ANNUAL WORKFORCE PROFILE REPORT 2003-2004w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/pdf/aw_report_ 2004.pdf · Annual...

ANNUAL WORKFORCE PROFILE REPORT 2003-2004

As at 31 March 2004

Human Resources Unit June 2004

INTRODUCTION The human resource indicators in this report provide broad workforce data and analysis, including key workforce information at the corporate level. This report will assist managers in the comparison of local information with corporate and benchmarking data to achieve:

• a greater understanding of UniSA’s workforce • the identification of trends and gaps in the workforce, and • a measurement of human resource strategy success.

HUMAN RESOURCE INDICATORS The workforce planning framework includes the identification of suitable human resource indicators to provide a corporate overview of the workforce and the continuous monitoring of corporate strategies. The indicators are only intended to provide a snapshot of workforce issues and are to be considered along with other relevant data. The human resource indicators provide a measure of the human resource capacity of the organisation and the effectiveness of workforce planning initiatives. This report includes the following human resource indicators:

• Workforce size

• Employment type

• Staff turnover and separations • Length of service • Diversity profiling - Indigenous, youth, gender, country of birth, first language and

disability • Age • Academic and general staff qualifications • Career development – academic promotion, reclassification of general staff, higher

duties opportunities • Leave • OHS&W.

BENCHMARKING Where possible, benchmarking information for most indicators has been included and information has been obtained from the following sources:

• Department of Education, Science & Training (DEST) data 2003

• Australian Bureau of Statistics (AusStats 2001 & 2002)

• Australian Universities Benchmarking Program 2003

• South Australian Public Sector Workforce Information (June 2003)

• UniSA Annual Workforce Report 2002-2003.

TREND As the Annual Workforce Profile Report is in its second year, trends against last year’s measures are included in the report. The trend analysis for each indicator can be used to plan, implement and evaluate human resource policies and initiatives.

ANNUAL WORKFORCE REPORT The Annual Workforce Profile Report forms part of the University’s workforce planning and reporting framework and will provide an overview of the workforce profile, establish base measures where appropriate and present an analysis of the data. The data in this report is based on the annual data provided to DEST, which is finalised in June. It is for this reason that the data is either static as at 31 March 2004 or reflects data captured from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. The exception to this is casual employment and those paid by invoice, where data is provided based on calendar year (1 January to 31 December). 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: Carroll DeVizio Senior Consultant: Remuneration and Workforce Strategy Phone: x21641 [email protected] Kirstee Oxton Consultant: Remuneration and Workforce Strategy Phone: x21613 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

CONTENTS Results Overview, 2002-2003 & 2003-2004.................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3 Part A: Workforce Profiling.......................................................................................... 4

1. Workforce Size........................................................................................................ 4

2. Employment Type – Non Casual............................................................................. 7 2.1 Continuing And Fixed-Term Staff .............................................................................7 2.2 Employment Type by Division & Portfolio ................................................................9

3. Temporary Staff .................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Casual Staff............................................................................................................12

4. Staff Turnover ....................................................................................................... 17

5. Length Of Service ................................................................................................. 20

6. Diversity ................................................................................................................ 22 6.1 Indigenous Employment.........................................................................................23 6.2 Youth Employment .................................................................................................26 6.3 Gender ...................................................................................................................28 6.4 Country Of Birth......................................................................................................32 6.5 First Languages......................................................................................................34 6.6 Disability .................................................................................................................36

7. Age........................................................................................................................ 37

8. Staff Qualifications ................................................................................................ 40 8.1 Academic Staff Qualifications.................................................................................40 8.2 General Staff Qualifications....................................................................................42

9. Career Development ............................................................................................. 43 9.1 Academic Promotions ............................................................................................43 9.2 General Staff Reclassifications ..............................................................................45 9.3 Higher Duties Opportunities For General Staff.......................................................47

10. Leave .................................................................................................................... 49 10.1 Planned And Unplanned Absenteeism...................................................................49 10.2 Recreation Leave Liability ......................................................................................52 10.3 Long Service Leave Liability...................................................................................54 10.4 Family Friendly Leave Initiatives ............................................................................56

Part B: Occupational Health & Safety....................................................................... 58

1. Workers Compensation......................................................................................... 58 1.1 Total Number Of Workers Compensation Claims & Types of Injury or Illness...... 58 1.2 Total Number Of Days Lost....................................................................................60 1.3 Total Cost Of Claims ..............................................................................................61 1.4 Incidence Rate .......................................................................................................62 1.5 Frequency Rate......................................................................................................63 1.6 Average Time Lost Rate.........................................................................................64

UniSA Table Listing Table 1 Continuing/Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE by Academic/General and

Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2003 and as at 31 March 2004

Table 2 Academic/General by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Table 3 Employment Type by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Table 4 Casual Hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Table 5 Total University Summary of Casual Hours and FTE by Award and Work Type 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Table 6 Academic Casual Hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio and Work Type 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Table 7 General Casual Work Code ‘Other’ Hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Table 8 Casual Hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio and Gender, 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Table 9 University-wide Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 10 Number of Involuntary and Voluntary Staff Separations by Gender 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 11 Indigenous Employment as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2004

Table 12 Youth Employment as a Percentage of General Staff FTE as at 31 March 2004

Table 13 General Staff Youth Employment (FTE) by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Table 14 Female Staff Percentages by Academic/General and Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Table 15 Staff Gender (Headcount) across all Levels as at 31 March 2004

Table 16 Staff as a Percentage by Country of Birth as at 31 March 2004

Table 17 First Language as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2004

Table 18 Number of Staff who identified as having a Disability as at 31 March 2004

Table 19 Median Age of General and Academic Staff as at 31 March 2004

Table 20 Academic Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of Academic Staff by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Table 21 General Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of General Staff by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Table 22 Number of Applications Received for Academic Promotion for 2003 round

Table 23 Number of Successful Applications for Academic Promotion for 2003 round

Table 24 Number of Applications for Reclassification, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

UniSA Tables Listing (cont.)

Table 25 Number of Applications for Reclassifications by Division/Portfolio 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 26 Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Substantive Classification Level 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 27 Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Division/Portfolio 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 28 Unplanned, Planned and Total Absenteeism Annualised by Academic/General 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 29 Unplanned and Planned Absenteeism Annualised by Division/Portfolio for all staff and Total University, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 30 Average Recreation Leave Liability for Academic/General by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Table 31 Long Service Leave Liability Average Days for Academic/General by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Table 32 Take up of Family Friendly Leave Initiatives by Division/Portfolio 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 33 Total Number of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 34 Total Number of Days Lost Due to Workers Compensation Claims 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 35 Total Cost of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 36 Incidence Rate, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 37 Frequency Rate, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Table 38 Average Time Lost, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

UniSA Figures Listing

Figure 1 Continuing, Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE total percentages by Academic/

General and University-wide as at 31 March 2004

Figure 2 Academic/General by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Figure 3 Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised by Division/Portfolio 1 April 2003 to March 2004

Figure 4 Length of Service for Academic Staff as at 31 March 2004

Figure 5 Length of Service for General Staff as at 31 March 2004

Figure 6 Length of Service for Total University as at 31 March 2004

Figure 7 Age Demographics as a Percentage of Academic and General Staff as at 31 March 2004

Figure 8 Claims by Injury or Illness, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Annual Workforce Profile Report 2003-2004 1

Results Overview, 2002-2003 & 2003-2004

PART A: WORKFORCE PROFILING

2002-2003 2003-2004

1 Workforce Size (including casuals) FTE FTE Total Staff 2362.74 2448.48

2 Staff Numbers (excluding casuals) FTE Percentage FTE Percentage Academic Staff 858.10 43% 891.10 43% General Staff 1146.64 57% 1194.52 57% Continuing Staff 1538.55 76% 1607.70 77% Fixed-Term Contract Staff 466.19 24% 477.93 23% Total Staff FTE Non Casual 2004.74 2085.63 Total Staff Headcount Non Casual 2133 2223

3 Casual Employment FTE Percentage FTE Percentage Academic Staff 249.0 22.49% 256.16 22.3% General Staff 109.0 8.68% 106.69 8.2% Total Casual Staff 358.0 15.15% 362.85 14.8%

4 Staff Turnover FTE Percentage (Turnover)

FTE Percentage (Turnover)

Voluntary Separation 152 7.13% 162 7.13% Involuntary Separation 102 4.97% 71 3.13% Total Staff Separation 258 12.10% 233 10.26%

5 Length of Service - Average Years

Academic 10 years 10 years 1 month General 9 years 7 months 9 years 5 months

6 Diversity - % of Workforce

Indigenous Staff (Headcount) 1.03% 0.85% (Staff Diversity Survey) 1.26% (HRU)

Youth (16 to 24) (FTE General Staff) 4.75% 5.27% Female Staff (Headcount) 55% 56%

7 Age Demographics

Academic Median Age 48 years 48 years General Median Age 42 years 42 years

8 Staff Qualifications Academic Staff Qualifications -

Doctorate 41% 42.86%

General Staff Qualifications – Bachelor or Higher - 26.63%

9 Career Development Academic Staff Promotions (Level B to E) 35 33 General Staff Reclassifications 27 35 General Staff Higher Duties

Opportunities 370 363


Results Overview (cont.)

2002-2003 2003-2004

10 Leave

Unplanned Leave Days Per Staff 7.7 days 5.3 days

Total Planned Leave Days Per Staff 20.8 days 19.9 days

Average Recreation Leave Liability Per Academic Staff 16.4 days 16.7 days

Average Recreation Leave Liability Per General Staff 16.8 days 16.5 days

Long Service Leave Liability Academic Staff 60.0 days 58.6 days

Long Service Leave Liability General Staff 50.1 days 46.1 days

PART B: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY

Work Cover Claims Registered 68 claims 55 claims

Total Days Lost 363 days 351 days


Executive Summary CONTEXT UniSA will face a series of challenges in workforce and human resources management over the next few years. These include:

• Implementing the new Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement. • Achieving the workforce profile outlined in UniSA 2010. • Implementing future change management initiatives across Division and Portfolios to

enable achievement of business objectives. • Facilitating decision-making through improved information management and reporting. • Improving the alignment of business strategy with the budget framework. • Building individual and institutional capability. • Preparing for the potential retirement of the large cohort of academics recruited during

the growth period in higher education in the 1970s. • Continued growth of the University’s international profile.

Australia is facing a labour shortage in future years as ‘baby boomers’ retire in increasing numbers and organisations struggle to replace them with younger workers. The fundamental cause of this problem is our ageing population, driven by declining fertility and mortality rates. For many organisations, including UniSA this will mean a shortage of talent in key areas, potential loss of corporate knowledge and a need to extend the tenure of older workers in a way that meets their lifestyle requirements but also retains service and skills (Hudson Report, 2004).

INITIATIVES A number of initiatives has been implemented that will impact on the workforce and the human resource indicators: Workforce Planning In 2003 stage 1 Workforce Planning Priorities were incorporated into the Corporate Planning Process and workforce plans were developed at the local level. The 2003 stage 1 Workforce Planning Priorities were:

1. Succession Planning (Age Profiling) 2. Youth Employment 3. Staff Gender, Senior Women 4. Indigenous Employment 5. Academic Staff Qualifications.

Leave Management The provision of leave balance information to managers and the annual excess leave management process appears to have been effective in ensuring staff take their leave entitlements within an appropriate time. Leave liability has reduced since the last Workforce Profile Report. Diversity A confidential survey has been in place since 2000 to capture diversity information for UniSA staff and currently 67% of staff have completed the survey. Employees are asked to complete the survey form on commencement of employment. Youth Employment A group intake of 10 youth trainees in January 2004 has had a positive effect on youth employment numbers.


PART A: WORKFORCE PROFILING

1. WORKFORCE SIZE Description

Table 1 shows the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) continuing, fixed-term and casual staff by Division/Portfolio and Academic/General as at 31 March 2003 and 2004. Casual FTE data is compiled across the University for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 utilising the DEST formula. Fixed-term employment, as per the University of South Australia Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2000-2003, includes:

• senior managers employed on individual contracts • staff on pre-separation contracts • staff employed for specific tasks or projects • staff employed for research projects • replacement staff • student employment • staff employed in a new organisational area or a disestablished organisational area.

Casual staff are engaged by the hour and paid on an hourly basis. For reporting purposes the 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. The Whyalla Campus is reported in the Portfolio: Access and Learning Support throughout the report.

orce Profile Report 2003-2004 5

Table 1: Continuing/Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE by Academic/General and Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2003 and as at 31 March 2004

31 March 2003 31 March 2004 Continuing Fixed-Term Casual Total Continuing Fixed-Term Casual Total Division/Portfolio

Academic General Academic General Academic General Academic General Total FTE Academic General Academic General Academic General Academic General Total FTE

Div: Business & Enterprise 129.55 100.70 18.30 15.50 68.36 18.33 216.21 134.53 350.74 139.25 109.30 24.90 14.60 73.87 16.97 238.02 140.87 378.89

Div: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 210.90 101.60 61.80 15.80 100.08 24.25 372.78 141.65 514.43 217.90 99.70 54.00 21.40 96.43 22.70 368.33 143.80 512.13

Div: Health Sciences 120.40 64.76 59.15 26.60 35.32 8.08 214.87 99.44 314.31 121.10 76.16 64.75 29.40 37.76 9.20 223.61 114.76 338.37

Div: Info Technology, Engineering & Environment

112.90 75.40 47.20 20.80 40.15 13.12 200.25 109.32 309.57 115.13 82.20 52.06 15.20 43.74 13.38 210.93 110.78 321.71

Chancellery 3.50 14.40 2.00 7.00 0.28 0.01 5.78 21.41 27.19 2.00 16.20 3.60 10.40 0.27 0.10 5.87 26.70 32.57

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 31.60 215.18 8.20 47.40 3.59 20.41 43.39 282.99 326.38 34.60 215.51 4.40 55.00 2.93 24.06 41.93 294.57 336.50

Portfolio: Business Development* 0 25.95 0 5.00 0 2.93 0.00 33.88 33.88 - - - - - - - - -

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0 144.91 0 52.11 0 9.02 0.00 206.04 206.04 0 147.30 0 43.71 0.00 7.85 0.00 198.86 198.86

Portfolio: International & Development - - - - - - - - - 0 57.25 0 8.40 0.00 4.69 0.00 70.34 70.34

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 0 115.20 0 7.43 0 4.54 0.00 127.17 127.17 0 120.50 0 11.00 0.00 5.26 0.00 136.76 136.76

Portfolio: Research & Innovation - - - - - - - - - 16.00 37.60 41.41 23.70 1.16 2.48 58.57 63.78 122.35

Portfolio: Research & International 14.00 57.60 38.60 33.30 1.22 4.91 53.82 95.81 149.63 - - - - - - - - -

University-wide (other) 0 0 0 0 0 3.40 0.00 3.40 3.40 - - - - - - - - -

University Total 622.85 915.70 235.25 230.94 249.00 109.00 1107.10 1255.64 2362.74 645.98 961.72 245.12 232.81 256.16 106.69 1147.27 1301.21 2448.48

* The Portfolio no longer exists

Annual Workf


Figure 1: Continuing, Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE total percentages by Academic/General and University-wide as at 31 March 2004

56.3%

21.4%

17.9%19.5%

73.9%65.7%

22.3%14.8%

8.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Academic General University Wide

CasualFixed TermContinuing

Summary

Total Staff (FTE) as at 31 March 2004 is 2448.48. Of the total academic staff FTE, 56.3% are employed in continuing positions, 21.4% are on fixed-term contracts and 22.3% are casually employed. Of the total general staff FTE, 73.9% are employed in continuing positions, 17.9% are on fixed-term contracts and 8.2% are casually employed. University-wide, 65.7% of staff are employed in continuing positions with 19.5% on fixed-term contracts and 14.8% are casually employed.

Trend

Total FTE (including casuals) 2003 2004

University Total 2362.74 2448.48

Total staff (including casuals) has increased by 85.74 across the University. All comparable Divisions/Portfolios have increased except for the Division: Education, Arts and Social Sciences (decreased by 2.3) and the Portfolio: Finance and Resources (decreased by 7.18). The largest increases in total staff (including casuals) have been in the Division: Business & Enterprise (28.15) and Division: Health Sciences (24.06).


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

Figure 2 and Table 2 show the number of FTE continuing and fixed-term staff (excluding casual employment) by Academic/General and Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004. Figure 2: Academic/General by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Div: Business& Enterprise

Div: Ed, Arts &Soc Science

Div: HealthSciences

Div: Info Tech,Eng, & Env.

Chancellery Portfolio:Access &Learning

Portfolio:Finance &Resources

Portfolio:International

andDevelopment

Portfolio: OrgStrategy and

Change

Portfolio:Research &Innovation

Academic General

Table 2: Academic/General by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

FTE % FTE Headcount Division/Portfolio Academic General Academic General Total Academic General Total

Div: Business & Enterprise 57% 43% 164.15 123.90 288.05 170 130 300

Div: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 69% 31% 271.90 121.10 393.00 293 135 428

Div: Health Sciences 64% 36% 185.85 105.56 291.41 208 114 322

Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 63% 37% 167.19 97.40 264.59 173 102 275

Chancellery 17% 83% 5.60 26.60 32.20 6 28 34

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 13% 87% 39.00 270.51 309.51 41 294 335

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0% 100% 0 191.01 191.01 0 197 197

Portfolio: International & Development 0% 100% 0 65.65 65.65 0 70 70

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 0% 100% 0 131.50 131.50 0 137 137

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 48% 52% 57.41 61.30 118.71 59 66 125

University Total 43% 57% 891.10 1194.53 2085.63 950 1273 2223

Summary

Total staff (headcount), as at 31 March 2004, excluding casuals is 2223 and total FTE staff, excluding casuals, is 2085.63. The ratio of general staff to academic staff is 1.34 (per FTE). Of the 2085 staff, 57% are general staff and 43% are academic staff. This varies across Divisions due to different administrative


and technical structures. The Division: Business & Enterprise has the highest percentage of general staff (43%) and the Division: Education, Arts and Social Sciences has the lowest (31%). Clause 25 of the University of South Australia Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2000-2003 states that there will be no net job losses (FTE) for the life of the agreement. The information below indicates that there has been a small but noticeable increase (132.2 FTE) in the total number of staff employed during the life of the agreement (since date of certification).

Nov 2000 March 2004

Academic Staff 828.90 891.10

General Staff 1124.53 1194.53

Total Staff 1953.43 2085.63 Trend

University Total (excluding casuals) 2003 2004

University Total FTE 2004.74 2085.63

University Total Headcount 2133 2223

Ratio General Staff to Academic 1.34 1.34

The University total FTE has increased by 80.89 FTE over a 12 month period. In comparison to the 2003 report, the largest areas of growth in this period in FTE are the Divisions of Business and Enterprise (increased by 24) and Health Sciences (increased by 20.5). All areas comparable with previous years have increased except in the Portfolio: Finance and Resources which has decreased slightly by 6 FTE. The ratio of general staff to academic staff remained constant throughout this period with 1.34 (per FTE) in 2003 and 2004. Benchmarking

The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program data indicates that the average ratio of non-academic staff to academic staff, using headcount figures, is 1.58. The following benchmarking information is obtained from DEST data 2003 (excluding UniSA data) utilising FTE figures. For Universities in a group the number and percentage of staff has been averaged.

Ratio of General Staff to Academic Staff

Percentage of Academic Staff

Percentage of General Staff

All Australian Universities 1.37 42.2% 57.8%

ATN Universities 1.49 40.2% 59.8%

Adelaide University 1.20 45.4% 54.6%

Flinders University 1.42 41.3% 58.7%

University of South Australia 1.34 42.7% 57.3%

Annual Workf

Table 3 on the following page shows the percentage of staff (FTE) employed as continuing or fixed-term by Division/Portfolio. Fixed-term employment includes Senior Managers employed on individual contracts, staff on pre-separation contracts, staff employed on specific tasks or projects, research, staff replacement, student employment, new organisational area or disestablished organisational area as per the University of South Australia Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2000-2003.

Description

2.2 EMPLOYMENT TYPE BY DIVISION AND PORTFOLIO

orce Profile Report 2003-2004 9

This indicator reflects the flexibility of the organisational structures across the University.


Table 3: Employment Type by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Continuing Fixed-Term Contract Percentages of FTE

Part-time Part-time Division/Portfolio Full-time

FTE HeadcountTotal FTE Full-time

FTE HeadcountTotal FTE Cont. Fixed-

Term

Div: Business & Enterprise 238 10.55 16 248.55 32.00 7.50 14 39.50 86% 14%

Div: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 290 27.60 45 317.60 50.00 25.40 43 75.40 81% 19%

Div: Health Sciences 177 20.26 32 197.26 70.00 24.15 43 94.15 68% 32%

Div: Info Technology, Engineering & the Environment 188 9.33 15 197.33 60.00 7.26 12 67.26 75% 25%

Chancellery 16 2.20 18.203 1.0013.00 2 14.00 57% 43%

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 215 35.11 53 250.11 49.00 10.40 18 59.40 81% 19%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 140 7.30 12 147.30 41.00 2.71 4 43.71 77% 23%

Portfolio: International & Development 50 7.25 11 57.25 8.00 0.40 1 8.40 87% 13%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 109 11.50 17 120.50 11.00 0 0 11.00 92% 8%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 51 2.60 5 53.60 59.00 6.11 10 65.11 45% 55%

University Total 1474 133.70 209 1607.70 393.00 84.93 147 477.93 77% 23%


Summary

Seventy-seven percent of UniSA staff are employed on a continuing basis and 23% on fixed-term contracts (figures exclude casuals). If casuals were to be included in the employment profile the percentages change to 65.7% of UniSA staff employed are continuing, 19.5% are fixed-term and 14.8% are employed as casuals. The areas with the highest fixed-term contracts include:

• Portfolio: Research & Innovation (55%, 65.11 staff on fixed-term contracts) • Chancellery (43%, 14 staff on fixed-term contracts) • Division: Health Sciences (32%, 94.15 staff on fixed-term contracts).

This high number of fixed-term contracts is directly related to the number of Senior Management Group members on individual senior contracts in Chancellery and the number of staff on research contracts in the Portfolio: Research and Innovation and the number of staff on specific task and research contracts in the Division: Health Sciences. Trend

University Total (percentages of FTE) 2003 2004

Continuing 76% 77%

Fixed-Term 24% 23%

Over the 12 month period there has been a slight increase in the percentage of staff members on continuing employment contracts within the University. Benchmarking

As at June 2003, 23.9% of South Australian Public Service employees were on fixed-term contracts and 62.4% had ongoing employment. The remaining were employed on a casual basis (13.1%) which is a slight increase from last year. DEST data does not report on the equivalent breakdown across Universities.


3. TEMPORARY STAFF 3.1 CASUAL STAFF Description

Casual staff are engaged by the hour and paid on an hourly basis. The data used describes the utilisation of academic and general casual staff across the University for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 (Semester 1 and Semester 2 2003). It does not include any hours outside these dates for work performed during the period. Last year’s figures reported on data from 1 July 2002 to 31 June 2003 (Semester 2, 2002 and Semester 1, 2003). To ensure that future information provided reflects the DEST information, the periods have changed to show Semester 1 and Semester 2 for the same calendar year. For reporting purposes, the organisation structure in place in 2004 has been used. This means that data from Portfolio: Business Development has been moved to Portfolio: International and Development. Data from the Portfolio: Research & International has been split, with data from UniSA International moving to Portfolio: International and Development and data from the Research Institutes moving to Portfolio: Research & Innovation. 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 and 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 4 shows total casual hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio

• Table 5 shows total University casual hours and FTE by award and work type

• Table 6 shows the breakdown of casual academic staff hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio and work type

• Table 7 shows casual general staff hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio

• Table 8 shows casual hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio and gender


Table 4: Casual Hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Division/Portfolio Number of hours FTE

Div: Business & Enterprise 94,641 90.84

Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 127,213 119.13

Div: Health Sciences 68,431 46.96

Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 66,007 57.12

Chancellery 665 0.37

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 47,141 26.99

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 14,291 7.85

Portfolio: International & Development 8,542 4.69

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 9,581 5.26

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 6,543 3.64

Grand Total 443,055 362.85

Table 5: Total University Summary of Casual Hours and FTE by Award and Work Type 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Award Work Code

Number of hours FTE

Lecture 20,785 82.48

Tutor 55,003 78.58 Academic – Non Research

Other 125,666 69.05

Academic – Non Research Total 201,454 230.11

Academic – Research Other 47,418 26.05

Academic - Research Total 47,418 26.05

Academic Total 248,872 256.16

General – Administrative Other 165,553 90.96

General – Research Other 28,630 15.73

General Total 194,183 106.69

Grand Total 443,055 362.85


Table 6: Academic Casual Hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio and Work Type 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Division/Portfolio Work Code Number of hours FTE

Lecture 8,440 33.49 Tutor 11,360 16.23 Div: Business & Enterprise Other 43,950 24.15

Total: Div: Business & Enterprise 63,750 73.87 Lecture 6,844 27.16 Tutor 29,387 41.98 Div: Education, Arts & Social

Sciences Other 49,661 27.29

Total: Div: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 85,892 96.43 Lecture 981 3.89 Tutor 6,830 9.76 Div: Health Sciences Other 43,878 24.11

Total: Div: Health Sciences 51,689 37.76 Lecture 4,301 17.07 Tutor 6,997 9.99 Div: Information Technology,

Engineering & the Environment Other 30,355 16.68

Total: Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 41,653 43.74 Chancellery Other 486 0.27 Total: Chancellery 486 0.27

Lecture 217 0.86 Tutor 390 0.56 Portfolio: Access & Learning

Support Other 2,753 1.51

Total: Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 3,360 2.93 Portfolio: International & Development Other 3

0.00 Total: Portfolio: International & Development 3 0.00

Lecture 2 0.01 Tutor 39 0.06 Portfolio: Research & Innovation Other 1,998 1.09

Total: Portfolio: Research & Innovation 2,039 1.16

Grand Total 248,872 256.16

Table 7: General Casual Work Code ‘Other’ Hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio

1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Division/Portfolio Hours worked FTE

Div: Business & Enterprise 30,891 16.97 Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 41,321 22.70 Div: Health Sciences 16,742 9.20 Div: Info Technology, Engineering & the Environment 24,354 13.38 Chancellery 179 0.10 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 43,781 24.06 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 14,291 7.85 Portfolio: International & Development 8,539 4.69 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 9,581 5.26 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 4,504 2.48 Total 194,183 106.69


Table 8: Casual Hours and FTE by Division/Portfolio and Gender

1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003

Division/Portfolio Gender Code

Hours worked FTE

Female 47,969 39.94 Div: Business & Enterprise

Male 46,672 50.90 Total: Div: Business & Enterprise 94,641 90.84

Female 88,931 79.88 Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences Male 38,282 39.25 Total: Div: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 127,213 119.13

Female 46,876 29.58 Div: Health Sciences

Male 21,555 17.38 Total: Div: Health Sciences 68,431 46.96

Female 19,948 16.61 Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment Male 46,059 40.51 Total: Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 66,007 57.12

Female 215 0.12 Chancellery

Male 450 0.25 Total: Chancellery 665 0.37

Female 35,936 20.41 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support

Male 11,205 6.58 Total: Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 47,141 26.99

Female 3,612 1.98 Portfolio: Finance & Resources

Male 10,679 5.87 Total: Portfolio: Finance & Resources 14,291 7.85

Female 6,114 3.36 Portfolio: International & Development

Male 2,428 1.33 Total: Portfolio: International & Development 8,542 4.69

Female 1,637 0.90 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change Male 7,944 4.36 Total: Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 9,581 5.26

Female 1,170 0.65 Portfolio: Research & Innovation

Male 5,373 2.99 Total: Portfolio: Research & Innovation 6,543 3.64 Total Female 252,408 193.43 Total Male 190,647 169.42

Grand Total 443,055 362.85


Summary

A total of 443,055 hours was worked by casual staff during the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 (Semester 1 and Semester 2 2003) equating to 362.85 FTE. Casual academic staff represented 70.6% of the casual FTE (256.16). Casual academic staff – Research, account for 26.05 of the FTE or 10.2% of the total academic casuals. Fifty-three percent of casual FTE (193.43) were female. If casual staff were to be included in FTE figures, total FTE increases to 2448.48 with casual staff representing 14.8% of the University’s workforce. Casual academic staff represent 22.3% of the academic staff workforce and casual general staff represent 8.2% of the general staff workforce. Casual staff employment reflects the flexibility of the workforce across the University. The optimum level of casual staff requires annual review to identify trends and monitor quality in the delivery of core business to the University. Trend

Casual Reporting 2003 2004

University Total Casual Hours 433,047 443,055

University Total FTE 358.00 362.85

There has been a slight increase in all the measures of casual reporting, total casual hours by 10,008 and University total FTE by 4.85. However as a percentage of total workforce this has decreased slightly from 15.15% to 14.8%. Benchmarking

The following benchmarking information is obtained from DEST data 2003 (excluding UniSA data) utilising FTE figures. For Universities in a group the number of casuals has been averaged. Average Number of

FTE Casuals Percentage of Total

Workforce

All Australian Universities 328 15.45%

ATN Universities 450 16.35%

Adelaide University 390 15.62%

Flinders University 185 11.63%

University of South Australia 362.85 14.8%

Estimated casual numbers (FTE) for all Australian Universities ranges from 0 at Bachelor Institute of Indigenous Education to 1,100 at Monash University. Casual numbers for the ATN Universities range from 375 at Curtin University to 611 at Queensland University of Technology.

4. STAFF TURNOVER Description

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. However turnover can also represent an opportunity to introduce new skills and facilitate change in the workplace. Involuntary turnover represents the number of employer-initiated terminations of employment, which includes 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 has left the organisation to the number of employed staff. It has been calculated with the following formula: Number of Staff terminated (headcount) x 100%

Average No. of staff for the 12 month period For the purposes of this reporting, expiration of fixed-term contract employment has been included as involuntary. Figure 3 shows voluntary and involuntary turnover annualised by Division/Portfolio from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. Also for reporting purposes the organisational structures for both 2003 and 2004 have been used. This means that the Portfolios of Research & International and Research & Innovation and the Portfolios of Business Development and International & Development will be shown. The turnover for these portfolios will be pro rata for the time they existed. Figure 3: Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised by Division/Portfolio

1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Div:Business &Enterprise

Div: Ed, Arts& Soc.

Science

Div: HealthSciences

Div: InfoTech, Eng, &

Env

Chancellery Portfolio:Access &Learning

Portfolio:Business

Development

Portfolio:Resources

Portfolio:International

andDevelopment

Portfolio: OrgStrategy and

Change

Portfolio:Research &Innovation

Portfolio:Research &International

Uni Wide

Involuntary Voluntary Total



Table 9 shows voluntary and involuntary staff turnover annualised from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. Table 10 illustrates the information by gender for the same period. Table 9: University-wide Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised,


Total University

Involuntary turnover 3.13%

Voluntary turnover 7.13%

Total Turnover 10.26%

Table 10: Number of Involuntary and Voluntary Staff Separations by Gender

1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 Involuntary Voluntary Total

Female 45 92 137

Male 26 70 96

Total 71 162 233

Summary

The total University-wide turnover (including both involuntary and voluntary) for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 was 10.26% which represents 233 separations. The high voluntary turnover in the Portfolio: Organisational Strategy and Change occurred due to a managing change process in the Information Strategy and Technology Services Unit. The high turnover in Chancellery is due to the small staff number and subsequent separation of staff members skewing the percentage result. The total turnover in each Division ranges from 7% to 12% and the variation may be caused by the different organisational changes throughout the period. The number of females leaving the organisation was 137, representing 58.8% of separations. This is consistent with the proportion of female staff within the University (56%). Trend

Total University 2003 2004

Involuntary Turnover 4.97% 3.13%

Voluntary Turnover 7.13% 7.13%

Total Turnover 12.10% 10.26%

The total turnover for the University has decreased over the period from 12.10% to 10.26%. The number of staff separations has decreased from 258 to 233, largely due to the decrease in involuntary separations.


Benchmarking

The 2003 Australian Universities Benchmarking Program (sample size 23) has an overall average result of 16.15% for total turnover (includes expiration of fixed-term contracts) for the calendar year 2003. The overall average result for the ATN Universities is 13.19% for total turnover for the calendar year 2003. In comparison the University of SA’s total turnover of 10.26%, for the 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 period, is significantly lower than the average. The average voluntary employee initiated turnover for Australian Universities is 7.69% (sample size 23) for 2003. The Mercer HR Benchmarking Report 2003 reports the average total turnover for all industries as 17.46%. The Public Sector average total turnover is reported as 10.77%.

5. LENGTH OF SERVICE Description

Figure 4 shows the length of service (as a percentage) of the total continuing and fixed-term academic staff from commencement date at UniSA or the previous amalgamated institutions. Figure 5 shows general 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 2004

15 + years27.89%

7 - 15 years26.53%

3 - 7 years18.84%

6 mths - 3 years21.89%

Less than 6 months4.85%

Figure 5: Length of Service for General Staff as at 31 March 2004

3 - 7 years22.00%

7 - 15 years25.84%

15 + years23.57%

Less than 6 months4.95% 6 mths - 3 years

23.64%


Figure 6: Length of Service for Total University as at 31 March 2004

7 - 15 years 26.13%

15 + years 25.42%

3 - 7 years 20.65%

6 mths - 3 years 22.90%

Less than 6 months 4.90%

Summary

Just over a quarter of staff (26.13%) have 7 – 15 years length of service and a quarter of staff (25.42%) have over 15 years service with UniSA or the previous amalgamated institutions. There is a slight difference between general and academic staff, however both figures show high retention of staff with more than 51% of staff having more than 7 years service. The average length of service for an academic staff member is 10 years and 1 month as at 31 March 2004. The average length of service for a general staff member is 9 years and 5 months as at the same date. Trend

Average length of service 2003 2004

Academic Staff 10 years 10 years 1 month

General Staff 9 years 7 months 9 years 5 months

The average length of service for an academic staff member remains constant at 10 years. The average length of service for a general staff member also remains constant at approximately 9 and a half years. Benchmarking

No data currently available.



6. DIVERSITY This section contains diversity profiling indicators (Indigenous Employment, Youth Employment, Gender, Country of Birth, First Language 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. UniSA has a strong commitment to the principles of equity and valuing of diversity amongst staff. This is demonstrated in the followings ways:

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

• allocating specific questions regarding equity in employment in the Staff Attitude Survey

• providing a multi-faceted Women and Leadership program

• establishing and endorsing flexible family and culturally friendly work practices

• providing equity and diversity training development opportunities

• providing cultural awareness training

• embracing continued improvement in initiatives such as web compliance, multi access suites, Blueprint 2005 and UniSA 2010

• employing staff with key responsibility for cohorts of employees who are potentially under-represented and/or may be vulnerable to discrimination in the workplace, for example Consultant: HR Services (Indigenous and Employment Schemes), (Youth Employment) and (Disability)

• implementing targeted employment projects such as Career UniSA Program: Employment for people aged 16 to 24 years and UniSA-Work Able: Work Experience and Employment for UniSA Students with Disabilities.

To gather data on the diversity attributes of the workforce a confidential data collection process, the Staff Diversity Survey, was initiated in 2000. Currently 67% of staff have completed and returned the Staff Diversity Survey. For further details about equal opportunity initiatives please refer to the UniSA Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Report 2003/2004.


6.1 INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT Description

Indigenous staff are those persons who identify themselves as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin. Table 11 shows Indigenous Employment as a percentage of staff by Division/Portfolio and total University as at 31 March 2004. This percentage is calculated as:

Number of Indigenous Staff (headcount) x 100% Total Staff (headcount) Due to the small number of Indigenous staff spread across the University and the confidential nature of the Staff Diversity Survey, the following data does not include the actual number of Indigenous staff across each Division and Portfolio; it is shown as a percentage. The Consultant: HR Services (Indigenous and Employment Schemes) also maintains a confidential database, based on interviews with staff members. Both databases are shown in the following table. Table 11: Indigenous Employment as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2004

Division/Portfolio

Indigenous 2004

(% Headcount) (Staff Diversity

Survey)

Indigenous 2004

(% Headcount)(from HRU database)

Div: Business & Enterprise 0.00% 0.33% Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 1.87% 3.74% Div: Health Sciences 0.93% 1.20% Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 0.73% 0.00% Chancellery 0.00% 0.00% Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 0.30% 0.90% Portfolio: Finance & Resources 1.02% 0.80% Portfolio: International & Development 0.00% 0.00% Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 0.73% 2.19% Portfolio: Research & Innovation 1.60% 0.00%

Total Across the University 0.85% 1.26%

Summary

From information collected in the Staff Diversity Survey the percentage of staff that identify themselves as being of Indigenous origin is 0.85%. In comparison the HRU database percentage is much higher at 1.26%. There is difficulty in collecting this information as it relies on self-identification through the confidential Staff Diversity Survey. It is anticipated that the strategies associated with workforce planning will facilitate the collection of this data and an improvement in the accuracy of this figure. The University of South Australia Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2000-2003 sets a target of 2% in the life of the Agreement. Achieving this goal continues to pose a challenge for the University.


It is envisaged that the implementation of the following strategies will assist in achieving this target:

• services provided by the Consultant: HR Services (Indigenous and Employment Schemes)

• advice from the Indigenous Employment Consultative Committee (which includes community members)

• a range of initiatives included in the Indigenous Employment Strategy – this strategy is reviewed annually

• provision of Indigenous cultural awareness training

• mentoring and support networks for Indigenous staff

• a focus on young Indigenous people through the Youth Traineeship scheme. Further information about strategies to increase the Indigenous employment participation rate is available on the workforce planning website. The highest proportion of Indigenous staff is in the Division: Education Arts and Social Sciences and this is concentrated in the Unaipon School and the Indigenous College of Education and Research. Trend

2003 2004

Indigenous Employment as a Percentage of Staff (Staff Diversity Survey)

1.03% 0.85%

Indigenous Employment as a Percentage of Staff (HRU database)

Not Reported 1.26%

There has been a decrease in the percentage of staff that identify themselves as Indigenous through the Staff Diversity Survey from 1.03% to 0.85%. However it is thought that the HRU database is a more accurate reflection of Indigenous staff numbers, at 1.26% of staff. Benchmarking

The Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001 Census of Population and Housing Information indicated that 1.6% of the South Australian population was identified as Indigenous. This figure was calculated using the total Indigenous population and broken into the following age groups.

Age Group Indigenous Population % of Total Population of South Australia

0-4 years 2,930 3.3% 5-14 years 6,081 3.1% 15-24 years 4,331 2.3% 25-44 years 6,669 1.6% 45-64 years 2,758 0.8% 65 years and over 656 0.3%

Total 23,425 1.6%


As at June 2003, the level of Indigenous employment participation in the South Australian Public sector was 1.2%, indicating an increase from 2002 (1.06%). The benchmarking information shown is obtained from 2003 DEST data (excluding UniSA data) utilising headcount figures. For Universities in a group, the number of Indigenous staff has been averaged.

Percentage of Indigenous Staff

All Australian Universities 0.75%

ATN Universities 0.75%

Adelaide University 0.56%

Flinders University 1.10%

University of South Australia Staff Diversity Survey - 0.85% HRU database - 1.26%


6.2 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT Description

Youth Employment at UniSA is defined as the employment (continuing and fixed-term) of general staff between 16 to 24 years of age. This is shown as a percentage of staff (FTE non casual): Total Youth Employed (FTE) x 100% Total General 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 the youth employment strategies can be found on the workforce planning website. Table 12 shows Youth Employment as a percentage of general staff as at 31 March 2004. Table 12: Youth Employment as a Percentage of General Staff FTE

as at 31 March 2004

Youth 2004

(% FTE)

Total University general staff under 25 5.27%

Table 13 illustrates general staff Youth Employment (FTE) by Division/Portfolio as at the same date. Table 13: General Staff Youth Employment (FTE) by Division/Portfolio

as at 31 March 2004

Division/Portfolio Continuing Fixed-term Total FTE

Div: Business & Enterprise 13.5 6.4 19.9 Div: Education Arts & Social Science 2 2 4 Div: Health Sciences 3 1 4 Div: Info Technology, Engineering & the Environment 7 2.6 9.6 Chancellery 1 0 1 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 2.6 7.2 9.8 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 1 3 4 Portfolio: International & Development 1.6 2 3.6 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 3 1 4 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 2 1 3

Grand Total 36.7 26.2 62.9


Summary

Youth employment represents 5.27% of total general staff numbers (non casuals). Fifty eight percent of staff employed under the age of 25 years are in continuing employment. The Division: Business & Enterprise has the highest number of general staff youth employed (19.9 FTE) due to the youth traineeship scheme and the higher number of HEO3 positions.

Trend

2003 2004

Youth Employment as a percentage of General Staff (non casual)

4.75% 5.27%

The percentage of general staff under the age of 25 has increased from 4.75% (54.5 FTE) to 5.27% (62.9 FTE). Most Divisions and Portfolios have increased their number of youth employment FTE, except for the Portfolio: Finance & Resources (decreasing from 9 to 4) and the Portfolio: Organisational Strategy and Change (remaining consistent at 4). In this period youth traineeships have been offered to 10 new general staff which assists in explaining the increase in youth numbers. Benchmarking

The percentage of people between the ages of 15 and 24 years in South Australia is 12.7%. Approximately 71% of this age group participate in the workforce (Australian Bureau of Statistics, June 2002). The South Australian Public Sector has 6.1% of youth employed as at June 2003. DEST data shows that the average percentage of general staff across all Australian Universities under 25 years of age is 5.5%. However this data uses headcount and not FTE. Data is unavailable for individual universities or groups of universities.


6.3 GENDER Description

Table 14 shows the percentage of female staff (headcount) for academic/general staff within each Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004. For reporting purposes the 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 14: Female Staff Percentages by Academic/General and Division/Portfolio

as at 31 March 2004

Female

Academic Staff

Female General

Staff

Total Across

Division/ Portfolio

Div: Business & Enterprise 35% 78% 54% Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 58% 76% 63% Div: Health Sciences 63% 70% 66% Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 18% 62% 35%

Chancellery 67% 86% 82% Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 63% 76% 74% Portfolio: Finance & Resources N/A 36% 36% Portfolio: International & Development N/A 83% 83% Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change N/A 47% 47% Portfolio: Research & Innovation 19% 50% 35%

Total Across University 45% 64% 56%

Table 15 (over page) shows staff gender breakdown across all levels for academic and general staff as at 31 March 2004.

Table 15: Staff Gender (Headcount) across all Levels as at 31 March 2004

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 1 1 0 1Pro Vice Chancellors 3 4 3 4 7Executive Directors 1 1 1 1 2Academic Staff (T&R) Level E 11 29 2 6 23 2 17 56 73Academic Staff (T&R) Level D 14 31 1 2 13 1 18 44 62Academic Staff (T&R) Level C 67 85 5 2 42 62 3 1 117 150 267Academic Staff (T&R) Level B 109 93 20 3 7 25 17 5 153 126 279Academic Staff (T&R) Level A 18 12 7 4 15 13 19 4 59 33 92Academic staff (Research) Level E 1 2 1 0 4 4Academic Staff (Research) Level D 2 2 1 3 3 5 8Academic Staff (Research) Level C 3 8 1 5 12 1 3 9 24 33Academic Staff (Research) Level B 1 13 26 4 6 18 32 50Academic Staff (Research) Level A 1 2 11 32 22 7 35 40 75General Senior Executives (Level 10 and above) 8 4 1 1 6 16 15 21 36General Staff HEO9 12 20 2 10 9 1 24 30 54General Staff HEO8 34 33 6 2 14 11 4 58 46 104General Staff HEO7 46 42 11 18 14 6 81 56 137General Staff HEO6 54 67 12 1 28 12 9 103 80 183General Staff HEO5 89 46 12 4 40 23 12 1 153 74 227General Staff HEO4 132 45 44 4 56 18 29 3 261 70 331General Staff HEO3 45 51 29 23 18 15 1 112 70 182General Staff HEO2 2 1 6 1 9 1 10General Staff HEO1 1 1 0 1General Staff Trainees 5 4 5 4 9Grand Total 647 571 159 24 308 341 142 35 1256 971 2227



Summary

Women comprise 45% of academic staff and 64% of general staff across all levels. As a total percentage, women comprise 56% of the workforce at UniSA (non casual). At the senior levels there are 155 academic staff at Academic Level D and above (including the Vice Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellors). Forty-two of these are female (27.1%) and 113 are male (72.9%). Of the 38 general staff at level HEO10 and above, 16 are female (42.1%) and 22 are male (57.9%). At the lower general staff levels (HEO4 and below) there are 533 general staff; 388 of these are female (72.8%) and 145 are male (27.2%). The total headcount figure in Table 15 is higher than other figures presented in the report as four staff members hold multiple positions at different classification levels in a part-time capacity (e.g. 0.5 fraction at level HEO5 and 0.5 fraction at level HEO6). The University 2004 Key Performance Indicator (KPI) targets for women are:

Academic staff – all levels: 46% Academic staff – Academic Level D and above: 30% General staff – HEO10 and above: greater than 32%

The target for general staff HEO10 and above has been exceeded with women representing 42.1% of all staff in this classification level. However, the corporate targets for female academic staff all levels (46%) and female academics at Level D and above (30%) have not been achieved. 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. In 2003, strategies implemented at the local level were documented in the workforce planning section of the Corporate Plan Report as part of the corporate planning cycle. Since the last report the University has been awarded the EOWA Employer of Choice for Women status and the Vice Chancellor was nominated in the leading five CEO positions in Australia for the advancement of women. Trend

Female 2003 2004

Academic staff – all levels 45% 45%

Academic Staff – academic level D and above

25.4% 27.1%

General staff – all levels 63% 64%

General staff – HEO10 and above

37.5% 42.1%

Total Workforce 55% 56%

Female academic staff all levels has remained consistent for the period, however female academic staff at level D and above has increased from 25.4% to 27.1%. Female general staff all levels has increased from 63% to 64% since 2003 with female general staff HEO10 and above increasing to 42.1%.


Benchmarking

Women represent 50.5% of the total South Australian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002). The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program for 2003 (sample size 23) reports the average female participation rate in the workforce to be 50.85%. The percentage of the female academic staff is reported at 38.08% and percentage of general staff to be 60.84%. The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2003 DEST data (excluding UniSA data) utilising headcount figures. For Universities in a group the number of staff has been averaged.

Percentage of

Female Academic

Staff

Percentage of Female

General Staff

Percentage of Females, Total

Staff

Percentage of Female

Academic Staff Level D

and above

All Australian Universities 38.65% 62.20% 52.19% 19.06%

ATN Universities 39.90% 59.80% 51.98% 23.85%

Adelaide University 31.11% 64.35% 49.44% 13.48%

Flinders University 43.57% 67.35% 57.79% 25.15%

University of SA 45.00% 64.00% 56.00% 27.10%

Benchmarking information on senior general staff is not available.


6.4 COUNTRY OF BIRTH Description

Table 16 shows staff as a percentage of total staff (headcount) 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 difficult to collect as not all staff complete or return the Staff Diversity Survey. No information has been collected for 33.63% of staff. Table 16: Staff as a Percentage by Country of Birth as at 31 March 2004

Country of Birth Percentage

Australia 45.32%

No Information 33.63%

United Kingdom 9.41%

China 0.99%

Italy 0.90%

New Zealand 0.86%

Malaysia 0.72%

United States of America 0.68%

Netherlands 0.59%

India 0.54%

South Africa 0.50%

Other 5.86%

Total 100%

Summary

The majority of UniSA staff (45.32%) was born in Australia, followed by the United Kingdom (9.41%). (Note: 1% of staff numbers equates to approximately 22 staff.) Other countries of birth disclosed by staff include Canada, Germany, Ireland, Hong Kong, Russian Federation, France, Poland, Vietnam, Singapore, Greece, Iran, Romania, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Kenya, Philippines, Sweden, Taiwan, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Latvia, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, Iraq, Republic of Korea, Malta, Spain, Thailand, Tonga, Turkey and United Arab Emirates.


Trend

2003 2004

Non Australian born 24.75% 21.05%

The percentage of staff that was born outside Australia has decreased from 24.75% to 21.05%. This decrease can be attributed to the increase in the percentage of staff that provide no information, which has increased from 26.25% to 33.63%. The Human Resources Unit will be reviewing the forms, the process of distribution and requesting completion by staff, to increase the accuracy of this data. Benchmarking

Census data (2001) indicates that 21.1% of the South Australian population is born overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics). DEST data is unavailable for this indicator. In comparing the staff profile with the student profile 57% of UniSA students (based on 2003 calendar year data) nominated Australia as their country of birth. Other countries represented include: Hong Kong (10%), China (5%), Malaysia (5%), Singapore (4%), United Kingdom (3%), Taiwan (2%), Vietnam (1%), Thailand (1%) and India (1%).


6.5 FIRST LANGUAGES Description

The measure of first languages 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 difficult to collect as not all staff complete or return the Staff Diversity Survey. Information has not been collected for 33.87% of staff. Table 17: First Language as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2004

Language Percentage

English 58.15%

No Information 33.87%

Chinese 1.26%

Italian 0.63%

Greek 0.59%

Other 5.50%

Total 100.00%

Summary

English remains the most common first language spoken by UniSA staff with 58% having an English speaking background. The percentage of staff speaking a first language other than English remains low with the top three first non-English languages spoken being Chinese (1.26%), Italian (0.63%), and Greek (0.59%). There are over 50 different first languages spoken by University staff including Mandarin, Polish, Russian, Cantonese, French, Netherlander, German, Persian, Romanian, Serbian, Spanish, Ukrainian, Bengali, Bulgarian, Hindi, Latvian, Korean, Swedish, Tagalog (Filipino), Tamil, Vietnamese, Danish, Japanese, Khmer, Malay, Maltese, Punjabi, Afrikaan, Arabic, Asante, Australian Indigenous Languages, Berber, Bosnian, Croatian, Finnish, Kannada, Sinhalese, Slovak, Swahili, Telegu, Tongan and Marathi. Trend

2003 2004

First language other than English 8.4% 7.98%

The percentage of staff whose first language is not English has decreased from 8.4% to 7.9%. The top three non-English languages spoken remain the same (Chinese, Italian and Greek). The decrease can be attributed to the increase in the percentage of staff that provide no information, which has increased from 26.44% to 33.87%.


Benchmarking

In 2001, the percentage of South Australians who speak a language other than English at home was 16% with the most common non-English languages being Italian (2%), Greek (2%), Cantonese (1%) and Vietnamese (1%) (Australian Bureau of Statistics). UniSA has a lower percentage with a total of 7.98% of staff nominating a language other than English as their first language. DEST data is unavailable for this indicator. In comparing the staff profile with the student profile, 64% of the UniSA student population speak English as their first language (based on 2003 calendar year data). The following languages are spoken as a proportion of the student population: Cantonese (9%), Chinese (9%), Mandarin (4%), Vietnamese (2%), Malay (2%), Greek (1%), Italian (1%) and Thai (1%).


6.6 DISABILITY Description

Table 18 shows the number of staff (headcount) with a disability who chose to disclose this information through the Staff Diversity Survey. This is also represented as a percentage of total staff. Table 18: Number of Staff who identified as having a Disability as at 31 March 2004

Number of Staff who identified as having a

Disability Percentage of Staff

(headcount)

Total University 78 3.51%

Summary

The number of staff identified as having a disability is 78 (3.51%). Of the 78, only 31% required a workplace adjustment. In order to provide a culture that supports UniSA staff with disabilities and ultimately the students, UniSA has undertaken several initiatives to provide a safe and inclusive working environment for staff with disabilities. These initiatives include:

• employing the Consultant: HR Services (Disability)

• developing and trialling the draft ‘Return to Work’ guidelines aimed at supporting staff with non-work related disabilities and staff in their work areas after a period of extended leave

• reviewing and establishing a staff-specific section of the Disability Action Plan and implementing associated strategies

• implementing the UniSA Able: Work Experience and Employment for UniSA Students with Disabilities program

• reviewing the University website and online environment in order to achieve an appropriate level of compliance.

Trend

Percentage of staff who identified as having a disability 2003 2004

Percentage of Staff (headcount) 4.17% 3.51%

The number of staff has slightly decreased from 81 in 2003 to 78 in 2004. The decrease in the percentage of staff that identified as having a disability may be due to the decrease in staff completing the Staff Diversity Survey. Benchmarking

Australian Bureau of Statistics data (2001) indicates that 22.4% of the South Australian population has a disability. Analysing this data by age group, 9% of South Australians aged 15-34 years have a disability, 21% for the 35-64 age group and 52% for people aged over 65 years. South Australia has the highest disability rate in Australia which is related to our ageing population who are not in our labour workforce pool. DEST data is unavailable for this indicator.


7. AGE Description

This indicator assists the University in reviewing its age profiling for workforce planning. The University’s ageing academic workforce brings about significant potential problems (Professor Graeme Hugo, 2004). For example:

• lack of opportunity for young academics • loss of potential high quality young academics to other universities and overseas • generational succession problems • increasing inability for some older academics to adapt to change.

However whilst negative aspects exist, so do the positive. For example, older employees can bring:

• ability to handle increase in workload • experience and perspective • in some areas, a higher level of performance.

It is important that the age profile indicator is reviewed through workforce planning to ensure a balance of age demographics. Table 19 shows demographics of the median age by employment type and gender across the University. Table 19: Median Age of General and Academic Staff as at 31 March 2004

Median Age

Male Female Uni-Wide

Academic 49 47 48

General 42 42 42

University-wide 45 44 44

Figure 7 shows age grouping by percentage of academic and general staff that fall within each age group as a percentage of staff numbers (headcount).

Figure 7 Age Demographics as a Percentage of Academic and General Staff

as at 31 March 2004

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 >65

Academic

General

Uni Wide

Summary

The median age of UniSA staff is 44 years, with little difference between males and females (45 and 44 years respectively). Academic staff have a higher median age (48 years) than general staff (42 years). There is no gender difference in the median age of general staff (42 years) and a slight difference exists between male and female academics (49 and 47 years respectively). The highest proportion of UniSA staff is in the 45-49 years age group (17%). This differs slightly between academic and general staff where the highest percentage (19%) of academic staff is in the 50-54 years age group and the highest percentage (17%) of general staff is in the 40-44 year old age group. Where there is a large percentage of staff grouped into one age bracket, an uneven balance may be created between experienced and inexperienced workers. Seventeen percent of all UniSA staff, 25% of academic staff and 12% of general staff are of potential retirement age (55 years or older) and 1% is over 65 years of age. Trend

University 2003 2004

Academic Median Age 48 48

General Median Age 42 42

University-wide Median Age 44 44

The median age of the University’s academic workforce remains constant at 48 years and the median age of the general staff workforce has remained constant at 42 years. There has been an increase in the percentage of academic staff that is of potential retirement age (55 years and above) from 22% in 2003 to 25% in 2004 of the University’s academic workforce.



Benchmarking

The South Australian median age of the total population is 38 years of age for both males and females (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002). The South Australian Public Service median age was 44.1 as at June 2003 (South Australian Public Sector Workforce Information). Males (45.4 years) tended to be older than females (43.5 years) and 13.4% of all employees in the SA Public Service were aged 55 and over. The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2003 DEST data (excluding UniSA data) utilising headcount figures. Age Group

(years) Percentage

Academic Staff highest number age group All Australian Universities 45-49 16.80% University of South Australia 50-54 18.55% General Staff highest number age group All Australian Universities 45-49 15.05% University of South Australia 40-44 16.60% Total Staff highest number age group All Australian Universities 45-49 15.79% University of South Australia 45-49 16.58%

This data is unavailable for individual or groups of Universities.


8. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS 8.1 ACADEMIC STAFF QUALIFICATIONS Description

Table 20 shows academic staff qualifications as a percentage of academic staff (headcount) highest completed qualification including a doctorate, masters or other qualification for both continuing and fixed-term academic staff by Division/Portfolio. The only Portfolios with academic staff are Access & Learning Support and Research & Innovation. The percentage of academic staff with a doctorate qualification is a corporate KPI. The 2004 corporate KPI target is 44%. Table 20: Academic Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of Academic

Staff by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Division/Portfolio Doctorate Masters Other Not

recorded

Div: Business & Enterprise 37.65% 37.65% 20.59% 4.11%

Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 33.45% 34.47% 25.60% 6.48%

Div: Health Sciences 37.98% 32.21% 23.56% 6.25%

Div: Information Technology Engineering & the Environment 60.69% 15.03% 20.81% 3.47%

Chancellery 33.33% 50.00% 0.00% 16.67%

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 29.27% 46.34% 19.51% 4.88%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 79.66% 3.39% 16.95% 0.00%

University-wide 42.86% 29.68% 22.42% 5.04%

Summary

As at 31 March 2004, 42.86% of academic staff held a doctorate qualification. This is below the 2004 corporate KPI target of 44%. Trend

2003 2004

Doctorate qualification percentage of academic staff 41.01% 42.86%

There has been a slight increase in the percentage of academic staff that holds a doctorate qualification from 41.01% to 42.86%. The greatest percentage increase has been in the Division: Business & Enterprise with an increase from 30.07% to 37.65%. All other portfolios and divisions increased their percentage except for the Portfolio: Research & Innovation which had a slight decrease from 83.02% to 79.66%.


Benchmarking

Australian Universities Benchmarking Program for 2003 had an overall average result of 49.24% for doctoral qualifications (21 Universities were included in this sample). For ATN Universities the overall average result was 46.93% for doctoral qualifications. The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2003 DEST data (excluding UniSA 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 50.30%

ATN Universities 45.67%

Adelaide University 67.73%

Flinders University 56.59%

University of South Australia 42.86%


8.2 GENERAL STAFF QUALIFICATIONS Description

General Staff Qualifications is a new reporting measure for 2004 and data provided by staff is limited. Procedures need to be implemented to encourage general staff to record their academic qualifications. Table 21 shows general staff qualifications as a percentage of general staff (headcount) highest completed qualification. Qualifications include a doctorate, masters, postgraduate, bachelor or other qualification for both continuing and fixed-term general staff by Division/Portfolio. Advanced diploma, certificates and vocational courses are included in the ‘other’ category. Table 21: General Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of General Staff

by Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Division/Portfolio Doctorate Masters Post-graduate Bachelor Other Not

recorded

Div: Business & Enterprise 0.00% 2.31% 7.69% 22.31% 10.77% 56.92%

Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 0.00% 1.48% 7.41% 14.07% 3.70% 73.34%

Div: Health Sciences 0.00% 1.75% 5.26% 15.79% 16.67% 60.53%

Div: Information Technology Engineering & the Environment 0.00% 2.94% 2.94% 14.71% 5.88% 73.53%

Chancellery 0.00% 3.57% 7.14% 14.29% 7.14% 67.86%

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 0.34% 5.78% 10.20% 13.95% 12.93% 56.80%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0.00% 8.57% 7.14% 15.71% 4.29% 64.29%

Portfolio: International & Development 2.19% 3.65% 5.84% 24.09% 5.84% 58.39%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 4.55% 10.61% 3.03% 34.85% 16.67% 30.29%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 0.00% 1.02% 1.52% 6.09% 3.55% 87.82%

University-wide 0.55% 3.77% 6.21% 16.10% 8.88% 64.49%

Summary

At this stage the data is not significant, as the majority of general staff (64.49%) do not provide information about academic qualifications. From the information provided approximately a quarter (26.63%) of general staff have a tertiary or higher qualification. The area with the largest percentage of general staff with a bachelor qualification or higher is the Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change with 53%. Trend

As this is a new reporting measure no trend analysis is available. Benchmarking

The South Australian Public Service as at June 2003 recorded 46.3% of staff in administrative units as having a bachelor or higher qualification. However only 56% of staff provided information. The South Australian public demographics show that 14% of the population aged 15-64 have a bachelor degree or above (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001).


9. CAREER DEVELOPMENT 9.1 ACADEMIC PROMOTIONS Description

The mission of the University of South Australia encapsulated in its positioning statement is ‘educating professionals, creating and applying knowledge and serving the community’. Promotion, at all levels, is based on the merit of the applicant’s contribution towards this mission as it is 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 HR26.0. Table 22 shows the number of applications for promotion by gender and by the academic level applied for by the applicant. Table 22: Number of Applications Received for Academic Promotion for 2003 round

Total BUE EASS HSC ITEE ALS R&I

Male 5 0 3 0 0 0 2 Level B

Female 6 0 4 2 0 0 0 Male 10 3 4 0 2 0 1

Level C Female 17 0 10 7 0 0 0 Male 9 3 4 0 1 0 1

Level D Female 4 1 0 0 1 1 1 Male 4 2 1 0 0 0 1

Level E Female 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 Male 28 8 12 0 3 0 5

Total Female 29 2 15 9 1 1 1

University Total 57 10 27 9 4 1 6

Table 23 shows the number of successful promotions by gender. Table 23: Number of Successful Applications for Academic Promotion for 2003 round

Total BUE EASS HSC ITEE ALS R&I

Male 5 0 3 0 0 0 2 Level B

Female 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 Male 6 3 3 0 0 0 0

Level C Female 9 0 4 5 0 0 0 Male 3 1 1 0 0 0 1

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

Level E Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Male 17 5 8 0 0 0 4

Total Female 16 1 8 6 0 0 1

University Total 33 6 16 6 0 0 5


Summary

Fifty-seven academic staff applied for promotion in 2003: 29 female and 28 male. Of the 33 staff promoted, 16 (48.5%) were female and 17 (51.5%) were male. The highest number of academic staff applying for promotion in 2003 was in the Division: Education, Arts and Social Sciences with 47% of applications (27 applications). Trend

University-wide Academic Promotions 2002 2003

Number of Female Applications 30 29

Number of Male Applications 30 28

Number of Successful Females 20 16

Number of Successful Males 15 17

There was a slight decrease in the number of staff applying for academic promotion from 60 applications in 2002 to 57 applications in 2003. The gender balance of applications has remained relatively consistent with an equal number of males and females applying each year. There was a slight decrease in the percentage of staff promoted from 58% in 2002 to 57% in 2003. There was a slight decrease in the success rate of females from 67% in 2002 to 55% in 2003. Benchmarking

The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program for 2003 shows the average academic promotion rate (number of academic staff promotions divided by the academic staff headcount levels A-D) for all universities (sample size 18) to be 4.49%. For ATN Universities the average academic promotion rate was 4.82%. Using the same formula (33 academic staff promotions divided by 866 academic staff headcount levels A-D) to calculate for UniSA, the academic promotion rate is 3.81%. This index shows the rate of career progression for academic staff. The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program for 2003 shows the average academic application for promotion rate (number of academic applications for promotion divided by academic staff headcount levels A-D) for universities (sample size 18) to be 7.08%. For ATN Universities the average academic application for promotion rate was 8.62%. Using the same formula (57 academic applications for promotion divided by 866 academic staff headcount levels A-D) to calculate for UniSA, the academic application for promotion rate is 6.58%. This index may show the level of interest from academic staff in seeking a promotion.


9.2 GENERAL STAFF RECLASSIFICATIONS Description Reclassification is available to all general staff when there are significant changes to a position. The position is reviewed using the Computer Aided Job Evaluation (CAJE) process through the Human Resources Unit. Table 24 shows the number of general staff reclassification applications received by substantive position, number of successful applications (classification level increased) and number of applications which resulted in the classification remaining the same. Table 25 shows applications for reclassifications by Division/Portfolio for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. Table 24: Number of Applications for Reclassification, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

General Staff Level Applications for

Reclassifications by Substantive Position

Classification level increased

Classification level remained

the same HEO1 0 0 0

HEO2 1 1 0

HEO3 3 1 2

HEO3OB 2 2 0

HEO4 5 5 0

HEO4OB 8 7 1

HEO5 3 3 0

HEO5OB 2 0 2

HEO6 7 5 2

HEO7 2 1 1

HEO8 2 1 1

HEO9 0 0 0

HEO10 0 0 0

Total University 35 26 9 Table 25: Number of Applications for Reclassifications by Division/Portfolio


Division/Portfolio (incorporates 2003 & 2004 structure) No. of Reclassifications

Div: Business & Enterprise 2

Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 4

Div: Health Sciences 9

Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 4

Chancellery 0

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 6

Portfolio: Business Development 1

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 4

Portfolio: International & Development 0

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 0

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 0

Portfolio: Research & International 5

University-wide 35


Summary

Of the 35 applications for reclassification, 74% resulted in an increase of classification level. The majority of the applications received for reclassification was at the Higher Education Officer (HEO) HEO4OB (8 applications, 23%) and HEO6 (7 applications, 20%). Most of the applications were received from the Division: Health Sciences (9 applications, 26% of all applications) and the Portfolio: Access & Learning Support (6 applications, 17%). The number of applications represents a relatively low percentage of general staff (35 applications, 2.7% of general staff headcount). The Human Resources Unit in consultation with the unions have reviewed the reclassification process to ensure it is accessible to all staff. This may give rise to a greater number of applications for future reclassification. Trend

Number of applications for reclassifications 2003 2004


There has been an increase of 29.6% in applications for reclassifications from 2003 to 2004. The majority of the applications received at HEO4OB and HEO6 has remained consistent over both years. Benchmarking

No data available.


9.3 HIGHER DUTIES OPPORTUNITIES FOR GENERAL STAFF Description

Higher duties allowances (HDA) are provided to general staff when staff temporarily perform duties at a higher classification level. This indicator provides a measure of staff development opportunities for general staff. Table 26 shows the number of higher duties opportunities by the classification level of the employee’s substantive position. For the purpose of this report ‘over the barrier’ (OB) classification levels have been reported with the underpinning level. Table 26: Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Substantive Classification Level


Number of HDA opportunities General Staff Substantive Classification

Female Male Total

HEO1 0 0 0 HEO2 8 2 10 HEO3 53 9 62 HEO4 89 28 117 HEO5 36 21 57 HEO6 13 18 31 HEO7 25 19 44 HEO8 8 11 19 HEO9 5 12 17 HEO10 & above 0 6 6

Grand Total 237 126 363

Table 27 shows the same information detailed by Division/Portfolio based on the area that provided the higher duties opportunity. As there has been a change in structure during the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 all divisions and portfolios in the structure during this period are shown. Table 27: Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Division/Portfolio


Number of HDA opportunities Division/Portfolio (incorporates 2003 & 2004 structure)

Female Male Total

Div: Business & Enterprise 40 10 50 Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 39 6 45 Div: Health Sciences 19 9 28 Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 17 1 18 Chancellery 6 0 6 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 75 21 96 Portfolio: Business Development 3 6 9 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 8 27 35 Portfolio: International & Development 5 1 6 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 16 43 59 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 3 1 4 Portfolio: Research & International 6 1 7

University-wide 237 126 363


Summary

The highest number of opportunities for higher duties was at general staff classification HEO4 (117). Sixty-five percent of higher duties opportunities were awarded to females, correlating with females comprising 64% of general staff numbers. The Portfolio: Access and Learning Support had the highest number of general staff higher duties opportunities (96), which represented 26% of the opportunities. Trend

Number of opportunities for higher duties 2003 2004


The number of higher duties opportunities has slightly decreased from 370 to 363. This may be attributed to ceasing the utilisation of HDA for resolving classification issues. The figure of 363 higher duties opportunities reflects a high number of staff development opportunities for general staff. If each opportunity was spread equally across the University, in theory 28.5% of general staff (headcount) may have had an opportunity to undertake higher duties during this period. Benchmarking

No data available.


10. LEAVE 10.1 PLANNED AND UNPLANNED ABSENTEEISM Description

Unplanned absenteeism is the time absent from the University which includes sick leave, dependent child leave, carer’s leave, bereavement leave, emergency service leave, workers compensation leave and industrial action. Planned absenteeism is the time absent from the University which includes recreation leave and long service leave. The rate of absenteeism is shown as a percentage and is calculated as follows: FTE days Absenteeism x 100%

Total Working Days (248) x average FTE Absenteeism rates are shown as a percentage of all working days and are shown by academic and general staff in Table 28. As the organisational structure of the University has changed during this period all divisions and portfolios that existed through this period are shown. Portfolios which were not in use for the full period have been shown as pro rata for the period. Table 28: Unplanned, Planned and Total Absenteeism Annualised by Academic/General


Academic Staff General Staff

Division/Portfolio Planned Working

Days

UnplannedWorking

Days

Academic Staff Total

AbsenteeismPlanned Working

Days

Unplanned Working

Days

General Staff Total

Absenteeism

Div: Business & Enterprise 7.00% 1.21% 8.21% 7.15% 2.70% 9.85%

Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 8.74% 1.60% 10.34% 8.27% 2.89% 11.16%

Div: Health Sciences 7.91% 1.21% 9.12% 9.76% 2.50% 12.26%

Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 6.54% 0.77% 7.31% 8.30% 3.07% 11.37%

Chancellery 9.76% 0.76% 10.52% 6.17% 1.51% 7.68%

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 7.48% 2.04% 9.52% 8.52% 2.98% 11.50%

Portfolio: Business Development 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.73% 2.49% 13.22%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.86% 3.59% 13.45%

Portfolio: International & Development 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.18% 3.33% 12.51%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.62% 3.19% 12.81%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 6.75% 2.29% 9.04% 15.34% 3.68% 19.02%

Portfolio: Research & International 8.65% 1.16% 9.81% 10.22% 3.04% 13.26%

Total University 7.49% 1.24% 8.73% 8.40% 2.82% 11.22%


Table 29 shows the percentage of total unplanned and planned absenteeism for all staff by Division/Portfolio. Table 29: Unplanned and Planned Absenteeism Annualised by Division/Portfolio for all

staff and Total University, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Division/Portfolio Planned Absenteeism

Unplanned Absenteeism Total

Div: Business & Enterprise 7.07% 1.86% 8.93%

Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 8.60% 1.99% 10.59%

Div: Health Sciences 8.56% 1.66% 10.22%

Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 7.19% 1.62% 8.81%

Chancellery 6.84% 1.37% 8.21%

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 8.39% 2.86% 11.25%

Portfolio: Business Development 10.73% 2.49% 13.22%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 9.86% 3.59% 13.45%

Portfolio: International & Development 9.18% 3.33% 12.51%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 9.62% 3.19% 12.81%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 11.18% 3.01% 14.19%

Portfolio: Research & International 9.65% 2.35% 12.00%

Total University 8.01% 2.15% 10.17%

Summary

The unplanned absenteeism rate (2.15%) means that on average staff members took 5.3 days off as unplanned days. Unplanned absenteeism for general staff (2.82%, 7.0 average days) is higher than for academic staff (1.24%, 3.1 average days). This is likely to be a reflection of the difficulty in ensuring leave forms are completed by academic staff. The total planned absenteeism rate of 8.01% equates to approximately 19.9 days off per year for each staff member. Trend

2003 2004

Planned Absenteeism 8.60% 8.01%

Unplanned Absenteeism 2.34% 2.15%

Total Absenteeism 10.94% 10.17%

The total absenteeism rate has decreased slightly from 10.94% to 10.17%. The slight decrease in unplanned absenteeism may indicate that staff are taking fewer sick days.


Benchmarking For information purposes the following data is provided, however it is not a direct comparison to the data provided for UniSA. Over the July 2002 to June 2003 period the level of sick leave in the South Australian Public Sector was an average of 7.1 days per FTE. The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program for 2003 indicates that on average sick leave days per employee (sample size 23) was 4.49 days. For ATN Universities the average sick leave days per employee for 2003 was 3.97 days. This figure does not include other types of unplanned leave such as dependent child leave, carer’s leave, bereavement leave, emergency service leave, workers compensation leave and industrial action.


10.2 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 University of South Australia Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2000-2003 recreation leave shall not accumulate (as at 31 March each year) beyond 40 days entitlement for general staff and 20 days entitlement for academic staff. Table 30 shows the average recreation leave liability per staff member. It is represented as average working days per staff member (headcount) by Academic/General and Division/ Portfolio. Recreation leave liability average days is calculated by using the following formula:

Total Recreation Leave Liability Total Staff Numbers (Headcount)

Table 30: Average Recreation Leave Liability for Academic/General by

Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Award Division/Portfolio Average Accumulated

Recreation Leave (in working days)

Academic Div: Business & Enterprise 20.0 Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 15.7 Div: Health Sciences 14.8 Div: Info Technology, Engineering & the Environment 19.1 Chancellery 8.1 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 14.0 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 14.3

Academic Average 16.7

General Div: Business & Enterprise 15.3 Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 16.0 Div: Health Sciences 17.1 Div: Info Technology, Engineering & the Environment 17.8 Chancellery 13.7 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 16.7 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 18.5 Portfolio: International & Development 12.1 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 17.0 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 14.6

General Average 16.5

Whole University Average 16.6


Summary On average academic staff have a slightly higher recreation leave liability of 16.7 days per staff member when compared to general staff, 16.5 days per staff member. Based on the average recreation leave liability for the whole University (16.6 days) this would indicate that the leave management procedures are achieving their intended outcome. Trend

Average recreational leave liability 2003 2004

Academic Average 16.4 16.7

General Average 16.8 16.5

Whole University Average 16.6 16.6

The whole University average has remained constant with 16.6 days recreation leave liability per staff member. Academic staff in 2004 now have a slightly higher recreation leave liability than general staff. Benchmarking

No data available.


10.3 LONG SERVICE LEAVE LIABILITY Description

Long service leave liability is shown as average calendar days by staff member (headcount) by Academic/General and Division/Portfolio (Table 31). Long service leave liability is the amount of long service leave entitlement that a staff member has accrued. However, staff are not able to 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. 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. Members of the general staff and ex-SACAE staff are entitled to accumulate 15 days for each year of service after 15 years. Long service leave liability average days is calculated by using the following formula:

Long Service Leave Liability Total Staff Numbers (Headcount)

Table 31: Long Service Leave Liability Average Days for Academic/General by

Division/Portfolio as at 31 March 2004

Award Division/Portfolio Average Accumulated

Long Service Leave (Calendar days)

Academic Div: Business & Enterprise 53.64 Div: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 72.39

Div: Health Sciences 51.81 Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 54.62 Chancellery 119.65 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 51.40 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 38.02

Academic Average 58.58

General Div: Business & Enterprise 19.02 Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 46.80 Div: Health Sciences 49.79 Div: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 63.97 Chancellery 38.32 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 50.67 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 57.27 Portfolio: International & Development 30.71 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 44.79 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 36.18

General Average 46.14

Whole University Average 51.42


Summary On average academic staff have a higher long service leave liability of 58.58 calendar days per staff member when compared to general staff at 46.14 calendar days. Trend

Long service liability average days 2003 2004

Academic Average 60.0 58.58

General Average 50.1 46.14

Whole University Average 54.3 51.42

The average long service liability of all staff has decreased from 54.3 days to 51.42 days. Both academic staff average (60.0 to 58.58) and general staff average days (50.1 to 46.14) have decreased. Benchmarking

No data available.


10.4 FAMILY FRIENDLY LEAVE INITIATIVES Description

Table 32 shows the number of staff that was committed to 48/52 leave, 1/2 leave, 4/5 leave or who took paid maternity leave for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. 48/52 leave is where a staff member elects to work 48 weeks over a 12 month period and has an additional 4 weeks unpaid leave. The reduction in salary is then spread over 26 pay fortnights. 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 unpaid 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. As carer’s leave and parental leave is recorded on the system as special leave with or without pay it is not possible to collate or report on this data. However, the Human Resources Unit is investigating the possibility of capturing the data differently in order to accurately reflect these statistics. As this data is not affected by the organisational change in structures, the portfolios that underwent changes are not shown. Table 32: Take up of Family Friendly Leave Initiatives by Division/Portfolio


Division/Portfolio 48/52 Leave 1/2 Leave 4/5 Leave

Paid Maternity

Leave Div: Business & Enterprise 4 0 0 6

Div: Education Arts & Social Sciences 1 0 0 6

Div: Health Sciences 0 0 0 5

Div: Info Technology, Engineering & the Environment 0 0 0 4

Chancellery 4 0 0 1

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 8 0 0 9

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0 0 1 2

Portfolio: International & Development 1 0 0 0

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 2 0 0 3

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 1 0 0 2

University-wide 21 0 1 38 Summary

For this period no male is recorded as utilising the family friendly leave initiatives. Twenty one staff members were committed to 48/52 leave, no staff members committed to 1/2 leave and 1 staff member committed to 4/5. Thirty-eight staff members took paid maternity leave in the period. In total 22 staff members participated in flexible work arrangements representing a 1% participation rate across the UniSA workforce. This is a very low participation rate.


Trend

Take up of Family Friendly Initiatives in total 2003 2004

University-wide 48 60

There has been an increase in the take up of family friendly leave initiatives within the University. This increase can be substantiated by the increase in staff on paid maternity leave from 28 in the 2002-2003 period to 38 in the 2003-2004 reporting period. Benchmarking

No data available.

PART B: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY

1. WORKERS COMPENSATION 1.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS &

TYPES OF INJURY OR ILLNESS Description

Table 33 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 and the percentage of total staff (headcount) who submitted a claim for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. 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/Portfolio as individuals may be identified from this data. Table 33: Total Number of Workers Compensation Claims


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 55 52 22 2.34%

Figure 8 illustrates the nature of injury or illness of the claims for the same period. Figure 8: Claims by Injury or Illness, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Bite

Caught in

or Betw

een

Fall

Journ

ey In

ciden

t

Manual

Handlin

g

Mental

/Emotional

Other Eve

nts

Physica

l Agen

t

Repeti

tive M

ovemen

tSlip

Step O

n

Strike

Again

st

Struck

by Objec

t

Event

No

of C

laim

s



Definitions

Caught in or Between - an injury caused to the person or body part when caught/trapped in or between two objects. Physical Agent - an injury caused purely by the person’s movement, without any other person or object being involved (eg: walking along corridor, felt pain in back) Strike Against - an injury caused to the person or body part when striking against an object (eg: knocked right knee while getting into a vehicle). Other Events - includes any injury that does not fall into the specified categories. Summary

There was a total of 55 workers compensation claims registered between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004. A total of 52 staff submitted a claim, which represents 2.34% of staff. The data indicates that the three major causes of injury or illness to staff for the reporting period were:

• Repetitive Movement • Manual Handling • Falls

This information directs the targeting of preventative strategies across the University; included in these strategies was the introduction of the Workpace Program. Specifically, this program is designed to assist in the prevention of injuries arising from work practices associated with the use of computers. The program provides ergonomic information, work pauses, compulsory rest breaks and relevant exercises. It is anticipated that the program will assist in further reducing occupational overuse injuries (repetitive movement), when rolled out across the University in July 2004. Trend


Number of Individual Claims 68 55 The data indicates that the number of claims registered by staff in 2004 has decreased by 13, representing a 19% improvement in comparison to the 2003 statistic. The three major causes of injury or illness to staff for the reporting period in 2003 were the same as those recorded in this report. These injuries were targeted for prevention initiatives. These initiatives included increasing awareness about the cause of injuries across the University, implementation of training programs and the introduction of the Workpace Program. Whilst these injury events still remain the three major causes of injury or illness, the initiatives have contributed to a further decrease in the number of individual claims recorded by staff in these categories during the 2004 reporting period. Repetitive moment decreased from 12 to 10, manual handling from 14 to 8 and falls from 10 to 7. Benchmarking

No data available.


1.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS LOST Description

Table 34 shows total number of days lost due to work related injuries that resulted in a workers compensation claim during the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. Table 34: Total Number of Days Lost Due to Workers Compensation Claims,


No of Days

Total University 351

Summary

351 days were lost due to workers compensation claims, representing an unusually high number. This is largely due to a single claim that was lodged in August 2003, which has so far contributed to a total of 111 lost time days. This represents 32% of the total days lost for the reporting period. Additionally, a further three claims accounted for an additional 113 lost time days, so that altogether these four claims have contributed to 64% of the total number of days lost. Trend

Total Number of Days Lost due to Workers Compensation Claims

2003 2004


The total of 351 is 12 days less than the total recorded in the same period for 2003. It is a positive indicator, although the number of days lost it still unusually high. Benchmarking

Refer to benchmarking data under 1.4 Incidence Rate, 1.5 Frequency Rate and 1.6 Average Time Lost Rate.


1.3 TOTAL COST OF CLAIMS Description

The total cost of claims registered across the University for the reporting period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 is shown in Table 35. Table 35: Total Cost of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Total Cost

Total University $105,850

Summary

The total cost of workers compensation claims registered for the reporting period is $105,850. A large component of this cost is due to four significant claims, lodged during the reporting period. The cost of the four claims to date is $57,272, representing 54% of the total cost of workers compensation claims. Trend

Total Cost of Claims 2003 2004

Total University $126,664 $105,850

The total cost of claims over the period has decreased by $20,814 (a 16% decrease). Benchmarking

No data available.


1.4 INCIDENCE RATE Description

The incidence rate is the number of incidents of injury/illness for each one hundred staff. This rate measures the frequency of incidents experienced in the workplace over time. The incidence rate is calculated as: Number of Incidents in the Period x 100 Number of Staff (Headcount, excluding casuals) The ‘number of incidences in the period’ refers to all cases of lost-time injury/illness which were recorded in the period. Table 36: Incidence Rate, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Incidence Rate

Total University 0.99

Summary

The data indicates that there is marginally less than one workers compensation claim for every 100 staff members. The goal of the Occupational Health and Safety Services will be to further improve this Incidence Rate during the next reporting period. Trend

Incidence Rate 2003 2004

Total University 1.36 0.99

There has been a decrease in the incidence rate over the period. This statistic indicates that the number of incidents of lost time injury or illness, has fallen in real terms in relation to the total numbers of staff. Benchmarking

The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program 2003 reports the average incidence rate, using a sample of 13 universities, to be 1.20 claims for each 100 employees. The ATN Universities average incident rate for 2003 was reported as 1.21 claims. Compared to the above data, UniSA has improved its average incidence rate and is now performing well below the average for the 2004 reporting period. The decline can be attributed to the continuous improvement in OH&S practices across the University, increased awareness by all staff and the introduction of training programs.


1.5 FREQUENCY RATE Description

The frequency rate shown in Table 37 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. Table 37: Frequency Rate, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Frequency Rate


Summary

This data indicates that just over five workers compensation claims occur for each one million hours worked. The goal of the University through Occupational Health and Safety Services will be to reduce the frequency rate of claims. Trend

Frequency Rate 2003 2004


There has been a decrease in the frequency rate of incidents of injury/illness. This improvement may be attributed to increased awareness of hazards and risks in the workplace and control measures to address these. Benchmarking

No data available.


1.6 AVERAGE TIME LOST RATE Description

The average time lost rate shown in Table 38 is the average time lost per 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 OH&S 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 38: Average Time Lost Rate, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Average Time Lost

Rate (days)


Summary

The data indicated that each accepted lost time claim recorded, resulted in an average of 15.95 days lost time. The goal of the Occupational Health and Safety Services is to decrease the average time lost per workers compensation claim to less than 15 lost time days during the next reporting period. The average time lost rate of over 15 days per claim is largely due to a claim that was lodged in August 2003, which so far contributed to a total of 111 lost time days. Calculating the average time lost rate, less this claim of 111 days, results in an average time lost rate of 11.42 days. Additionally, a further three claims accounted for an extra 113 lost time days. Altogether these four claims have contributed to 224 lost time days. Calculating the average time lost rate, less the total of these four claims results in a balance of 127 days relating to 18 claims. The average time lost rate using this calculation results in an average time lost rate of 7.06 days. Trend

Average Time Lost Rate 2003 2004


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

The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program 2003 reports the average time lost rate, using a sample of 16 Universities, to be 17.32 days and also reports the average time lost rate for the five ATN Universities to be 19.06 days.


The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program 2003 also reports the average time lost rate for UniSA to be 14.62 days. The reason for the difference is that for 2003 UniSA used the reporting period of 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 and the Australian Universities Benchmarking Program reports for the calendar year. However, either figure shows a positive indication that the University is performing well in comparison to other universities.

ANNUAL WORKFORCE PROFILE REPORT 2003-2004w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/pdf/aw_report_ 2004.pdf · Annual...

Documents

Transcript of ANNUAL WORKFORCE PROFILE REPORT 2003-2004w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/pdf/aw_report_ 2004.pdf · Annual...