women was also higher (although only marginally) at 3.3% compared with 3.2% for men.


Page 63

Trend

University-wide Academic Promotions 2004 2005 2006

Number of Female Applications 28 21 27

Number of Male Applications 45 36 28

Number of Successful Females 13 13 16

Number of Successful Males 27 24 15

Academic Promotion Application Rate 8.2% 6.3% 5.8%

Academic Promotion Rate 4.5% 4.1% 3.2%

Over the three year period the total number of applications for academic promotion has decreased from 73 in 2004, 57 in 2005 down to 55 in 2006. The academic promotion application rate also decreased from 8.2% in 2004, 6.3% in 2005 to 5.8% in 2006. Correspondingly, the academic promotion rate also decreased from 4.5% in 2004, 4.1% in 2005 to 3.2% in 2006. There has also been a change in the gender balance of applications received over the three year reporting period. In 2004 the percentage of males applying for academic promotion was 62% with women accounting for only 38% of applications. This occurred again in 2005, where the percentage of men applying for academic promotion increased slightly to 63% while the rate for women decreased slightly to 37%. However, 2006 showed a reversal of this trend, with an almost equal proportion of men and women applying for academic promotion. Of all applications for academic promotion for the 2006 round, 56% were successful, a significant decrease from 65% in 2005 and similar to 2004 (55%). Of all academic women who applied for academic promotion, 59% were successful. The success rate for men was lower at 53.6%. The success rate for women compared to men has improved since 2005, when only 46.4% of women were successful, compared with 60% for men. Benchmarking

The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program 2007 showed the average academic application for promotion rate for universities for 2006 (sample of 30 universities) to be 7.2%. For ATN universities the average academic application for promotion rate was 9.2%. This compares with the academic application for promotion rate for UniSA of 5.8%. The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program 2007 showed the average academic promotion rate for all universities for 2006 (sample size 30) to be 4.9%. For ATN universities the average academic promotion rate was 6.1%. UniSA’s academic promotion rate at 3.2% is considerably lower than the average for the sector and the ATN universities. The academic promotion success rate for Australian universities was 68% and the ATN universities’ success rate was 66%. This shows that the success rate for UniSA at 56% is lower than the average for all universities, and lower than the ATN average.


Page 64

10.2 PROFESSIONAL STAFF RECLASSIFICATIONS Description Reclassification is available to all professional staff whenever they believe the responsibilities and requirements of their position have changed. Following a review of the Computer Aided Job Evaluation (CAJE) process in 2005, it was agreed that the CAJE tool would no longer be used for reclassifying professional staff positions. In March 2006 the Mercer Cullen Egan Dell Job Evaluation system was introduced for reclassification. As a result, the reclassification process was streamlined with the introduction of a questionnaire which replaced the 35 page CAJE application. The new questionnaire was designed to facilitate discussions between the staff member and their manager, assist in accurately describing the responsibility of the role and provide further information to evaluators to understand the nature and scope of the role. The introduction of the new reclassification process has seen an increase in both the number of applications for reclassification and the subsequent reclassification of positions over the past 12 months (see trend data on the next page). Table 34 shows the number of applications for reclassification by substantive position, the number of instances where the classification level increased and the number of instances where the classification remained the same. Table 34: Number of Applications for Reclassification, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Professional Staff Level

Applications for Reclassifications by

Substantive Position

Classification level increased

Classification level remained the same

HEO1

HEO2

HEO3 6 4 2

HEO4 11 6 5

HEO5 10 9 1

HEO6 4 4 0

HEO7 5 2 3

HEO8

HEO9

HEO10

Total University 36 25 11 Table 35 shows applications for reclassification by Division and Portfolio for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007.


Page 65

Table 35: Number of Applications for Reclassifications by Division / Portfolio,


Division / Portfolio No. of applications for reclassification

Division: Business 3

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 6

Division: Health Sciences 4

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 8

Chancellery 1

Portfolio: Academic 4

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 3

Portfolio: International & Development -

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 6

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 1

University-wide 36 Summary

Of the 36 applications for reclassification received by the HR Unit, 25 resulted in an increase of classification level (69.4% of all applications). Approximately 30% of applications received for reclassification were at Higher Education Officer (HEO) 4 (11 applications) and 28% were at HEO 5 (10 applications). The majority of applications were received from the Divisions, with the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment submitting eight applications, the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences submitting six applications, four applications from the Division of Health Sciences and three from the Division of Business. Trend

2005 2006 2007

Number of applications for reclassification 40 21 36

Number of applications resulting in an increased classification level 26 13 25

Percentage of applications resulting in an increased classification level 65% 62% 69%

Over the three year period the number of applications for reclassification has fluctuated from 40 in 2005, 21 in 2006 and 36 in 2007. The percentage of applications which resulted in an increased classification level rose to 69% in 2007, up from 62% in 2006 and 65% in 2005. This increase can be attributed to the introduction of the new reclassification process outlined earlier in this section.


Page 66

Classification Linking

Classification linking may be used to link classification levels for professional positions when the duties and responsibilities extend beyond a single classification level. Classification linking provides good career development opportunities for professional staff. In recognition of this, the University implemented a classification-linking trial in November 2005 for an 18 month period for positions of HEO6 and above. Following the successful trial period, the classification linking process was formalised across the University in May 2007 and was expanded to include all HEO positions. As at 31 March 2007, there were four linked classification positions confirmed, mainly at HEO6/7 level. However it is expected that this number will increase during 2007.


Page 67

10.3 HIGHER DUTIES OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFESSIONAL STAFF Description

Higher duties allowances (HDA) are provided to professional staff when they temporarily perform duties at a higher classification level. This indicator provides a measure of staff development opportunities available for professional staff. Table 36 shows the number of higher duties opportunities by the classification level of the staff member’s substantive position. Table 36: Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Substantive Classification Level,


Number of HDA opportunities Professional Staff Substantive Classification

Female Male Total

HEO1 0 0 0 HEO2 1 1 HEO3 36 3 39 HEO4 104 23 127 HEO5 46 16 62 HEO6 33 22 55 HEO7 22 21 43 HEO8 12 18 30 HEO9 5 8 13 HEO10 & above 1 1 2

Grand Total 260 112 372

Table 37 shows the same information detailed by Division / Portfolio based on the area that provided the higher duties opportunity. Table 37: Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Division / Portfolio,


Number of HDA opportunities Division / Portfolio

Female Male Total

Division: Business 5 2 7 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 56 7 63 Division: Health Sciences 27 7 34 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 17 5 22 Chancellery 15 3 18 Portfolio: Academic 35 45 80 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 13 2 15 Portfolio: International & Development 5 17 22 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 55 22 77 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 32 2 34

University-wide 260 112 372


Page 68

Summary

The highest number of opportunities for HDAs were for professional staff at classification HEO4 (127). Close to 70% of higher duties opportunities were provided to women, which is slightly higher than the percentage of women making up professional staff numbers (65.3%). The Portfolio: Academic had the highest number of professional staff higher duties opportunities (80), which represented 21.5% of the total. Trend

Number of opportunities for higher duties 2005 2006

2007


There has been a decrease in the number of higher duties opportunities over the past year, from 402 in 2006 down to 372 in 2007. If each opportunity was spread equally across the University, in theory 27.8% of the professional staff headcount (1339) may have had an opportunity to undertake higher duties during this period.

Benchmarking

No data available.


Page 69

10.4 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE PROGRAM Description

Professional Experience Program (PEP) is intended to provide academic staff with a period of professional development to the mutual benefit of the staff member and the University. All academic staff are eligible to apply for PEP under the conditions of the Professional Experience Program Policy (HR-9.1). Table 38 shows the number of academic staff who accessed PEP during the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 by Division and Portfolio. This means that a staff member who commenced PEP leave prior to 1 April 2006 and was still on PEP leave as at 1 April 2006 has been counted in this total. Table 38: Number of Academic Staff who Accessed Professional Experience Program by

Division / Portfolio, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Division and Portfolio Total

Division: Business 6 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 43 Division: Health Sciences 5 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 19 Chancellery 0 Portfolio: Academic 2 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0 Portfolio: International & Development 0 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy and Change 1 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 0 Total 76

Summary

Seventy six academic staff are recorded as accessing PEP leave during the reporting period. This equates to 7.1% of the total academic headcount and represents a low participation rate in the scheme. The Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences has the highest number of staff accessing PEP, with 43 staff members (56.6% of total number accessing PEP leave). Trend

Number of academic staff accessing PEP leave 2005 2006 2007


Benchmarking

No data available.


Page 70

10.5 STAFF STUDY SUPPORT Description

Staff Study Support is designed to assist staff in the successful completion of an approved program of study. All staff other than casual staff and staff on a contract of less than 12 months, who are undertaking an approved program of study in addition to their normal duties are eligible to apply for study support under the Staff Study Support Policy (HR 13-1). This indicator provides a measure of professional staff undertaking further study, however provides only a ‘part-picture’ for academic staff as many academics receive payment for study from their local area. Table 39 shows the number of staff paid Staff Study Support in 2007 for study undertaken in 2006. Table 39: Number of Staff paid Staff Study Support by Division / Portfolio,


Number of Staff receiving Study Support Division / Portfolio

Academic Professional Total Division: Business 3 3 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 2 7 9 Division: Health Sciences 1 5 7 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 2 2 Chancellery 2 2 Portfolio: Academic 16 16 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 2 2 Portfolio: International & Development 3 3 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 1 6 6 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 2 2 University-wide 4 48 52

Summary

A total of 52 staff members (including both academic and professional staff) are recorded as accessing staff study support during the reporting period. The majority of staff accessing the scheme were professional staff (48) and represents only 3.6% of the total professional staff headcount (1339). The highest number of staff who received staff study support was in the Portfolio: Academic (16 staff members representing 31% of the total) followed by the Division of Education, Arts & Social Sciences (9 staff members, 17%). Trend

Number of staff paid staff study support 2005 2006 2007

Academic Staff 10 7 4 Professional Staff 58 51 48 Total University 68 58 52

Overall, there has been a decrease in the number of staff paid staff study support from 68 in 2005, 58 in 2006 down to 52 in 2007. However, it should be noted that 100% of staff who apply for staff study support receive some form of financial support. Benchmarking

No data available.


Page 71

11. LEAVE 11.1 PLANNED AND UNPLANNED LEAVE Description

Planned leave is time absent from the University which includes recreation leave and long service leave. Unplanned leave is time absent from the University which includes sick leave, family responsibility leave (encompassing carer’s leave, compassionate leave and bereavement leave), emergency service leave, workers compensation leave and industrial action. The rate of planned and unplanned leave is shown as a percentage and is calculated as follows: FTE days Leave x 100%

Total Working Days (248) x average FTE Table 40 reports planned and unplanned leave rates as a percentage of all working days by academic and professional staff. Table 40: Planned, Unplanned and Total Leave Annualised by Academic and

Professional, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Academic Staff Professional Staff

Division / Portfolio Planned Working

Days

Unplanned Working

Days

Academic Staff

Total Leave Planned Working

Days

Unplanned Working

Days

Professional Staff

Total Leave

Division: Business 7.2% 1.3% 8.5% 7.2% 3.9% 11.1%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 8.8% 1.4% 10.2% 9.1% 3.5% 12.6%

Division: Health Sciences 7.6% 1.6% 9.2% 8.1% 3.8% 11.9%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 8.0% 1.2% 9.1% 8.7% 3.5% 12.2%

Chancellery 7.0% 0.0% 7.0% 10.2% 2.5% 12.7%

Portfolio: Academic 10.3% 3.0% 13.3% 11.0% 3.9% 14.9%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources N/A N/A N/A 9.0% 5.2% 14.2%

Portfolio: International & Development N/A N/A N/A 8.7% 3.0% 11.7%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 8.7% 1.2% 9.9% 7.7% 3.8% 11.5%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 7.1% 1.1% 8.2% 8.1% 2.8% 10.9%

Total University 8.1% 1.4% 9.4% 9.0% 3.8% 12.7%


Page 72

Table 41 shows the percentage of total planned and unplanned leave for all staff by Division and Portfolio. Table 41: Planned and Unplanned Leave Annualised by Division / Portfolio for all Staff

and Total University, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Division and Portfolio Planned Leave

Unplanned Leave Total

Division: Business 7.2% 2.4% 9.6%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 8.9% 2.0% 10.9%

Division: Health Sciences 7.8% 2.4% 10.2%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 8.2% 2.0% 10.2%

Chancellery 9.9% 2.2% 12.1%

Portfolio: Academic 10.9% 3.8% 14.8%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 9.0% 5.2% 14.2%

Portfolio: International & Development 8.7% 3.0% 11.7%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 7.8% 3.5% 11.3%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 7.6% 2.0% 9.6%

Total University 8.6% 2.7% 11.3%

Summary

The unplanned leave rate (2.7%) means that, on average, staff members took 6.7 days off as unplanned days. Unplanned leave for professional staff (3.8%, 9.4 average days) is higher than for academic staff (1.4%, 3.5 average days). The lower average days for academic staff may be a reflection of the difficulty in ensuring leave forms are completed. The total planned leave rate of 8.6% equates to approximately 21.3 days off per year for each staff member. Trend

2005 2006 2007

Planned Leave 8.6% 8.7% 8.6%

Unplanned Leave 2.5% 2.5% 2.7%

Total Leave 11.1% 11.2% 11.3%

The total leave rate increased marginally in the period 2006 to 2007 from 11.2% to 11.3% with a slight increase in unplanned leave and a decrease in planned leave.


Page 73

The increase in unplanned leave may indicate staff are taking more sick days or carer’s leave. It may also indicate that staff are completing the appropriate leave forms as a result of the continued effort of HR staff to ensure both academic and professional staff complete leave forms as required by the Auditor General’s Department. Benchmarking For information purposes the following data is provided, however it is not a direct comparison to the data provided for UniSA. The Mercer HR data reports that for organisations with over 1000 employees the average number of sick days per staff FTE per year was 44 hours (approximately 6 days) including both paid and unpaid sick leave (Mercer Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor, September 2006). For all Australian industries the average sick leave days per employee was slightly lower at 39 hours per employee (approximately 5 days). Over the period July 2005 to June 2006 the level of sick leave in the South Australian Public Sector (including leave for family caring purposes) was an average of 7.9 days per FTE. This represents an increase from previous years (6.9 days in 2005 and 7.4 days in 2004).


Page 74

11.2 RECREATION LEAVE LIABILITY Description

Recreation leave liability is the amount of recreation leave entitlement that a staff member has accrued. Under the provisions of the UniSA Academic and Professional Staff Collective Agreement 2006, recreation leave shall not accumulate beyond 40 days entitlement. Table 42 shows the average recreation leave liability per staff member. It is represented as average working days per staff member (headcount) by Academic and Professional and Division/ Portfolio. Recreation leave liability average days are calculated by using the following formula:

Total Recreation Leave Liability Total Staff Numbers (Headcount)

Table 42: Average Recreation Leave Liability for Academic and Professional by Division

/ Portfolio as at 31 March 2007

Award Division and Portfolio Average

Accumulated Recreation Leave

(working days)

Division: Business 20.0

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 15.3

Division: Health Sciences 16.0

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 18.9

Chancellery 12.6

Portfolio: Academic 11.7

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy and Change 8.7

Academic

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 17.8

Academic Average 16.8 Division: Business 14.6

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 15.7

Division: Health Sciences 15.4

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 19.1

Chancellery 12.9

Portfolio: Academic 14.3

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 19.6

Portfolio: International & Development 15.7

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 17.5

Professional


Professional Average 16.2

Whole University Average 16.5


Page 75

Summary On average academic staff have a marginally higher recreation leave liability of 16.8 days per staff member when compared to professional staff at 16.2 days. Trend

Average recreation leave liability 2005 2006 2007

Academic Average 17.7 16.7 16.8

Professional Average 17.1 16.6 16.2

Whole University Average 17.4 16.7 16.5

The average recreation leave liability during the reporting period has decreased from 17.4 days in 2005, 16.7 days in 2006 down to 16.5 days in 2007. The University has a commitment to a safe and healthy work environment and acknowledges the important role that effective management of recreation leave plays in this regard. Hence staff members are encouraged to take their recreation leave as soon as possible in the year following its accrual and should not accumulate beyond their maximum leave entitlements. Managers are required to implement staff recreation leave plans in order to ensure the needs of the work group and individual are balanced. The HR Unit has developed procedures to assist managers regarding the management of excess recreation leave. Benchmarking

No data available.


Page 76

11.3 LONG SERVICE LEAVE LIABILITY Description

Long service leave liability is the amount of long service leave entitlement that a staff member has accrued. However, staff may not utilise long service leave until they have completed 7 years of continuous service. Therefore, staff with less than 7 years service record zero long service leave liability. The rate of accumulation of long service is 91 days for the first 10 years service and 9.1 days per year for subsequent years. Professional staff and ex-South Australian Colleges of Advanced Education (SACAE) staff are entitled to accumulate 15 days for each year of service after completion of 15 years. Long service leave liability average days are calculated using the following formula:

Long Service Leave Liability Total Staff Numbers (Headcount)

Long service leave liability is shown as average calendar days per staff member (headcount) by Academic / Professional and Division / Portfolio (Table 43). Table 43: Long Service Leave Liability Average Days for Academic and Professional by


Award Division / Portfolio Average

Accumulated Long Service Leave

(Calendar days)

Division: Business 61.5 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 58.5 Division: Health Sciences 50.3 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 51.3 Chancellery 82.0 Portfolio: Academic 48.7 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 15.7

Academic


Academic Average 53.0 Division: Business 18.7 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 40.4 Division: Health Sciences 35.4 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 55.1 Chancellery 33.4 Portfolio: Academic 44.9 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 60.1 Portfolio: International & Development 25.6 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 45.3

Professional


Professional Average 42.0

University Average 46.9


Page 77

Summary Long service liability to the University represents a significant financial liability to the University. On average academic staff have a higher long service leave liability (53 calendar days) when compared to professional staff (42 calendar days). This correlates with academic staff having on average a greater length of service, hence more time to accrue long service leave. Trend

Long service liability average days 2005 2006 2007

Academic Average 55.6 56.3 53.0

Professional Average 46.9 44.5 42.0

University Average 50.7 49.7 46.9

The average long service liability of all staff has decreased over the three year reporting period, from 50.7 days in 2005, 49.7 days in 2006 and 46.9 days in 2007. The increase in applications from staff wishing to exercise their entitlement to payment in lieu of long service leave (Clause 36.7 of the Academic and Professional Staff Collective Agreement 2006) has helped to decrease the liability. However as 20% of University staff are in the perceived retirement age of over 55 this liability needs to be monitored carefully. The HRU has provided advice that encourages all pre-separation contracts to include a clause seeking a commitment to use all or a portion of outstanding long service leave during the life of the contract. Benchmarking

No data available.


Page 78

11.4 FAMILY FRIENDLY LEAVE INITIATIVES Description

The University recognises and supports the obligations people have to family members by providing a range of options for staff to manage their family responsibilities. These flexible work options contribute to a positive and productive work environment and provide an opportunity to achieve work-life balance. In December 2005, the University won the Public Sector Employer of the Year Award at the 2005 ACCI/BCA National Work and Family Awards. The winners were judged on flexible work practices, including how they are incorporated into daily business operations; whether they are effectively communicated to staff and how they help to achieve the best business and employee outcomes. Flexible work arrangements refer to short or long-term changes to working hours and leave arrangements within the context of organisational needs. The success of flexible work arrangements requires good planning and communication and a shared responsibility between staff and managers to make the arrangements work. Table 44 shows the number of staff who were committed to flexible work arrangements including a reduced work year, 1/2 leave, 4/5 leave, paid maternity leave, pre-natal leave, phased in return to work leave following a maternity leave absence, child rearing leave and family responsibility leave. Table 44: Take up of Family Friendly Leave Initiatives by Division / Portfolio,


Division and Portfolio Reduced Work Year 1/2 Leave 4/5 Leave

Paid Maternity /Adoption

Leave

Pre-Natal Leave

Phased in Return to

Work Partner Leave

Child Rearing Leave

Family Respons-

ibility Total

Division: Business 5 14 6 9 1 5 75 115

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 4 9 2 3 4 79 101

Division: Health Sciences 2 12 8 4 1 85 112

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment

1 4 1 3 3 2 71 85

Chancellery 1 4 1 2 14 22

Portfolio: Academic 15 1 8 5 4 3 2 148 186

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0 1 5 6 2 5 67 86

Portfolio: International & Development 3 12 3 6 2 33 59

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 5 2 1 4 1 83 96

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 0 2 2 0 2 25 31

Grand Total 36 1 1 70 36 34 23 12 680 893


Page 79

A reduced work year is where a staff member receives additional unpaid leave within a twelve month period in return for a pro-rata reduction in their annual salary. The reduced salary is averaged over the year to allow the staff member to be paid during the extra period of leave. This includes 46/52, 47/52, 48/52, 49/52, 50/52 and 51/52 leave. 1/2 leave is an arrangement where a staff member can take 6 months or 12 months unpaid leave over a 1 to 2 year period and have the reduced salary spread over the 1 to 2 years. 4/5 leave allows staff to take 12 months unpaid leave and the reduction in salary is spread over the 5 years. Paid maternity leave is available at the rate of 16 weeks on full pay or 32 weeks half-pay. In addition staff members are entitled to 6 days pre-natal leave and phased-in return to work arrangements where a staff member returning from maternity leave may work a reduced fraction of 0.6 FTE for 8 weeks and will be paid at the full rate of pay. Partner leave of up to 10 days is available when associated with a partner’s pregnancy or adoption. Child rearing leave (unpaid) is available in addition to any other form of maternity/adoption leave for a period of 52 weeks for the purpose of caring for a pre-school age child. Summary

The data below reports the number of staff who took up family-friendly leave arrangements. Staff are only counted once, regardless of whether they accessed one initiative many times or a number of different initiatives. The trend data below shows a very high increase in the take-up of family-friendly initiatives over the past two years. This is due to limited reporting in 2005, where family responsibility leave, partner leave, pre-natal leave and return-to work arrangements were not included. Of the 893 staff recorded as utilising family friendly leave arrangements, 240 were male and 653 were female. Family responsibility leave was the most common family-friendly leave accessed, with 467 women and 213 men accessing this leave. This means that 33.2% of the total female workforce (using headcount data and excluding casuals) and 21.2% of the total male workforce accessed family responsibility leave. Seventy women took paid maternity leave, representing 5% of female staff, and 23 men accessed partner leave, representing 2.3% of male staff. Trend

Take up of Family Friendly Initiatives in total 2005 2006

2007

University-wide 68 760 893

Benchmarking

No data available.


Page 80


Page 81

PART B: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE & INJURY MANAGEMENT

WORKERS COMPENSATION 1. TOTAL NUMBER OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS & TYPES OF INJURY OR ILLNESS Description

Table 45 shows the total number of workers compensation claims registered, the number of staff who registered claims, the number of claims that resulted in lost time (an absence of one day or more from work) and the percentage of total staff (headcount) who submitted a claim for the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. The percentage of total staff who submitted a claim utilises the University’s headcount figures (excluding casuals). Due to the confidential nature of workers compensation claims it is not possible to show data broken down by Division and Portfolio as individuals may be identified from the data. Table 45: Total Number of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

No of Individual Claims

No of Staff who submitted a

claim No of lost time

claims

Percentage of total staff who

submitted a claim

Total University 53 53 25 2.2%

Figure 10 illustrates the nature of injury or illness of the claims for the same period. Figure 10: Claims by Injury or Illness, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

0

5

10

15

20

25

Allergic

Reaction

Bruising

Fracture

Interna

l Injuri

es

Lacera

tion

Noise In

duced

Hearing

Loss

Repetitiv

e Stra

in Inju

ry

Slips/Trps

/Falls

Sprain/S

train

Stress

No.

of C

laim

s


Page 82

Summary There were a total of 53 workers compensation claims registered between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2007. A total of 53 staff submitted a claim, which represents 2.2% of staff. The data indicates that the three major causes of injury or illness to staff for the reporting period were:

• Sprain and Strain from manual handling tasks (20 injuries), • Repetitive Movement from working at computer based workstations (11 injuries), and • Slips/trips or falls (8 injuries).

This information assists the university in identifying preventive strategies to reduce the risk of incidence across the organisation. Included in these strategies was the further implementation of the Occupational Health Safety Welfare and Injury Management (OHSW&IM) online learning programs where there is a greater knowledge and awareness of OHSW&IM issues amongst staff and the continued implementation of the WorkPace software program. This program provides ergonomic information, scheduled work pauses, compulsory rest breaks and relevant exercises. In addition the OHSW&IM Services team in the HRU have conducted a significant number of computer workstation assessments to reduce the risk of staff contracting occupational overuse injuries. It is anticipated that the continued implementation of these strategies will assist the University in further reducing the injury rate. Trend


Number of Individual Claims 56 54 53

This data indicates that there has been a slight decrease in the number of individual claims over the reporting period, from 56 in 2005, 54 in 2006 to 53 in 2007. The three major causes of injury/illness to staff over the three year period have remained relatively consistent as sprains/strains, repetitive movement and slips, trips and falls. Over the three year period, sprain and strain injuries have decreased from 23 to 20, repetitive movement injuries have remained the same at 11 and slips, trips and falls have increased from 4 to 8. It is anticipated that the further implementation of the OHSW&IM online learning programs, the WorkPace program, and an increasing general awareness amongst staff of OHSW&IM issues, should impact on injury experience in the next reporting period. Benchmarking

No data available.


Page 83

2 TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS LOST Description

Table 46 shows total number of days lost due to work related injuries that resulted in a workers compensation claim during the period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007. Table 46: Total Number of Days Lost Due to Workers Compensation Claims,


No of Days

Total University 469

Summary

469 days were lost due to 25 lost time workers compensation claims in 2007. It should be noted that the total number of days lost due to workers compensation claims for 2005, 2006 and 2007 is not static because if further days are lost due to WorkCover claims, the total days lost will increase for the year the initial claim was lodged. Trend

Total Number of Days Lost due to Workers Compensation Claims

2005 2006 2007


Benchmarking

Refer to benchmarking data under Incidence Rate, Frequency Rate and Average Time Lost Rate.


Page 84

3. TOTAL COST OF CLAIMS Description

The total cost of claims registered across the University for the reporting period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 is shown in Table 47. Table 47: Total Cost of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Total Cost

Total University $200,502

Summary

The total cost of workers compensation claims registered for the reporting period is $200,502. A significant proportion of this cost is due to four claims lodged during the reporting period. These four claims to date have contributed to $85,012 of the total cost for claims and represent 42% of the total cost to injuries/illnesses registered in the reporting period. The main types of injuries that have attributed to the greatest amount in the total cost during the reporting period are sprains and strains, slips, trips and falls and stress related injuries. Trend

Total Cost of Claims 2005 2006 2007

Total University $232,327 $317,135 $200,502

When examining the trend data, it should be noted that the data is not static and the total costs for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 reporting periods may increase where further costs are incurred due to workers compensation claims. Benchmarking

No data available.


Page 85

4. INCIDENCE RATE Description

The time lost incidence rate shown in Table 48 is the number of lost time incidents which occurred during the reporting period 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007, as a proportion of total University headcount. The headcount does not include casual staff. The incidence rate is calculated as: Number of lost time Incidents in the Period x 100 Number of Staff (headcount, excluding casuals) The ‘number of incidents in the period’ refers to all cases of lost-time injury/illness which were recorded in the period. Table 48: Incidence Rate, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Incidence Rate

Total University 1.03

Summary

The data indicates that there is an average of one workers compensation claim for every 100 staff members. The goal of the University through OHSW&IM Services will be to improve this incidence rate during the next reporting period.

Trend

Incidence Rate 2005 2006 2007

Total University 0.99 0.96 1.03

There has been a minor increase in the incidence rate over the three year period. This indicates that the number of incidents involving lost time injury/illness has not changed significantly in relation to the total number of staff. The University’s stabilised performance may be attributed to continuous improvement in OHSW practices across the University and the increased awareness of staff by completing a range of OHSW online learning programs. Currently 75% of the University’s total workforce has completed an OHSW online learning program. Benchmarking

The Mercer HR Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor 2006 reports the average lost time occurrence incidence rate for organisations with more than 1000 staff as 1.78, an increase from 1.6 in 2005. The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program reports the incidence rate of 0.79 using a sample of 26 universities.


Page 86

5 FREQUENCY RATE Description

The frequency rate shown in Table 49 is the number of incidents of injury/illness for each one million hours worked. The frequency rate is calculated as: Number of Incidents in the Period x 1,000,000 Number of Hours Worked in the Period The ‘number of incidents in the period’ refers to all cases of lost-time injury/illness which were recorded in the period. The ‘number of hours worked in the period’ refers to the total number of hours worked by all staff in the University (including casuals). Table 49: Frequency Rate, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Frequency Rate


Summary

This data indicates that just over 5.42 lost time injuries/ilnesses occurred for each one million hours worked. The goal of the University is to achieve a 5% reduction in the frequency rate of injury/illness over the next reporting period.

Trend

Frequency Rate 2005 2006 2007


The frequency rate has increased slightly over the reporting period. Benchmarking

The Mercer HR Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor 2005 reports the lost time frequency rate for organisations with more than 1000 staff as 10.4 and all Australian industries as 9.0 (this includes manufacturing industries). The University data of 5.42 shows that the incidence rate is significantly lower than the average.


Page 87

6 AVERAGE TIME LOST RATE Description

The average time lost rate shown in Table 50 is the average time lost per lost time incident of injury/illness. For the purposes of this calculation an upper limit of 12 months of work is assigned. This rate provides a measure of the severity of the incidents being experienced by the University. The average time lost rate is calculated as: Number of Working Days Lost Number of lost time Incidents in the Period The ‘number of working days lost’ refers to the total number of working days, irrespective of the number of hours that would normally have been worked each day, that were lost as a result of the injury/illness. Table 50: Average Time Lost Rate, 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007

Average Time Lost

Rate (days)


Summary

The data indicates that each accepted lost time claim recorded, resulted in an average of 18.76 days lost time. This represents an overall increase of 8% when compared to 2006. The goal of the University is to decrease the average time lost per workers compensation claim to less than 17 lost time days during the next reporting period. The average time lost rate of over 18 days per lost time claim is largely due to 5 claims that were registered in the reporting period, which so far have contributed to 349 lost time days. Evaluating the average time lost rate excluding these claims, results in an average time lost rate of 5.71 days. Trend

Average Time Lost Rate (days) 2005 2006 2007


There has been an increase in the average time lost rate over the reporting period. This indicates that the average time lost for all workers compensation claims has risen slightly in real terms. Benchmarking

The Mercer HR Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor 2006 reports the average lost time rate for organisations with more than 1000 staff as 18.5 days and the all Australian industries (includes manufacturing industries) average is 19 days. The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program reports the 2006 average time lost rate, using a sample of 26 universities, to be 16.0 days.

Date post:	10-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Annual Workforce Profile Report 2006-2007w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/pdf/2007_annual_report.pdf · Annual...

Documents