ANNUAL WORKFORCE PROFILE REPORT 2004-2005w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/pdf/2005_annual_report.pdf ·...

ANNUAL WORKFORCE PROFILE REPORT 2004-2005

As at 31 March 2005

Human Resources Unit June 2005

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 the University of South Australia’s (UniSA’s) workforce, • identify trends and gaps in the workforce, and • provide a measure 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 2004 • Australian Bureau of Statistics (AusStats 2001 & 2002) • Universities HR Benchmarking Program 2002 - 2004 • South Australian Public Sector Workforce Information (June 2004 & June 2003) • University of South Australia Annual Workforce Report 2002-2003 & 2003-2004 • Mercer HR Consulting, Human Resource Effectiveness Monitor 2004 • Advancing the AVCC Action Plan for Women, Cross Institution comparisons based on 2004

Data, prepared by QUT for ATN • vivasa Indicators Report of the State of South Australia 2005

TREND The Annual Workforce Profile Report provides trends against the previous two year’s measures. The trend analysis for each indicator can be used to plan, implement and evaluate human resource policies and initiatives. This year the Report includes data on the Professional Experience Program and the Staff Study Support program. It also includes human resource indicators from vivasa’s Indicators of the State of South Australia report.

ANNUAL WORKFORCE REPORT The Annual Workforce Profile Report forms part of the University’s workforce planning and reporting framework and provides an overview of the workforce profile, establishes base measures where appropriate and presents 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 2005 or reflects data captured from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005. The exception to this is the casual employment where data is provided based on calendar year (1 January to 31 December 2004). During 2005 the Division of Business and Enterprise changed its name to Division of Business. Tables with historical data have changed to reflect the new name as trends are applicable within the division. For further advice and information please contact, Director: Human Resources, Shard Lorenzo or the Remuneration and Workforce Strategy Team in the Human Resources Unit (HRU): 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 & 2004-2005……………………………….…...…1 Overview …………………………………………………………………………….………..........3 PART A: WORKFORCE PROFILING..…………................................................................. 5 1. Workforce Size ………………………………………………………………………………5 2. Employment Type – Non Casual …………………………………………………………9 2.1 Continuing And Fixed-Term Staff …………………………………………..………………......9 2.2 Employment Type By Division And Portfolio ………..………………………………………..11 3. Temporary Staff ……………………………………………………………………………15 3.1 Casual Staff …….……………………………………….…………………….……………........15 4. Staff Turnover ……………………………………………………………………………...23 5. Length of Service ……………………………………………………………………….…27 6. Diversity ………………………………………………………………………………….….29 6.1 Indigenous Employment ……………………………...……………………...…………………30 6.2 Youth Employment ………………………………….…………………………………….…….33 6.3 Gender ………………………………………………………………………..……….………….35 6.4 Country of Birth ……………………………………..………………………...………………....39 6.5 First Languages …………………………………….………………………….………… …......41 6.6 Disability …………………………………………….……………………………………….…..43 7. Age ………..…………………………………………………………………………..………45 8. Staff Qualifications ……………………………………………………………..…………51 8.1 Academic Qualifications …………………………...……………………………………...……51 8.2 General Staff Qualifications ……………………...…………………………………………….54 9. Career Development ……..……………………………………………………………….57 9.1 Academic Promotions …………………………………………………………………...……57 9.2 General Staff Reclassifications …………………………………………………………..……60 9.3 Higher Duties Opportunities for General Staff ……………..…………...……………………62 9.4 Professional Experience Program ………………………………………………………..…...64 9.5 Staff Study Support ……………………………………………..………………………………65 10. Leave ………….……………………………………………………………………...……..67 10.1 Planned and Unplanned Absenteeism ………………………………………………..…….67 10.2 Recreation Leave Liability ……………………………………………………………...……..70 10.3 Long Service Leave Liability …………………………………………………………...……..72 10.4 Family Friendly Leave Initiatives ……………………………………………………..……...74 PART B: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY…........................ ……………………….77 1. Workers Compensation …………...……………………………………………………..77 1.1 Total Number of Workers Compensation Claims and Types of Injury or Illness……………77 1.2 Total Number of Days Lost ………………………………………………………………….....79 1.3 Total Cost of Claims ……………………………………………………………………….…....80 1.4 Incidence Rate ………………………………………………………………...…………….…..81 1.5 Frequency Rate ……………………………………………………………...……………...…..82 1.6 Average Time Lost Rate ………………………………………………………...……….….…83

CONTENTS TABLE LISTING

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

Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2003, 2004 and 2005

Table 2 Total FTE numbers and percentage change by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2003, 31 March 2004 and 31 March 2005

Table 3 Academic and General by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Table 4 Employment Type by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Table 5 Casual Hours and FTE by Division and Portfolio, 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Table 6 Total University Summary of Casual Hours and FTE by Award and Work Type, 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Table 7 Academic Casual Hours and FTE by Division and Portfolio and Work Type, 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Table 8 General Casual Work Code ‘Other’ Hours and FTE by Division and Portfolio, 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Table 9 Casual Hours and FTE by Division and Portfolio and Gender, 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Table 10 University-wide Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 11 Number of Involuntary and Voluntary Staff Separations by Gender, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 12 Indigenous Employment as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2005

Table 13 Youth Employment as a Percentage of General Staff FTE as at 31 March 2005

Table 14 General Staff Youth Employment (FTE) by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Table 15 Female Staff Percentages by Academic and General and Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Table 16 Staff Gender (headcount) across all Levels as at 31 March 2005

Table 17 Staff as a Percentage by Country of Birth as at 31 March 2005

Table 18 First Language as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2005

Table 19 Number of Staff who identified as having a Disability as at 31 March 2005

Table 20 Median Age of General and Academic Staff by Gender as at 31 March 2005

Table 21 Age Composition of Population Projection, 2004 and 2051

Table 22 Australian and South Australian Proportion of Labour Force 45 Years or Over as at 2004

Table 23 Academic Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of Academic Staff by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Table 24 Academic Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of Academic Staff by Academic Level as at 31 March 2005

Table Listing (cont.)

Table 25 General Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of General Staff by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Table 26 Number of Applications Received for Academic Promotion for 2004 round

Table 27 Number of Successful Applications for Academic Promotion for 2004 round

Table 28 Academic Application for Promotion Rate and Academic Promotion Rate for Academic Promotion for 2004 Round

Table 29 Number of Applications for Reclassification, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 30 Number of Applications for Reclassifications by Division and Portfolio, April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 31 Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Substantive Classification Level, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 32 Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Division and Portfolio, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 33 Number of Academic Staff Accessed Professional Experience Program by Division and Portfolio, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 34 Number of Staff paid Staff Study Support by Division and Portfolio, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 35 Unplanned, Planned and Total Absenteeism Annualised by Academic and General, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 36 Unplanned and Planned Absenteeism Annualised by Division and Portfolio for all staff and Total University, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 37 Average Recreation Leave Liability for Academic and General by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Table 38 Long Service Leave Liability Average Days for Academic and General by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Table 39 Take up of Family Friendly Leave Initiatives by Division and Portfolio, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 40 Total Number of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 41 Total Number of Days Lost Due to Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 42 Total Cost of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 43 Incidence Rate, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 44 Frequency Rate, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Table 45 Average Time Lost, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

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

and General and University-wide as at 31 March 2005

Figure 2 Academic and General by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Figure 3 Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised by Division and Portfolio, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Figure 4 Length of Service for Academic Staff as at 31 March 2005

Figure 5 Length of Service for General Staff as at 31 March 2005

Figure 6 Length of Service for Total University as at 31 March 2005

Figure 7 Age Demographics as a Percentage of Academic and General Staff, as at 31 March 2005

Figure 8 Claims by Injury or Illness, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Annual Workforce Profile Report 2004-2005 - 1 -

Results Overview: 2002-2003, 2003-2004 & 2004-2005

PART A: WORKFORCE PROFILING

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

1. Workforce Size (including casuals) FTE FTE FTE

Total Staff 2362.74 2448.48 2445.43

2. Staff Numbers (excluding casuals) FTE Percentage FTE Percentage FTE Percentage

Academic Staff 858.10 43% 891.10 43% 919.79 44% General Staff 1146.64 57% 1194.52 57% 1182.97 56% Continuing Staff 1538.55 76% 1607.70 77% 1662.8 79% Fixed-Term Contract Staff 466.19 24% 477.93 23% 439.96 21% Total Staff (FTE) Non-Casual 2004.74 2085.63 2102.76 Total Staff (headcount) Non-

Casual 2133 2223 2226

3. Casual Employment FTE Percentage FTE Percentage FTE Percentage

Academic Staff 249.0 22.49% 256.16 22.3% 245.40 21.0% General Staff 109.0 8.68% 106.69 8.2% 97.27 7.6% Total Casual Staff 358.0 15.15% 362.85 14.8% 342.67 14.0%

4. Staff Turnover Headcount Percentage (Turnover) Headcount Percentage

(Turnover) Headcount Percentage (Turnover)

Voluntary Separation 152 7.13% 162 7.13% 183 5.31% Involuntary Separation 102 4.97% 71 3.13% 118 8.23% Total Staff Separation 258 12.10% 233 10.26% 301 13.54%

5. Length of Service - Average Years

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

6. Diversity - % of Workforce

Indigenous Staff (Headcount) 1.03% 0.85%1 1.26%2

0.81%1

1.17%2

Youth (16 to 24) (FTE General Staff) 4.75% 5.27% 5.07%

Female Staff (Headcount) 55% 56% 56%

7. Age Demographics

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

8. Staff Qualifications

Academic Staff Qualifications - Doctorate 41% 42.86% 46.48%

General Staff Qualifications – Bachelor or Higher - 26.63% 28.25%

1 Staff Diversity Survey 2 Human Resource Unit


Results Overview (cont.)

PART A: WORKFORCE PROFILING (cont.)

2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

9. Career Development

Academic Staff Promotions (Level B to E) 35 33 40

General Staff Reclassifications 27 35 40 General Staff Higher Duties Opportunities 370 363 406

10. Leave (Days)

Unplanned Leave 7.7 5.3 6.15 Total Planned Leave 20.8 19.9 27.45 Average Recreation Leave Liability Academic Staff

16.4 16.7 17.7

Average Recreation Leave Liability General Staff

16.8 16.5 17.1

Long Service Leave Liability Academic Staff 60.0 58.6 55.64

Long Service Leave Liability General Staff 50.1 46.1 46.91

PART B: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY

Work Cover Claims Registered 68 55 56

Total Days Lost 363 351 376


Overview

CONTEXT UniSA will face a series of challenges in the management of its workforce over the next few years including:

• adapting to significant changes in the higher education policy environment occuring at State and Federal level

• renewing the academic workforce in response to strategic goals and in the context of likely labour market volatilty that will follow an increase in retirement of an ageing academic workforce

• building individual and workforce capability • responding to the challenges of implementing our on-line strategy and increasingly

global engagement • building research capacity and institution performance more generally • improving the alignment of business strategy with the budget framework.

Predictions of the future policy environment, combined with labour market trends suggest the institution will confront major challenges in recruiting and retaining high performing staff in areas critical to the success of the institution’s mission and strategic goals. This is likely to require a more complete approach to planning for, and attracting, retaining and developing our future workforce. This report is a contribution to that project.

INITIATIVES A number of initiatives have been implemented that will impact on the workforce and the human resource indicators: Workforce Planning In 2003 and 2004 Stage 1 Workforce Planning Priorities were incorporated into the Corporate Planning Process and workforce plans were developed at the local level. The 2004 Stage 1 Workforce Planning Priorities were:

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

Recreation Leave Management Recreation leave balance information is provided to managers and the annual excess leave management process aims to ensure staff take their leave entitlements within an appropriate time. The HRU has recently reviewed the process and guidelines to ensure a decrease in the University’s leave liability. Diversity A confidential survey has been in place since 2000 to capture diversity information for UniSA staff. Employees are asked to complete the survey form on commencement of employment. Currently 69% of staff have completed the survey. Youth Employment A group intake of 10 youth trainees in January 2004 has had a positive effect on youth employment numbers. This has continued in 2005 with an intake of a further 5 youth trainees.


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 and Portfolio and Academic and General as at 31 March 2003, 2004 and 2005. Casual FTE data is compiled across the University for the period 1 January to 31 December each year utilising the DEST formula. Fixed-term employment, as stated in the UniSA Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004, includes:

• senior managers employed on individual contracts • staff on work-force planning contracts (pre-retirement contracts) • staff employed for specific tasks or projects • staff employed for research only functions • staff employed as a replacement staff member • staff employed for recent professional practice • student employment • apprenticeships or traineeships • staff employed in a new organisational area or a dis-established organisational area • staff employed for a new program or a discontinued program • staff employed on an academic convertible contract.

Fixed-term employment, as stated in the UniSA Document Services Enterprise Agreement 2004, also includes:

• staff employed on convertible contract • staff on Pre-Retirement Contract • staff employed in a work area to be disestablished

Casual staff are engaged by the hour and paid on an hourly basis. Reporting of casual staff figures compared to continuing and fixed-term staff figures is important for the University to meet its requirements as agreed under the UniSA Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004, clause 32.12 j;

The parties note that at March 2003, 22.5% of the FTE academic staff of the University is employed on a casual basis. It is agreed that the University shall endeavour to reduce this level during the life of the Agreement through the application of this clause. This will be monitored by the JCC receiving the annual Workforce Profiling Report.

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.

orce Profile Report 2004-2005 - 6 -

Table 1: Continuing/Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE by Academic and General and Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2003, 2004 and 2005

31 March 2003 31 March 2004 31 March 2005

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

Portfolio Acad Gen Aca

d Gen Acad Gen Acad Gen Total FTE Acad Gen Acad Gen Acad Gen Acad Gen Total

FTE Acad Gen Acad Gen Acad Gen Acad Gen TOTAL

FTE

Division: Business 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 16.97 238.02 140.87 378.89 124 115.5 18.2 10.8 66.86 16.62 209.06 142.92 351.98

Division: 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 22.70 368.33 143.80 512.13 234.1 99.6 40.9 14.01 90.84 20.42 365.84 134.03 499.87

Division: 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 9.20 223.61 114.76 338.37 126.3 87.49 74.73 28.23 35.55 9.48 236.58 125.20 361.78

Division: Information 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 13.38 210.93 110.78 321.71 127.8 89.9 71.13 15.7 47.06 8.80 245.99 114.40 360.39

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 1 19.6 3.6 10 0.42 0.43 5.02 30.03 35.05

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 32 237.56 8.9 29.15 3.91 24.14 44.81 290.85 335.66

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 0 146.3 0 22.7 6.16 0.00 175.16 175.16

Portfolio: International & Development - - - - - - - - - 0 57.25 0 8.40 0.00 4.69 0.00 70.34 70.34 0 61.65 0 8 0.16 5.64 0.16 75.29 75.45

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 0 110.4 0 15.58 0.03 4.15 0.03 130.13 130.16

Portfolio: Research & Innovation - - - - - - - - - 16.00 37.60 41.41 23.70 1.16 2.48 58.57 63.78 122.35 13 36.6 44.13 24.2 0.57 1.43 57.70 62.23 119.93

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 1147.26 1301.22 2448.48 658.2 1004.6 261.59 178.37 245.40 97.27 1,165.19 1,280.24 2,445.43

* The Portfolio no longer exists

Annual Workf


Figure 1: Continuing, Fixed-Term and Casual Staff FTE total percentages by Academic and General and University-wide as at 31 March 2005

56.5%

78.5%68.0%

30%

40%

50%

22.5%70%

13.9%

18.0%

21.1%7.6%

14.0%

0%

60%

90%

100%

80%

Casual

Fixed Term

Continuing

10%

20%

Academic General University Wide

ry

Total Staff (FTE) as at 31 March 2005 is 2445.43. Of the total academic staff FTE, 56.5% yed in con sitions, 22.5 d-term contracts and 21% casually employed. For this reporting period the University met its req nder the UniS mic and Gen ff Enterprise A ent 2004, clause 32.12 j with a decrease in academic staff casually employed from 22.5% to 21%.

e, 68% of staff are employed in continuing positions with 18% on fixed-term

Summa

are emplo tinuing po % on fixe

uirements as agreed u A Acade eral Sta greem

Of the total general staff FTE, 78.5% are employed in continuing positions, 13.9% on fixed-term contracts and 7.6% are casually employed.

niversity-widUcontracts and 14% are casually employed.

Trend

Total FTE (including casuals) 2003 2004 2005

University Total 2362.74 2448.48 2445.43

Percentage of Casual Academic Staff 22.5% 22.3% 21%

Total staff (including casuals) has remained relatively stable with a minor decrease of 3.0(0.12%) across the University since 2004. Compared to 2003 total staff has increased by 82.69 FTE (3.5%).

5 FTE

urther trend analysis (next page) shows that for the period 31 March 2004 to 31 March 2005

ortfolio: International nd Development.

The the DEnvironmen st tly ed

Fthe largest increase in staff numbers were in the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment, the Division of Health Sciences and Pa

significant increase in t and the decrease in Division of Business

ivision of Information Technology, Engineering and taff can par

he by the be explain


t ation techno demi rom t ol of ing anInformation Systems to School of Computer Information Systems during that period. M d Portfolio FTE hav sed peri arch 2 1 March 2005 with Division of EducatioR creasin e thr perio ng th all Units within Portfolio: Finance and Resources have been reviewed which may explain the overall decrease in numbers for the portfolio. Table 2: Total FTE numbers and percentage change by Division and Portfolio as at 31 M 2004 and rch 2 ludin uals)

ransfer of 15 inform logy aca c staff f he Scho Account d

ost Division an numbers e decrea over the od 31 M 004 to 3n, Arts and

g over thSocial Scien

ee yearces, Portfolio: Finance a

d. Durind

esources continually de is period

arch 2003, 31 March 31 Ma 005 (inc g cas

3 1-Mar-03 3 1-Mar-04 3 1-Mar-05

Total FTE

% change

to 2005 Total FTE

% change

to 2005 Total FTE Division and Portfolio

Division: Business 350.74 8.03% 378.89 -7.10% 351.98

Division: Education, Arts & 514.43 -0.45% 512.13 -2.39% 499.87 Social Sciences

Division: Health Sciences 314.31 7.65% 338.37 6.92% 361.78

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment

309.57 3.92% 321.71 12.02% 360.39

Chancellery 27.19 19.79% 32.57 7.61% 35.05

Portfolio: Access & LeaSupport

rning 3.1 33 0 -0.25% 335.66 326.38 0% 6.5

Portfolio: Business Development 33.88 -

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 206.04 -3.48% 198.86 -11.92% 175.16

Portfolio: International & Development - 70.34 7.26% 75.45

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 127.17 7.54% 136.76 -4.83% 130.16

Portfolio: Research & Innovation - 122.35 -1.98% 119.93

Portfolio: Research & International 149.63 -

University Wide (Other) 3.40 -

University Total 2362.74 3.63% 2448.48 -0.12% 2,445.43


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

Figure 2 and Table 3 show the number of FTE continuing and fixed-term staff (excluding casual employees) by Academic and General and Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005. Figure 2: Academic and General by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Div: Business &Enterprise

Div: Education,Arts & Social

Sciences

Div: HealthSciences

Div: InformationTechnology,

Engineering &the Environment

Chancellery Portfolio: Access& Learning

Support

Portfolio:Finance &Resources

Portfolio:International &Development

Portfolio:Organisational

Strategy &Change

Portfolio:Research &Innovation

Academic General

Table 3: Academic and General by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

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

Division: Business 53% 47% 142.20 126.30 268.50 149 131 280 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 71% 29% 275.00 113.61 388.61 297 125 420* Division: Health Sciences 63% 37% 201.03 115.72 316.75 222 121 343 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 65% 35% 198.93 105.60 304.53 207 110 317 Chancellery 13% 87% 4.60 29.60 34.20 5 30 35 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 13% 87% 40.90 266.71 307.61 44 290 333 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0% 100% 0 169.00 169.00 0 173 173 Portfolio: International & Development 0% 100% 0 69.65 69.65 0 72 72 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 0% 100% 0 125.98 125.98 0 131 131 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 48% 52% 57.13 60.80 117.93 59 64 123

University Total 44% 56% 919.79 1182.97 2102.76 983 1246** 2226*

* The total headcount does not add up as 2 people hold both academic and general positions in the Division. **The general staff headcount and University Total column does not add up as one person holds two general staff positions in Portfolio: Access and Learning and Portfolio: Research and Innovation


Summary

Total staff (headcount), as at 31 March 2005, excluding casuals is 2226 and the total staff FTE is 2102.76. The ratio of general staff to academic staff is 1.29 (per FTE). Of the 2102.76 FTE staff, 56% are general staff and 44% are academic staff. This varies across Divisions due to different administrative and technical structures. The Division of Business has the highest percentage of general staff (47%) and the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences have the lowest (29%) across the Divisions. Trend

University Total (excluding casuals) 2003 2004

2005

University Total (FTE) 2004.74 2085.63 2102.76

University Total (headcount) 2133 2223 2226

Ratio General Staff to Academic (FTE) 1.34 1.34 1.29

The University total FTE has marginally increased by 17.13 FTE over a 12 month period. In comparison to the 2004 report, the largest areas of growth in this period in FTE are the Divisions of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment (increased by 39.94 FTE) and Health Sciences (increased by 25.34 FTE). The ratio of general staff to academic staff remained constant through the period of 2003 and 2004 with 1.34 (per FTE). However in the period 2004 to 2005 the ratio of general staff to academic staff has decreased to 1.29, which is reflected by the decrease in the percentage of general staff overall from 57% in 2003 and 2004 to 56% in 2005. The change in the percentage of academic staff across Divisions for the three year period differs. The Division of Business (2003: 56%, 2004: 57% and 2005: 53%) and the Division of Health Sciences (2003: 66%, 2004: 64% and 2005: 63%) have the lowest percentage of academic staff to general staff whilst the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences (2003 70%, 2004 69% and 2005 71%) and the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment (2003: 62%, 2004: 63% and 2005: 65%) have the highest percentage of academic staff during the period. Benchmarking

The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program 2004 data indicates that the average ratio of general staff to academic staff, using headcount figures, is 1.48 for 2004. The following benchmarking information is obtained from DEST data 2004 (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% 58%

ATN Universities 1.50 40% 60%

Adelaide University 1.25 44% 56%

Flinders University 1.42 41% 59%

UniSA 1.29 44% 56% Benchmarking information contained in the customised report for ATN universities reveal that the ATN have a higher professional to academic staff ratio than the sector. Compared with the All Universities data (1.48 professional staff for every academic employee) the ATN have 1.56 professional staff for every academic employee. 2.2 EMPLOYMENT TYPE BY DIVISION AND PORTFOLIO Description

Table 4 on the following page shows the percentage of staff (FTE) employed as continuing or fixed-term by Division and Portfolio. Fixed-term employment, as stated in the UniSA Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004, includes:

• senior managers employed on individual contracts • staff on work-force planning contracts (pre-retirement contracts) • staff employed for specific tasks or projects • staff employed for research only functions • staff employed as a replacement staff member • staff employed for recent professional practice • student employment • apprenticeships or traineeships • staff employed in a new organisational area or a disestablished organisational area • staff employed for a new program or a discontinued program • staff employed on an academic convertible contract.

Fixed-term employment, as stated in the UniSA Document Services Enterprise Agreement 2004, also includes:

• staff employed on convertible contract • staff on Pre-Retirement Contract • staff employed in a work area to be disestablished

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


Table 4: Employment Type by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Continuing Fixed-Term Contract Percentage of FTE

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

Total FTE

Full-time FTE FTE Headcount

Total FTE Cont Fixed-

Term

Division: Business 228 11.50 17 239.50 21 8.00 14 29.00 89% 11%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 306 27.7 45 333.7 33 21.91 36 54.91 86% 14%

Division: Health Sciences 192 21.79 34 213.79 86 16.96 31 102.96 67% 33%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 211 6.70 11 217.70 77 9.83 18 86.83 71% 29%

Chancellery 19 1.60 2 20.60 13 0.60 1 13.60 60% 40%

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 234 35.56 55 269.56 29 9.05 15 38.05 88% 12%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 139 7.30 11 146.3 22 0.70 1 22.7 87% 13%

Portfolio: International & Development 56 5.65 8 61.65 8 0.00 0 8.00 89% 11%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 100 10.40 15 110.40 14 1.58 2 15.58 88% 12%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 46 3.60 6 49.60 64 4.33 7 68.33 42% 58%

University Total 1531 131.8 203* 1662.8 367 72.96 125 439.96 79% 21%

* Part-time headcount does not add up as one staff member holds two positions across the University in Portfolio: Access and Learning Support and Portfolio: Research and Innovation


Summary

Seventy-nine percent of UniSA staff are employed on a continuing basis and 21% on fixed-term contracts (excluding casual employees). Where casual employees are included in the employment profile the percentages change to 68% of UniSA staff employed are continuing, 18% are fixed-term and 14% are employed as casuals. The areas with the highest fixed-term contracts include:

• Portfolio: Research & Innovation (58%, 68.33 staff on fixed-term contracts) • Chancellery (40%, 13.60 staff on fixed-term contracts) • Division of Health Sciences (33%, 102.96 staff on fixed-term contracts) • Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment (29%, 86.83 staff

on fixed-term contracts). The high number of fixed-term contracts is directly related to the number of Senior Management Group members on individual senior contracts in Chancellery, the number of staff on research contracts in the Portfolio: Research and Innovation and the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment and the number of staff on specific task, project (a high number of these contracts are for the South Australian Centre for Rural and Remote Health) and research contracts in the Division of Health Sciences. Trend

University Total (percentage of FTE) 2003 2004

2005

Continuing 76% 77% 79%

Fixed-Term 24% 23% 21%

For the period 2004 to 2005 there has been a slight increase in the percentage of staff members in continuing employment within the University. Over the three year period the percentage of staff members on continuing employment has continually increased up to 79%. This indicator may show that the University is continuing to use fixed-term contracts in compliance with the UniSA Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004, lessening the University’s industrial risk. Benchmarking

As at June 2004, 25.6% of South Australian Public Service employees were on fixed-term contracts and 63.3% had ongoing employment. The remaining were employed on a casual basis (11.1%) which is a decrease from the previous year. The long-term trend across the public sector workforce has been that the proportion of people appointed on a fixed-term contract basis has increased which is opposite to the University’s trend. The following benchmarking information is obtained from DEST data 2004 (excluding UniSA data) utilising FTE figures. For Universities in a group, the number and percentage of staff has been averaged. DEST uses the terminology tenured term, limited tenure and other tenure. For comparison to UniSA tenured term has been interpreted as continuing and limited and other tenure has been interpreted as fixed-term contract.


Based on the data below, UniSA’s percentage of continuing staff is below the national average for Universities.

Percentage of Continuing

Percentage of Fixed-Term

All Australian Universities 70% 30%

ATN Universities 72% 28%

Adelaide University 59% 41%

Flinders University 69% 31%

UniSA 66% 34%


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 2004 to 31 December 2004. It does not include any hours made outside these dates for work performed during the period. Full-time equivalence is derived using the prescribed DEST formula:

FTE = (hours worked) (F x N)

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

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

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

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

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

• Lecture – where the work performed is lecturing.

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

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

This data is presented as follows:

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

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

• Table 7 shows casual academic hours and FTE by Division and Portfolio and work type.

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

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


Table 5: Casual Hours and FTE by Division and Portfolio, 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Division and Portfolio Number of hours FTE

Division: Business 96,941 83.48

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 124,165 111.26

Division: Health Sciences 67,947 45.03

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 61,050 55.86

Chancellery 1,550 0.85

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 48,151 28.05

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 11,210 6.16

Portfolio: International & Development 10,549 5.80

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 7,599 4.18

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 3,617 2.00

Grand Total 432,779 342.67

Table 6: Total University Summary of Casual Hours and FTE by Award and Work Type,1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Award Work Code

Number of hours FTE

Lecture 16,133 64.02

Tutor 56,559 80.80 Academic – Non Research

Other 122,472 67.29

Academic – Non Research Total 195,164 212.11

Academic – Research Other 60,595 33.29

Academic - Research Total 60,595 33.29

Academic Total 255,759 245.40

General – Administrative Other 156,730 86.12

General – Research Other 20,290 11.15

General Total 177,020 97.27

Grand Total 432,779 342.67


Table 7: Academic Casual Hours and FTE by Division and Portfolio and Work Type, 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Division and Portfolio Work Code

Number of hours FTE

Lecture 5,123 20.33 Tutor 14,452 20.65 Division: Business Other 47,114 25.88

Total: Division: Business 66,689 66.86 Lecture 4,871 19.33 Tutor 30,012 42.88 Division: Education, Arts & Social

Sciences Other 52,112 28.63

Total: Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 86,995 90.84

Lecture 1,276 5.06 Tutor 3,792 5.42 Division: Health Sciences Other 45,618 25.07

Total: Division: Health Sciences 50,686 35.55 Lecture 4,503 17.87 Tutor 7,877 11.25 Division: Information Technology,

Engineering & the Environment Other 32,650 17.94

Total: Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 45,030 47.06

Chancellery Other 770 0.42 Total: Chancellery 770 0.42

Lecture 360 1.43 Tutor 416 0.59 Portfolio: Access & Learning

Support Other 3,437 1.89

Total: Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 4,213 3.91

Portfolio: International & Development Other 297 0.16

Total: Portfolio: International & Development 297 0.16 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change Other 52 0.03

Total: Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 52 0.03

Tutor 10 0.01 Portfolio: Research & Innovation Other 1,017 0.56

Total: Portfolio: Research & Innovation 1027 0.57 Grand Total 255,759 245.40


Table 8: General Casual Work Code ‘Other’ Hours and FTE by Division and Portfolio, 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Division and Portfolio Number of hours FTE

Division: Business 30,252 16.62

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 37,170 20.42

Division: Health Sciences 17,261 9.48

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 16,020 8.80

Chancellery 780 0.43

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 43,938 24.14

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 11,210 6.16

Portfolio: International & Development 10,252 5.64

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 7,547 4.15

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 2,590 1.43

Total 177,020 97.27


Table 9: Casual hours and FTE by Division and Portfolio and Gender,

1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004

Division and Portfolio Gender Code

Number of hours FTE

Female 48,744 38.26 Division: Business

Male 48,197 45.22 Total: Division: Business 96,941 83.48

Female 88,110 76.36 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences Male 36,055 34.90 Total: Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 124,165 111.26

Female 44,630 29.68 Division: Health Sciences

Male 23,317 15.35 Total: Division: Health Sciences 67,947 45.03

Female 18,019 16.40 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment Male 43,031 39.46 Total: Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 61,050 55.86

Female 1,415 0.78 Chancellery

Male 135 0.07 Total: Chancellery 1,550 0.85

Female 35,938 20.31 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support

Male 12,213 7.74 Total: Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 48,151 28.05

Female 4,060 2.23 Portfolio: Finance & Resources

Male 7,150 3.93 Total: Portfolio: Finance & Resources 11,210 6.16

Female 8,615 4.74 Portfolio: International & Development

Male 1,934 1.06 Total: Portfolio: International & Development 10,549 5.80

Female 3,163 1.74 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change

Male 4,436 2.44 Total: Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 7,599 4.18

Female 1,706 0.94 Portfolio: Research & Innovation

Male 1,911 1.06 Total: Portfolio: Research & Innovation 3,617 2.00 Total Female 254,400 191.44 Total Male 178,379 151.23

Grand Total 432,779 342.67


Summary

Casual academic staff represent 71.6% of casual FTE (245.40). Casual academic staff – Research account for 33.29 of FTE or 13.6% of the total academic casuals. Fifty-six percent of casual FTE (191.44) were female. If casual staff were to be included in FTE figures, total FTE increases to 2445.43 with casual staff representing 14% of the University’s workforce. Casual academic staff represent 21% of the academic staff workforce and casual general staff represent 7.6% of the general staff workforce. The Division and Portfolio with the largest FTE and number of hours spent on casual employment is the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences followed by the Division of Business. However, casuals form only 22.3% and 23.7% respectively of their total 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 2005

University Total Casual Hours 433,047 443,055 432,779

University Total FTE 358.00 362.85 342.67

In 2003 figures reported on data from 1 July 2002 to 31 June 2003. To ensure that current information provided reflects the DEST information, the periods 2004 and 2005 have changed to show 1 January to 31 December. There has been a slight decrease from 2004 to 2005 in total casual hours (decrease of 10,276 hours) and in total FTE (decrease of 20.18 FTE).


Benchmarking

The following benchmarking information is obtained from DEST data 2004 (excluding UniSA data) utilising FTE figures. For Universities in a group, the number of casuals has been averaged. Average or Number

of FTE Casuals Percentage of Total

Workforce

All Australian Universities 327 14.92%

ATN Universities 453 15.87%

Adelaide University 367 16.83%

Flinders University 168 10.63%

UniSA 343 14.02%

Estimated casual numbers (FTE) for all Australian Universities ranges from 0 at Bachelor Institute of Indigenous Education to 1,109 at the University of Sydney. Casual numbers for the ATN Universities range from 340 (DEST data, 2004) at UniSA to 676 at the Queensland University of Technology. In 2005 based on DEST data within the ATN Universities, UniSA had the lowest number of FTE casuals.

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, skills shortages, competitor strategies, employee dissatisfaction and individual performance. However, turnover can also represent an opportunity to introduce new skills, facilitate change in the workplace and be functional for the particular area. Involuntary turnover represents the number of employer-initiated terminations of employment and includes 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 report, expiration of fixed-term contract employment has been included as involuntary. Figure 3 shows voluntary and involuntary turnover annualised by Division and Portfolio from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005. Figure 3: Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised by Division and Portfolio,

1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

20.00%

22.00%

Div: Business &Enterprise

Div: Education,Arts & Social

Sciences

Div: HealthSciences

Div: InformationTechnology,

Engineering &the Environment

Chancellery Portfolio:Access &LearningSupport

Portfolio:Finance &Resources

Portfolio:International &Development

Portfolio:Organisational

Strategy &Change

Portfolio:Research &Innovation

UniWide

Involuntary Voluntary Total



Table 10 shows voluntary and involuntary staff turnover annualised from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 by academic and general. Table 11 illustrates the information by gender and academic and general for the same period. Table 10: University-wide Voluntary and Involuntary Staff Turnover Annualised by

Academic and General, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 Academic General Total University

Involuntary 7.56% 3.58% 5.31%

Voluntary 5.80% 10.09% 8.23%

Total Turnover 13.36% 13.67% 13.54%

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

and Academic and General, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Gender Award Involuntary Voluntary Total

Academic 48 27 75

Female General 30 83 113

Total 78 110 188

Academic 25 29 54

Male General 15 44 59

Total 40 73 113

Total 118 183 301

Summary

The total University-wide turnover (including both involuntary and voluntary) for the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 was 13.54% which represents 301 separations. The high involuntary turnover in the Division of Health Sciences occurred due to a high number (43) of fixed-term contracts expiring during the period. The high voluntary turnover in Portfolio: Finance and Resources occurred due to the high (relative to the Portfolio size) number of staff (28) who resigned or accepted voluntary redundancy from the University through the Services and Property Unit managing change processes. The total turnover in each Division ranges from 19.85% in the Division of Health Sciences to 9.8% in the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment and the variation may be caused by different organisational changes throughout the period. The total turnover in each Portfolio ranges from 17.3% in the Portfolio: Finance and Resources to 8.45% in the Portfolio: International and Development. The Portfolio: Finance and Resources high total turnover can partly be explained by the Services and Property Unit managing change processes. The total number of females leaving the organisation was 188, representing 62.5% of separations. This is slightly higher than the proportion of female staff within the University (56%).


The total number of female academic staff leaving the organisation was 75, representing 58.14% of academic staff separations. This is significantly higher than the proportion of female academic staff within the University (45%). The number of female academic staff leaving the University differs across the Divisions with the Division of Health Sciences having 30, the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences having 12, and the Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment and Division of Business each having 2. This is partly explained by the Division of Health Sciences and the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences having the highest percentage of female academic staff, 62% and 56% respectively and the Division of Health Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery having a large number of fixed-term contracts expiring. During the reporting period the School offered fixed-term contracts instead of casual contracts for Clinical Facilitators. Trend

Total University 2003 2004 2005

Involuntary 4.97% 3.13% 5.31%

Voluntary 7.13% 7.13% 8.23%

Total Turnover 12.10% 10.26% 13.54%

The total turnover for the University has increased over the period from 10.26% to 13.54%. The number of staff separations has increased from 233 to 301, largely due to the 57.7% increase (from 47 to 118 staff) in involuntary separations from 2004 to 2005 resulting from the expiration of fixed-term contracts. During this period voluntary turnover has also increased and is at the highest in the three year period with 183 staff leaving voluntary in 2005 up from 162 in 2004. In comparing each Division and Portfolio over the three year period the Division of Health Sciences had their highest turnover at 19.85% and the Portfolio: Finance and Resources at 17.30% in 2005. The Division of Health Sciences is partly explained by the high number of expired fixed-term contracts. Portfolio: Finance and Resources highest turnover is partly due to the review of all Units within the Portfolio during the period. Benchmarking

The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program (sample size 29 universities) has an overall average result of 16.89% for total turnover (includes expiration of fixed-term contracts) for the calendar year 2004. The overall average result for the ATN universities is 14.86% for total turnover for the calendar year 2004. In comparison the UniSA’s total turnover of 13.54%, for the 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 period is significantly lower than the average for all Australian universities. The average voluntary employee initiated turnover for Australian Universities is 8.79% (sample size 29) for 2004. The ATN study reports the average voluntary employee initiated turnover at 8.48% in 2004. This reflects an increase of 1.36% on the ATN results of 2003 with the greatest incidence occurring at the Academic Level A and HEW 1-5 levels. The Mercer HR Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor 2004 reports the average total turnover for all industries with staff numbers above 1000 is 17.86%. Across all of Australian industry the voluntary turnover has increased from 2003 12.99% to 13.3% in 2004.

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 2005

7 - 15 years22.22%

3 - 7 years 21.71%

6 mths - 3 years 22.12%

Less than 6 months 3.98%15 + years

29.97%

Figure 5: Length of Service for General Staff as at 31 March 2005

Less than 6 months 5.54% 6 mths - 3 years

21.12%

3 - 7 years24.75%

7 - 15 years 22.65%

15 + years 25.94%



as at 31 March 2005 Figure 6: Length of Service for Total University

Less than 6 months15 + years 4.85%

3 - 7 years 23.41%

7 - 15 years22.46%

6 mths - 3 years 21.56%

27.72%

Summary

Over a quarter of staff (27.72%) ha 5 ye niSmalgamated institutions.

er 15 years length of service compared to 25.94% of general staff. ased on these figures academic staff have a higher percentage of staff with over 7 years

he average length of service for an academic staff member is 10 years and 1 month as at 31 average length of service for a general staff member is 9 years and 7 months

rend

ve greater than 1 ars service with U A or the previous a There is a slight difference between general and academic staff, for example 29.97% of academic staff have ovBservice (52.19%) compared to general staff (48.59%). TMarch 2005. Theas at the same date. T

Average length of service 2003 2004 2005

Academic 10 years 10 years 1 month 10 years 1 month

General 9 years 7 months 9 years 5 months 9 years 7 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 has slightly increased to approximately 9 years and 7 months. The figures have remained constant over the three year period and unless the University experiences unusually high turnover in a year the figures are expected to remain constant. 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. A number of recent initiatives reflect UniSA’s commitment to diversity:

• In the early part of 2005 a review of the Equity and Diversity website was undertaken. Changes to this web site will be completed by August 2005 and will provide a more effective resource for staff and managers.

• A road show and posters promoting the web site will be undertaken in the latter part of 2005 with the intention of reaching a significant number of staff and reinforcing the University’s commitment to this area.

• The construction of “Multi-Access” suites in 2005 for people with specific needs such as people with disabilities and breast feeding mothers.

• Enhanced provisions in the Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004 for maternity leave, partner leave and flexibility in working hours.

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

• Ongoing commitment to Disability and Indigenous employment schemes by employing staff with key responsibility for employee groups 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).

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

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

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

• Establishment of flexible family and culturally friendly work practices.

• Equity and diversity training development opportunities.

• Indigenous awareness training. To gather data on the diversity attributes of the workforce a confidential data collection process, the Staff Diversity Survey, was initiated in 2000. Currently 69% of staff have completed and returned the Staff Diversity Survey.


6.1 INDIGENOUS EMPLOYMENT Description

Indigenous staff is those who identify themselves as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin. Table 12 shows Indigenous Employment as a percentage of staff by Division and Portfolio and total University as at 31 March 2005. 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. This data is shown in the following table. Table 12: Indigenous Employment as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2005

Division and Portfolio

Indigenous 2005

(% Headcount) (Staff Diversity

Survey)

Indigenous 2005

(% Headcount)(from HRU database)

Division: Business 0.36% 0.00% Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 2.14% 3.80% Division: Health Sciences 0.87% 1.17% Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 0.63% 0.00%

Chancellery 0.00% 0.00% Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 0.00% 0.90% Portfolio: Finance & Resources 1.16% 0.58% Portfolio: International & Development 0.00% 0.00% Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 0.00% 1.53% Portfolio: Research & Innovation 0.81% 0.00%

Total Across the University 0.81% 1.17%

Summary

From information collected in the Staff Diversity Survey the percentage of staff that identify themselves as being of Indigenous origin is 0.81%. In comparison the HRU database percentage is much higher at 1.17%. 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. UniSA remains committed to achieving a target of 2% Indigenous employment across the University.


Current strategies to achieve this target include:

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

• Advice from the Indigenous Employment Advisory Committee (which includes

community members).

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

• Provision of Indigenous cultural awareness training. • Mentoring and support networks for Indigenous staff. • A focus on young Indigenous people through the Youth Traineeship scheme. • Funding for professional development of Indigenous staff who are newly appointed to

UniSA calculated as 20% of the employee’s base salary plus on-costs at the time of appointment for a 3 year period.

Further information about strategies to increase the Indigenous employment participation rate is available on the workforce planning website. Trend

2003 2004 2005

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

1.03% 0.85% 0.81%

Indigenous Employment as a Percentage of Staff (HRU database)

Not Reported 1.26% 1.17%

There has been a decrease in the percentage of staff that identifies themselves as Indigenous through the Staff Diversity Survey from 1.03% and 0.85% to 0.81%. However, it is thought that the HRU database is a more accurate reflection of Indigenous staff numbers, at 1.17% of staff. While it appears that the percentage of Indigenous employees has slightly decreased this year, UniSA remains committed to achieving a target of 2% Indigenous employment across the University. Achieving this goal continues to pose a challenge for the University. However, ongoing commitment to strategies in this area will assist in achieving this target.


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 2004, the level of Indigenous employment participation in the South Australian Public sector was 1.07%, indicating a decrease from 2003 (1.2%). The benchmarking information shown is obtained from 2004 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 0.80%

ATN Universities 0.61%

Adelaide University 0.50%

Flinders University 0.97%

UniSA Staff Diversity Survey – 0.81%

HRU database - 1.17%

Whilst there has been a slight decrease in the percentage of Indigenous employees at UniSA in 2005, benchmarking against other universities indicates that UniSA is one of the leading universities in relation to the percentage of Indigenous employees. However the DEST data is highly likely not to reflect actual numbers of Indigenous staff across universities as is the case at UniSA.


6.2 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT Description

Youth Employment at UniSA is defined as the employment (continuing and fixed-term) of general staff between 16 and 24 years of age. This is shown as a percentage of staff (FTE non-casual): Total Youth Employed (FTE) x 100% Total 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 13 shows Youth Employment as a percentage of general staff as at 31 March 2005. Table 13: Youth Employment as a Percentage of General Staff FTE

as at 31 March 2005

Youth 2005

(% FTE)

Total University general staff under 25 5.07%

Table 14 illustrates general staff Youth Employment (FTE) by Division and Portfolio as at the same date. Table 14: General Staff Youth Employment (FTE) by Division and Portfolio

as at 31 March 2005

Division and Portfolio Continuing Fixed-term Total

Division: Business 12 4 16 Division: Education, Arts & Social Science 3 5 8 Division: Health Sciences 3 4 7 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 5 1 6

Chancellery 0 1 1 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 5 3 8 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 1 1 2 Portfolio: International & Development 2 2 4 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 4 3 7 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 0 1 1

Grand Total 35 25 60


Summary

Youth employment represents 5.07% 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 of Business has the highest number of general staff youth employed (16 FTE) due to the youth traineeship scheme and the higher number of HEO3 positions. All general staff youth are employed in full-time positions.

Trend

2003 2004 2005

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

4.75% 5.27% 5.07%

The percentage of general staff under the age of 25 has slightly decreased from 5.27% (62.9 FTE) to 5.07% (60 FTE). The Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences and Division of Health Sciences increased their general staff youth employment from 4 to 8 and 4 to 7 FTE respectively from 2004. The Portfolio: International and Development is the only portfolio to slightly increase their youth employment numbers from 3.6 to 4 in 2005. UniSA’s commitment to youth employment is reflected through the Traineeship program. This year the HRU undertook an extensive review of the program. As a result the traineeship program will be centrally coordinated to bring greater focus to this area. We anticipate that improvements undertaken this year will lead to an increase in youth employed under this scheme over the next six to twelve months. 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 5.9% of youth employed as at June 2004. DEST data shows that the average percentage of general staff across all Australian Universities under 25 years of age is 5.47%. However this data uses headcount and not FTE. Data is unavailable for individual universities or groups of universities.


6.3 GENDER Description

Table 15 shows the percentage of female staff (headcount) for academic and general staff within each Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005. 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 15: Female Staff Percentages by Academic and General and Division and Portfolio

as at 31 March 2005

Academic Staff

General Staff Total

Division: Business 34% 84% 57% Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 56% 77% 62% Division: Health Sciences 62% 69% 64% Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 19% 61% 34%

Chancellery 80% 73% 74% Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 70% 73% 72% Portfolio: Finance & Resources N/A 37% 37% Portfolio: International & Development N/A 82% 82% Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change N/A 50% 50% Portfolio: Research & Innovation 19% 50% 35%

Total Across University 45% 65% 56%

Table 16 (over page) shows staff gender breakdown across all levels for academic and general staff as at 31 March 2005.

Table 16: Staff Gender (Headcount) across all Levels as at 31 March 2005

Due to employees holding multiple positions the headcount total for part-time positions does not add up

Continuing staff Fixed-Term staff Totals

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

Occupational Classifications

F M F M F M F M F M Vice Chancellor 1 1 1

Pro Vice Chancellors 3 4 3 4 7

Executive Directors 1 1 1 1 2 Academic Staff (T&R) Level E 12 32 2 8 25 4 20 63 83

Academic Staff (T&R) Level D 12 30 1 4 16 2 19 46 65

Academic Staff (T&R) Level C 67 76 5 1 47 71 2 2 121 150 271

Academic Staff (T&R) Level B 102 91 24 4 10 16 16 9 152 120 272

Academic Staff (T&R) Level A 25 14 7 5 10 10 5 8 47 37 84

Academic staff (Research) Level E 1 2 1 1 1 4 5

Academic Staff (Research) Level D 2 4 1 4 3 8 11

Academic Staff (Research) Level C 2 3 1 1 6 14 2 2 11 20 31

Academic Staff (Research) Level B 1 16 31 6 5 23 36 59

Academic Staff (Research) Level A 1 2 15 46 22 8 39 55 94

General Senior Executives (Level 10 and above)

9 3 1 5 20 15 23 38

General Staff HEO9 15 19 2 1 5 8 22 28 50

General Staff HEO8 35 37 3 11 15 3 1 52 53 105

General Staff HEO7 64 40 13 1 15 16 1 1 93 58 151



General Staff HEO4 145 51 41 1 37 16 21 1 244 69 313


General Staff HEO2 2 1 5 1 8 1 9

General Staff HEO1 1 1 1

General Staff Trainees 6 4 6 4 10

Grand Total 714 561 166 21 268 355 98 43 1246 980 2226



Summary

Women comprise 45% of academic staff and 65% 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 172 academic staff at Academic Level D and above (including the Vice Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellors). Forty-seven of these are female (27.3%) and 125 are male (72.7%). Of the 40 general staff at level HEO10 and above (including the Executive Directors), 16 are female (40%) and 24 are male (60%). At the lower general staff levels (HEO4 and below) there are 493 general staff; 360 of these are female (73.1%) and 133 are male (27%). The University 2005 Key Performance Indicator (KPI) targets for women are:

Academic staff – all levels: 47% Academic staff – Academic Level D and above: 29% General staff – HEO10 and above: greater than 43%

The University 2005 KPIs have not been achieved with general staff HEO10 and above women representing 40% of this senior group of staff, female academic staff all levels (45%) and female academics at Level D and above (27.3%). 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 2004, strategies implemented at the local level were documented in the workforce planning section of the Medium Term Strategic Plans 2004. Strategies identified at the local level include providing support in encouraging women to apply for academic promotion, providing resources for women to complete PhDs and ensuring women have appropriate professional development opportunities incorporated in their performance management plans. Since the last report the University has been awarded 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 2005

Academic staff – all levels 45% 45% 45%

Academic Staff – academic level D and above

25.4% 27.1% 27.3%

General staff – all levels 63% 64% 65%

General staff – HEO10 and above

37.5% 42.1% 40%

Total Workforce 55% 56% 56%

Female academic staff at all levels has remained consistent for the period, however female academic staff at level D and above has increased from 25.4% to 27.3% over a two year period. Female general staff at all levels has increased from 63% to 65% since 2003 with female general staff HEO10 and above decreasing slightly in 2005 to 40%.


Benchmarking

Women represent 50.5% of the total South Australian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002). The South Australian Public Sector as at June 2004 have 64.2% of their workforce female (43,754.0 FTE) however males continue to be highly represented in senior roles (66.4%) with only 33.6% of executives being female. The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program for 2004 (sample size 29) reports the average female participation rate in the workforce to be 52.49%. The percentage of female academic staff is reported at 40.12 and percentage of general staff to be 62.27. The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2004 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 39.47% 62.51% 52.69% 20.18%

ATN Universities 40.14% 60.08% 52.28% 23.59%

Adelaide University 31.89% 64.42% 50.02% 12.81%

Flinders University 46.25% 68.62% 59.56% 26.62%

University of SA 45% 65% 56% 27.3%

The Advancing the AVCC Action Plan for Women provides a cross-institution comparison based on 2004 DEST data. From this comparison of the 42 universities the following can be seen (based on FTE data);

• UniSA ranks 16th for representation of women in general staff with 62.7% within the range of approximately 35% at the Australian Maritime College to over 80% at the University of Notre Dame Australia.

• UniSA ranks 12th for representation of women in senior general staff (HEO10 and above) within the range of approximately 15% at the University of Southern Queensland to 65% at Charles Darwin University. In comparison to the ATN Universities, UniSA ranks second.

• UniSA ranks 12th for representation of women in academic staff within the range of approximately 57% at Bachelor to 18% at ADFA. In comparison to the ATN Universities, UniSA ranks first.

• UniSA ranks 9th for representation of women in senior academic staff (Level D and above) within the range of approximately 85% at Bachelor to 5% at ADFA. In comparison to the ATN Universities, UniSA ranks first.


6.4 COUNTRY OF BIRTH Description

Table 17 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 32.12% of staff. Table 17: Staff as a Percentage by Country of Birth as at 31 March 2005

Country of Birth Percentage

Australia 45.78%

No information 32.12%

United Kingdom 9.16%

China 1.26%

Italy 0.85%

Malaysia 0.81%

New Zealand 0.72%

USA 0.72%

India 0.67%

Netherlands 0.63%

Canada 0.58%

South Africa 0.45%

Other 6.25%

Total 100%

Summary

The majority of UniSA staff (45.78%) was born in Australia, followed by the United Kingdom (9.16%). Note: 1% of staff numbers equates to approximately 22 staff. Other countries of birth disclosed by staff include 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, Former Yugoslavia Republic, Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Finland, Iraq, Republic of Korea, Malta, Spain, Thailand, Tonga, Turkey, France, Iran, Switzerland, Zimbabwe and United Arab Emirates.


Trend

2003 2004 2005

Non-Australian born 24.75% 21.05% 22.10%

The percentage of staff that was born outside Australia has slightly increased from 21.05% to 22.10%. 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 83.51% of UniSA students (based on 2004 calendar year data) nominated Australia as their country of birth. Other countries represented include: United Kingdom (4.22%), Vietnam (1.16%), New Zealand (0.66%), Poland (0.48%), Malaysia (0.47%), Philippines (0.46%), Hong Kong (0.42%) and China (0.41%).


6.5 FIRST LANGUAGES Description

The measure of first language spoken by UniSA staff demonstrates the multicultural nature of the University and assists in measuring the increase in cultural diversity of the workforce. This data is difficult to collect as not all staff complete or return the Staff Diversity Survey. Information has not been collected for 32.26% of staff. (This figure differs slightly from the figure in Table 17 in that some respondents disclosed information on first language but did not indicate their country of birth). Table 18: First Language as a Percentage of Staff as at 31 March 2005

Language Percentage

English 58.81%

No information 32.26%

Chinese 1.39%

Italian 0.67%

Greek 0.63%

Other 6.24%

Total 100.00%

Summary

English remains the most common first language spoken by UniSA staff with 58.81% 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 (1.39%), Italian ( 0.67%) and Greek ( 0.63%). There are over 60 different first languages spoken by University staff including Mandarin, Polish, Russian, Netherlander, Cantonese, French, German, Persian, Romanian, Serbian, Spanish, Ukrainian, Bengali, Bulgarian, Hindi, Latvian, Korean, Swedish, Tagalog (Filipino dialect), 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, Catalan, Hungarian, Gujarati, Indonesian, Konkani, Shona, Singhalese, Telugu, Turkish and Marathi. Trend

2003 2004 2005

First language other than English 8.4% 7.98% 8.93%

The percentage of staff whose first language is not English has increased slightly from 7.98% to 8.93%. The top three non-English languages spoken remain the same over the three year period (Chinese, Italian and Greek). In comparing with last year’s data the increase can be partly explained by the increase in Indian dialects and African languages that are the University staff’s first language.


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 8.93% 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, 65.76% of the UniSA student population speak English as their first language (based on 2004 calendar year data). The following languages are spoken as a proportion of the student population: Chinese (8.43%), Cantonese (8.03%), Mandarin (3.43%), Vietnamese (1.60%), Malay (1.56%), Greek (0.75%), Italian (0.66%), Thai (0.58%) and Tamil (0.46%).


6.6 DISABILITY Description

Table 19 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 19: Number of Staff who identified as having a disability as at 31 March 2005

Number of Staff who identified as having a

Disability Percentage of Staff

(headcount)

Total University 72 3.23%

Summary

The number of staff identified as having a disability is 72 (3.23%). Of the 72, only 17 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:

• Maintaining the position Consultant: HR Services (Disability).

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

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

Currently UniSA hosts the Regional Disability Liaison Officer (RDLO) position on behalf of South Australian universities, a range of government departments and TAFE. The Director: Human Resources chairs a statewide advisory committee for the RDLO initiative. A Disability Action Plan implemented during 2005 has instigated some change in evacuation procedures for staff with disabilities during non-emergency situations and improvements to the disability section of the UniSA web site. An online accessibility working party also continues to review and improve the accessibility to the UniSA online environment. UniSA also initiates employment of people with disabilities through its Traineeship program. Trend

Percentage of staff who identified as having a disability 2003 2004

2005

Percentage of Staff (headcount) 4.17% 3.51% 3.23%

The number of staff who identified as having a disability has slightly decreased from 89 in 2003, 78 in 2004 and 72 in 2005. 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. DEST data is unavailable for this indicator.


7. AGE Description

This indicator assists the University in reviewing its age profile for workforce planning. The University’s ageing academic workforce brings about significant potential concerns (Professor Graeme Hugo, 20043). For example:

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

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

• ability to handled increased workloads • experience and perspective, and • 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 20 shows demographics of the median age by academic and general staff and gender across the University. Table 20: Median Age of General and Academic Staff by Gender as at 31 March 2005

Median Age

Male Female Uni-Wide

Academic 49 48 48

General 43 42 42

University-wide 46 44 45

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

3 Demographic Trends in Academic Workforces, presentation to AVCC DPVCs (Academic) Committee National Conference, Australian Defence Force Academy 19-20 May 2004

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

as at 31 March 2005

25%

20%

10%

15% AcademicGeneralUni W

0%

5%

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

ide

ummary

a slight gender difference in the median age of male and female eneral staff (43 and 42 years respectively) and a slight difference exists between male and

academics (49 and 48 years respectively).

The highest proportion of UniSA staff is in the 50-54 years age (16.4%, 365 s his differs slightly between academic and general staff where the highest percentage (2 199) o he 50-54 years age up and the highest percentage (16.7%, 208) of general staff is in the 40-44 year old age group. Where there is a large percentage of staff in one age bracket, an uneven balance may be created between experienced and inexperienced workers.

5.8% (253) of academic staff and 13.1% (163) of general staff are of potential retirement age

S

The median age of UniSA staff is 45 years, with a difference between males and females (46 and 44 years respectively). Academic staff have a higher median age (48 years) than general taff (42 years). There iss

gfemale

group taff). T0.3%,

f academic staff is in t gro

2(55 years or older), and 2.6% of academic staff are over 65 years of age compared to 0.4% of general staff members. Trend

University 2003 2004 2005

Academic Median Age 48 48 48

General Median Age 42 42 42

University-wide Median Age 44 44 45

he median age of the University’s academic workfT orce remains constant at 48 years and the

e of academic staff that are of potential retirement

%

median age of the general staff workforce has remained constant at 42 years.

here has been an increase in the percentagTage (55 years and above) from 22% in 2003, 25% in 2004 to 25.8% in 2005. The percentage of academic staff in the 50-54 years age group has continued to grow from 19in 2004 to 20.3% in 2005 and the percentage of academic staff eligible to retire has increased rom 25% in 2004 to 25.8% in 2005. f



lementation of an academic age profile

ation and fund changes. Superannuation changes include hoice of fund, greater employee and employer contribution flexibility and access to funds for

eligible employees nearing retirement and choosing to work part-time.

B

The South Australian median age of the total population ears of age fo ales and f The South Australian Public Service median age was 44.6 as at June 2004 (South Australian Public Sector Workforce information). Males (45.7 years) tended to be older than females (43.9 years) and 14.3% of all employees in the SA Public Service were aged 55 and over. T ng information is obtained from 2004 DEST data (excluding UniSA d t figures.

The increasing age profile of the University represents a challenge in maintaining service levelsand knowledge transfer. This strengthens the need for robust succession planning at the local

vel and in particular the requirement for the impleintervention strategy for the University as a whole. The HRU is currently reviewing the pre-separation (pre-retirement) guidelines to enhance their

se as an effective workforce planning tool. u The HRU will continue to support workforce flexibility by adapting employment strategies to

nable new superannuation legislec

enchmarking

is 38 y r both memales (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002).

he following benchmarkiata) utilising headcoun

Ag p e Grou(years)

Pe e rcentag

Academic Staff highest number age group All Australian Universities 45-49 15.6% Female 45-49 18.1% Male 50-54 16.3% UniSA 50-54 20.3% General Staff highest number age group All Australian Universities 45-49 14.8% Female 45-49 15.2% Male 45-49 14.3% UniSA 40-44 16.7% Total Staff highest number age group All Australian Universities 45-49 15.6% Female 45-49 16.1% Male 50-54 15.2% UniSA 50-54 16.4%

This d The a Unive

ata is unavailable for individual or groups of universities.

bove data shows that UniSA academic staff is older than the average of the Australianrsities.


Whils ortant to con information is provided by vivasa 2005 Indicators of the State of South Australia report.

. n ageing population has implications for education services and the structure of demand.

The following is an extract from the vivasa report:

South Australia’s population is projected to increase from 1.53 million in 2004 to 1.60 million in 2027, before declining to 1.48 million in 2051. This would result in a reduction from South Australia’s current 7.6% of Australia’s population to 5.6% in 2051. In addition, South Australia has an ageing population:in South Australia the proportion of the population aged 65 and over is projected to increase from 15.0% in 2004 to 31.1% in 2051; whereas for Australia overall the proportion of the population aged 65 and over is projected to increase from 12.9% in 2004 to 27.1% in 2051. If South Australia is to reverse its declining share of Australia’s economy, it needs to take initiatives to attract more people to South Australia and to retain younger people.

Table 21: Age Composition of Population Projection, 2004 and 2051 for South Australia

t it is difficult to compare the following statistics to the preceding information it is impsider when determining the University’s workforce planning for the future. The following

The proportion of the population over 65 is increasing faster in South Australia than other statesA

2005

his important?

s in ustralia. Industries with ageing workfo

related to their competitiveness as thei

As cited in vivasa: Indicators Report of the State of SA

hy is tWThe effect of ageing of the population combined with low rates of labour force participation and early exit from the workforce among the aged is an issue for South Australia, because

outh Australia has one of the highest proportions of persons aged over 60 yearSA rces are more at risk of losing knowledge and skills

r older employees retire.


How are we going? In South Australia, 37.4% of the labour force is aged 45 years or over, slightly higher than for Australia (35.6%). Compared with Australia, there are more South Australians in the labour

lia, 7.7% Australia), and 60-64 years (4.1% South Australia, 3.8% Australia), but consistently fewer aged 65+ (South Australia 1.6%, Australia 1.7%). The Education and Government, administration and defence workforces in South Australia have notably larger proportions of older workers (53.8% and 53% respectively).

(vivasa: Indicators Report of the State of SA 2005) Table 22: Australian and South Australian Proportion of Labour Force 45 Years or

Over as at 2004

force aged 55-59 years (8.2% South Austra

As cited in vivasa: Indicators Report of the State of SA 2005


8. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS 8.1 ACADEMIC STAFF QUALIFICATIONS Description

Table 23 shows academic staff highest completed qualification as a percentage of academic staff (headcount). Qualifications include doctorate, masters or other qualification for both continuing and fixed-term academic staff by Division and Portfolio. The Portfolios with academic staff are Access & Learning Support and Research & Innovation. (The Portfolio Pro Vice Chancellors are included in Chancellery). The percentage of academic staff with a doctorate is a corporate KPI. The 2005 corporate KPI target is 47%. Table 23: Academic Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of Academic

Staff by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Division and Portfolio Doctorate Masters Other Not

recorded

Division: Business 42.28% 34.90% 19.46% 3.36%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 39.53% 34.80% 22.97% 2.70%

Division: Health Sciences 41.44% 29.73% 25.23% 3.60%

Division: Information Technology Engineering & the Environment 60.87% 14.98% 19.32% 4.83%

Chancellery 40.00% 60.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 23.26% 41.86% 18.60% 16.28%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 77.97% 1.69% 15.25% 5.09%

University-wide 46.48% 27.93% 21.41% 4.18%

Table 24 (next page) shows academic staff qualifications as a percentage of academic staff by level (headcount) highest completed qualification. Qualifications include doctorate, masters or other qualification for both continuing and fixed-term academic staff by academic staff level.


Table 24: Academic Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of Academic Staff by Academic Level as at 31 March 2005

Division and Portfolio Doctorate Masters Other Not

recorded

Academic Staff (T&R) Level E 81.93% 8.43% 4.82% 4.82%

Academic Staff (T&R) Level D 84.61% 12.31% 3.08% 0.00%

Academic Staff (T&R) Level C 53.14% 35.42% 11.07% 0.37%

Academic Staff (T&R) Level B 21.77% 46.86% 27.68% 3.69%

Academic Staff (T&R) Level A 4.76% 23.81% 57.14% 14.29%

Academic Staff (Research) Level E 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Academic Staff (Research) Level D 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Academic Staff (Research) Level C 90.32% 6.45% 3.23% 0.00%

Academic Staff (Research) Level B 81.36% 0.00% 15.25% 3.39%

Academic Staff (Research) Level A 31.18% 11.83% 44.09% 12.90%

University-wide 46.48% 27.93% 21.41% 4.18%

Summary

As at 31 March 2005, 46.48% of academic staff held a doctoral qualification. This percentage is slightly below the 2005 corporate KPI target of 47%. As at 31 March 2005, the highest percentage by academic level holding a doctoral qualification is 100% of Associate Research Professors, followed by Academic Staff (Research) Level C at 90.32%, Associate Professors with 84.61% and Professors with 81.93%. Of concern is that 4.82% of academic staff (T & R) Level E have not recorded their academic qualifications. Trend

2003 2004 2005

Doctorate qualification percentage of academic staff 41.01% 42.86% 46.48%

There has been a continual increase in the percentage of academic staff who hold a doctoral qualification over the three year period from 41.01%in 2003 to 42.86% in 2004 and 46.48% in 2005. The greatest percentage increase has been in the Division of Business with an increase from 30.07% in 2003 to 37.65% in 2004 to 42.28% in 2005. All other Divisions also increased their percentage of academic staff with doctoral qualifications other the three year period. This continual increase in the percentage of academic staff that have completed a doctorate may be attributed to better mechanisms to capture data at the local level, academic staff completing doctorates and consistent recruitment practices of employing academic staff who have completed doctoral qualifications. With the endorsement by Senior Management Group of the ‘Guidelines for Academic Staff for the Commencement and Completion of Doctoral Qualifications’ in early 2005 which provides academic staff with guidelines on the commencement and completion of doctoral qualifications, the numbers of academic staff completing qualifications is expected to continue to increase.


Benchmarking

The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program for 2004 had an overall average result of 52.23% for doctoral qualifications awarded in 2004 (21 Universities were included in this sample). For ATN Universities the overall average result was 46.18% for doctoral qualifications awarded in 2004. The following benchmarking information is obtained from 2004 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 55.50%

ATN Universities 43.54%

Adelaide University 68.49%

Flinders University 48.64%

UniSA 46.48%


8.2 GENERAL STAFF QUALIFICATIONS Description

Table 25 shows general staff highest completed qualifications as a percentage of general staff Headcount Qualifications include doctorate, masters, postgraduate, bachelor or other qualification for both continuing and fixed-term general staff by Division and Portfolio. Advanced diploma, certificates and vocational courses are included in the ‘other’ category. Table 25: General Staff Highest Qualification Completed as a Percentage of General Staff

by Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Division and Portfolio Doctorate Masters Post-graduate Bachelor Other Not

recorded

Division: Business 0.00% 5.34% 6.87% 16.03% 12.22% 59.54%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 0.00% 1.61% 7.26% 16.94% 4.84% 69.35%

Division: Health Sciences 0.83% 2.48% 3.31% 17.35% 19.01% 57.02%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment

0.00% 2.73% 5.45% 14.55% 5.45% 71.82%

Chancellery 3.33% 10.00% 6.67% 20.00% 3.33% 56.67%

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 0.00% 5.86% 7.93% 17.59% 11.03% 57.59%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0.00% 1.16% 1.73% 5.78% 3.47% 87.86%

Portfolio: International & Development 0.00% 12.50% 2.78% 18.05% 2.78% 63.89%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 2.29% 3.05% 3.82% 31.30% 10.69% 48.85%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 6.25% 10.94% 4.68% 31.25% 17.19% 29.69%

University-wide 0.72% 4.57% 5.30% 17.66% 9.39% 62.36%

Summary

For this year the data is not significant, as the majority of general staff (62.36%) do not provide information about academic qualifications. From the information provided approximately a quarter (28.25%) of general staff have a qualification of bachelor or higher. The areas with the largest percentage of general staff with a bachelor qualification or higher are the Portfolio: Research & Innovation with 53.12%, Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change with 40.46% and Chancellery with 40%. The Divisions range from 22.73% (Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment) to 28.24% (Division of Business).


Trend

2003 2004 2005

Bachelor qualification or higher percentage of general staff n/a 26.63% 28.25%

The percentage of general staff who hold a bachelor qualification or higher continues to increase from 26.63% in 2004 to 28.25% in 2005. As data provided by staff is limited general staff should be encouraged at the local level to record academic qualifications. The local HR officers will be responsible for encouraging the recording of this data. 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 and data was not reported in their 2004 report. 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 UniSA encapsulated in its positioning statement is ‘educating professionals, creating and applying knowledge and serving the community’. Academic promotion, at all levels, is based on the merit of the applicant’s contribution towards this mission as expressed through his/her role within the University. Academic promotion occurs once a year and is based on criteria outlined in the Academic Promotion Policy HR26. Table 26 shows the number of applications for promotion by gender and by the academic level applied for by the applicant. Table 26: Number of Applications Received for Academic Promotion for 2004 round

Total BUE EASS HSC ITEE ALS R&I

Male 2 1 1 0 Level B

Female 4 2 2 0 Male 13 2 4 2 4 1

Level C Female 13 1 6 5 1 0 Male 21 2 5 5 6 3

Level D Female 10 1 3 5 1 0 Male 9 2 1 6 0

Level E Female 1 1 0 Male 45 7 9 9 16 4

Total Female 28 4 11 11 1 1 0

University Total 73 11 20 20 17 1 4

Table 27 shows the number of successful promotions by gender. Table 27: Number of Successful Applications for Academic Promotion for 2004 round

Total BUE EASS HSC ITEE ALS R&I

Male 1 1 Level B

Female 1 1 Male 10 1 4 1 3 1

Level C Female 8 4 3 1 Male 10 2 2 3 3

Level D Female 3 3 Male 6 1 1 4

Level E Female 1 1 Male 27 3 6 4 10 4

Total Female 13 8 4 1

University Total 40 3 14 8 10 1 4


Table 28 shows the academic promotion rate and the academic application for promotion rate by all academic staff and by gender. Academic application for promotion rate is the rate of academic staff that apply for academic staff promotions. This index may show the level of interest from academic staff in seeking a promotion. It has been calculated with the following formula:

Number of academic staff applications for promotions A-D x 100% Academic staff headcount levels A-D Academic promotion rate is the rate of successful academic staff promotions. This index shows the rate of career progression for academic staff. It has been calculated with the following formula:

Number of academic staff promoted A-D x 100% Academic staff headcount levels A-D Table 28: Academic Application for Promotion Rate and Academic Promotion Rate for

Academic Promotion for 2004 Round

Male Female All Academic

Staff

Academic Application for Promotion Rate 9.53% 6.75% 8.22%

Academic Promotion Rate 5.72% 3.13% 4.51%

Summary

Seventy-three academic staff applied for promotion in 2004: 28 female and 45 male. Of the 40 staff promoted, 13 (32.5%) were female and 27 (67.5%) were male. The highest number of academic staff applying for promotion in 2004 was in the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences and the Division of Health Sciences with 27.4% of applications each (20 applications). The academic application for promotion rate and academic promotion rate is consistently lower for female academic staff showing that a lower percentage of female academic staff (6.75%) are applying for academic promotion which leads to a smaller female academic staff promotion rate (3.13%).


Trend

University-wide Academic Promotions 2002 2003

2004

Number of Female Applications 30 29 28

Number of Male Applications 30 28 45

Number of Successful Females 20 16 13

Number of Successful Males 15 17 27

Academic Promotion Application Rate n/a 6.58% 8.22%

Academic Promotion Rate n/a 3.81% 4.51%

Over the three year period the number of applications received for academic promotions has fluctuated with 60 in 2002, 57 in 2003 to 73 in 2004. The gender balance of applications had remained relatively consistent in 2002 and 2003 with an equal number of males and females applying each year however, in 2004 the percentage of males increased to 61.64% with 17 less females than males applying for academic promotion. There was a slight decrease in the percentage of staff promoted from 58% in 2002 to 57% in 2003 with another slight decrease in 2004 with 55% of staff promoted. Over the three year period there has been a continued slight decrease in the success rate of females from 67% in 2002 to 55% in 2003 and to 46% in 2004. The academic promotion application rate has increased from 6.58% in 2003 to 8.22% in 2004 showing that a greater percentage of academic staff are applying for academic promotion. The academic promotion rate has increased from 3.81% in 2003 to 4.51% in 2004 showing that a greater percentage of academic staff received an academic promotion. Benchmarking

The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program for 2004 shows the average academic promotion rate for all universities (sample size 25) to be 5.29%. For ATN Universities the average academic promotion rate was 5.37%. Using the same formula (40 academic staff promotions divided by 983 academic staff headcount levels A-D) to calculate for UniSA, the academic promotion rate is 4.51%. The Australian Universities Benchmarking Program for 2004 shows the average academic application for promotion rate for universities (sample size 25) to be 7.31%. For ATN Universities the average academic application for promotion rate was 9.5%. Using the same formula (73 academic applications for promotion divided by 983 academic staff headcount levels A-D) to calculate for UniSA, the academic application for promotion rate is 8.22%.


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 HRU. Table 29 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 30 shows applications for reclassification by Division and Portfolio for the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005. Clause 30.7 of the UniSA Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004 removed the over barrier (OB) salary increments in general staff levels 3, 4 and 5 therefore the positions that were OB are now consolidated with their respective general staff levels. Table 29: Number of Applications for Reclassification, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

General Staff Level Applications for

Reclassifications by Substantive Position

Classification level increased

Classification level remained

the same HEO1

HEO2

HEO3 6 5 1

HEO4 14 10 4

HEO5 8 4 4

HEO6 6 5 1

HEO7 3 2 1

HEO8 3 3

HEO9

HEO10

Total University 40 26 14 Table 30: Number of Applications for Reclassifications by Division and Portfolio,


Division and Portfolio No. of Reclassifications

Division: Business 7

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 2

Division: Health Sciences 10

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 3

Chancellery 3

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 5

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 1

Portfolio: International & Development 1

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 4

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 4

University-wide 40


Summary

Of the 40 applications for reclassification, 65% resulted in an increase of classification level. The majority of the applications received for reclassification were at Higher Education Officer (HEO) 4 (14 applications, 35%) and HEO5 (8 applications, 20%) level. Most of the applications were received from the Division of Health Sciences (10 applications, 25%) and the Division of Business (7 applications, 18%). The number of applications represents a relatively low percentage of general staff (40 applications, 3.2% of general staff headcount). Trend

Number of applications for reclassifications 2003 2004

2005


% resulted in an increase of classification level 85% 74% 65%

Over the three year period the number of applications for reclassification has consistently increased. There has been an increase of 14.29% in applications for reclassifications from 2004 to 2005. The HRU in consultation with the unions reviewed the reclassification process to ensure it is accessible to all staff which may help explain the rise in number of applications for reclassification. As per Clause 30.5 of the UniSA Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004 the HRU is currently working with the unions reviewing the general staff classification tool for reclassification evaluations. It is envisaged that an outcome of this Working Party will be to cease using the exhaustive CAJE questionnaire. This may impact on the future figures as more staff may apply for reclassification. The HRU is also currently developing Classification Linking Guidelines for general staff (HEO6 and above) for an eighteen month trial. This may impact by decreasing the number of general staff applying for reclassification. The HRU will continue to monitor figures. The majority of the applications received at HEO4 (incorporating HEO4 OB) has remained consistent. This is consistent with the largest percentage of general staff (25.1%) at the HEO4 level within the University. 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 available for general staff. Table 31 shows the number of higher duties opportunities by the classification level of the employee’s substantive position. Table 31: Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Substantive Classification Level,


Number of HDA opportunities General Staff Substantive Classification

Female Male Total

HEO1 HEO2 7 1 8 HEO3 48 17 65 HEO4 107 26 133 HEO5 46 25 71 HEO6 23 20 43 HEO7 23 21 44 HEO8 8 12 20 HEO9 6 8 14 HEO10 & above 2 6 8

Grand Total 270 136 406

Table 32 shows the same information detailed by Division and Portfolio based on the area that provided the higher duties opportunity. Table 32: Number of Higher Duties Opportunities by Division and Portfolio,


Number of HDA opportunities Division and Portfolio

Female Male Total

Division: Business 49 10 59 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 49 12 61 Division: Health Sciences 25 7 32 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 14 5 19

Chancellery 8 8 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 61 21 82 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 23 42 65 Portfolio: International & Development 7 1 8 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 16 34 50 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 18 4 22



Summary

The highest number of opportunities of higher duties was to general staff at classification HEO4 (133). Sixty-seven percent of higher duties opportunities were awarded to females, correlating with females comprising 65% of general staff numbers. The Portfolio: Access and Learning Support had the highest number of general staff higher duties opportunities (82), which represented 20% of the opportunities. Trend

Number of opportunities for higher duties 2003 2004

2005


There has been a 12% increase in the number of higher duties opportunities since the last report. If each opportunity was spread equally across the University, in theory 32.5% of general staff (headcount) may have had an opportunity to undertake higher duties during this period. The HRU is currently reviewing the utilisation of higher duties allowances with a view to designing guidelines to ensure that higher duties are used appropriately across the organisation. In future the number of staff receiving higher duties is expected to decrease once the guidelines are implemented as higher duties are sometimes used where other tools may be more effective, for example reclassification or market allowances. Benchmarking

No data available.


9.4 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE PROGRAM Description

Professional Experience Program (PEP) for academic staff is intended to provide for a period of professional development to the mutual benefit of a staff member and the University. A member of the academic staff in the range Levels A - E has the right to apply for PEP under the conditions of the Professional Experience Program Policy (HR-9.1). Table 33 shows the number of academic staff who accessed PEP during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 by Division and Portfolio. This means that a staff member who commenced PEP leave prior to the 1 April 2004 but was still on PEP leave on the 1 April 2004 has been counted in this data. Table 33: Number of Academic Staff Accessed Professional Experience Program by

Division and Portfolio, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Division and Portfolio Total

Division: Business 15

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 37

Division: Health Sciences 7

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 14

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 7

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 0

University-wide 80

Summary

Eighty (8%) of academic staff are recorded as accessing PEP leave during the reporting period, representing a very low participation rate in the scheme. The highest number of academic staff accessing PEP leave, 37 (46% of total number accessing PEP leave) was in the Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences. Trend

As this is the first year of reporting, no analysis is available. Benchmarking

No data available.


9.5 STAFF STUDY SUPPORT Description

Staff Study Support is designed to assist staff in the successful completion of an approved program of study. All staff other than hourly paid staff and staff on a contract of less than 12 months, who are undertaking an approved program of study in addition to their normal duties are eligible to apply for study support under Staff Study Support Policy (HR 13-1). This indicator provides a measure of staff undertaking external development opportunities. Table 34 shows the number of staff paid Staff Study Support in 2005 for study undertaken in 2004. Table 34: Number of Staff paid Staff Study Support by Division and Portfolio,


Number of Staff Study Support Division and Portfolio

Academic General Total

Division: Business 3 7 10 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 3 7 10 Division: Health Sciences 1 4 5 Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 2 4 6

Chancellery 0 0 0 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 1 22 23 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 0 4 4 Portfolio: International & Development 0 1 1 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 0 8 8 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 0 1 1


Summary

Sixty eight (3%) of general staff are recorded as accessing Staff Study Support during the reporting period, representing a very low participation rate in the scheme. The highest number of staff who received staff study support was in the Portfolio: Access and Learning Support (23 staff, 33.8%). Trend

As this is the first year of reporting, no analysis is available. Benchmarking

No data available.


10. LEAVE 10.1 PLANNED AND UNPLANNED ABSENTEEISM Description

Unplanned absenteeism is 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 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 35. Table 35: Unplanned, Planned and Total Absenteeism Annualised by Academic and

General, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Academic Staff General Staff

Division and Portfolio PlannedWorking

Days

UnplannedWorking

Days

Academic Staff Total

Absenteeism Planned Working

Days

Unplanned

Working Days

General Staff Total

Absenteeism

Division: Business 7.60% 0.76% 8.36% 7.44% 4.19% 11.63%

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 9.06% 1.59% 10.65% 9.12% 3.29% 12.41%

Division: Health Sciences 8.40% 1.74% 10.14% 8.38% 2.81% 11.19%

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 7.53% 0.81% 8.34% 8.13% 3.26% 11.39%

Chancellery 10.03% 0.36% 10.39% 7.57% 1.88% 9.45%

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 8.33% 1.53% 9.86% 9.86% 3.25% 13.11%

Portfolio: Finance & Resources n/a n/a n/a 9.89% 4.12% 14.01%

Portfolio: International & Development n/a n/a n/a 8.07% 2.97% 11.04%

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change n/a n/a n/a 7.98% 3.41% 11.39%

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.68% 2.58% 12.26%

Total University 8.17% 1.27% 9.44% 8.90% 3.39% 12.29%


Table 36 shows the percentage of total unplanned and planned absenteeism for all staff by Division and Portfolio. Table 36: Unplanned and Planned Absenteeism Annualised by Division and Portfolio for

all staff and Total University, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Division and Portfolio Planned Absenteeism

Unplanned Absenteeism Total

Division: Business 7.53% 2.23% 9.76% Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 9.08% 2.11% 11.19% Division: Health Sciences 8.39% 2.12% 10.51% Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 7.75% 1.71% 9.46%

Chancellery 8.00% 1.62% 9.62% Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 9.66% 3.04% 12.70% Portfolio: Finance & Resources 9.89% 4.12% 14.01% Portfolio: International & Development 8.07% 2.97% 11.04% Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 7.98% 3.41% 11.39% Portfolio: Research & Innovation 8.09% 1.78% 9.87%

Total University 8.59% 2.48% 11.07%

Summary

The unplanned absenteeism rate (2.48%) means that on average staff members took 6.15 days off as unplanned days. Unplanned absenteeism for general staff (3.39%, 8.40 average days) is higher than for academic staff (1.27%, 3.15 average days). The lower average days for academic staff is likely to be a reflection of the difficulty in ensuring leave forms are completed by academic staff. The total planned absenteeism rate of 8.59% equates to approximately 21.3 days off per year for each staff member. Trend

2003 2004 2005

Planned Absenteeism 8.60% 8.01% 8.59%

Unplanned Absenteeism 2.34% 2.15% 2.48%

Total Absenteeism 10.94% 10.17% 11.07%

The total absenteeism rate increased in the period 2004 to 2005 up to 11.07% with a slight increase in both planned absenteeism and unplanned absenteeism. The increase in planned absenteeism may indicate that staff are taking their leave entitlements on a more regular basis. The increase in unplanned absenteeism may indicate staff are taking more sick days or carer’s leave. It may also indicate that staff are completing the appropriate leave forms as a result of the HRU’s continued pressure to ensure both academic and general staff complete leave forms as required by the Auditor General’s Department.


Benchmarking For information purposes the following data is provided, however it is not a direct comparison to the data provided for UniSA. The Mercer data reports that for organisations with over 1000 employees the average number of sick days per staff FTE per year is 7.18 days including both paid and unpaid sick leave (Mercer HR Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor, September 2004). For all Australian industries the median sick leave days per employee has increased from 4.5 days in 2000 to 5.4 days in 2004. Overall the general trend in sick leave over the last few years has been an increase in sick leave which Mercer explain by the impact of longer working hours, the increase in stress-related illness as workload increases and the trend for organisations to allow sick leave to be used to care for sick family members. Over the period July 2003 to June 2004 the level of sick leave in the South Australian Public Sector was an average of 7.4 days per FTE. The trend in the South Australian Public Sector over the past four years has been an increasing level of average sick leave days.


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 UniSA Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004 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 37 shows the average recreation leave liability per staff member. It is represented as average working days per staff member (headcount) by academic and general and Division and Portfolio. Recreation leave liability average days are calculated by using the following formula:

Total Recreation Leave Liability Total Staff Numbers (Headcount)

Table 37: Average Recreation Leave Liability for Academic and General by Division

and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Award Division and Portfolio Average Accumulated

Recreation Leave (working days)

Academic Division: Business 21.0 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 17.3 Division: Health Sciences 15.1

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 20.3

Chancellery 13.0 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 10.2 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 18.0

Academic Average 17.7

General Division: Business 15.9 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 15.8 Division: Health Sciences 16.6


Chancellery 17.1 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 16.8 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 19.6 Portfolio: International & Development 15.0 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 17.6 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 15.3

General Average 17.1

Whole University Average 17.4


Summary On average academic staff have a slightly higher recreation leave liability of 17.7 days per staff member when compared to general staff at 17.1 days. Trend

Average recreational leave liability 2003 2004

2005

Academic Average 16.4 16.7 17.7

General Average 16.8 16.5 17.1

Whole University Average 16.6 16.6 17.4

Average recreational leave liabilities for 2005 are the highest they have been during the three year period (2003 – 2005) with 17.7 days for academic staff, 17.1 days for general staff and 17.4 days for University average. Academic staff have a slightly higher recreation leave liability than general staff. The increase in the average recreational leave liability to 17.4 days for the whole University correlates with the increase in the number of academic and general staff in 2005 to 449 who have been identified as having excess leave as at 31 March 2005 (as per the relevant Enterprise Agreement, 20 days for academic staff and 40 days for general staff). This data may show that staff are not taking their recreational leave entitlements. It is important for staff to take recreational leave entitlements as it assists in decreasing unplanned absenteeism, improves employee productivity, increases employee satisfaction and improves work/life balances. (Corporate Leadership Council, January 2003). The Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004, Clause 67.1.1 states

The parties agree that the University will implement leave management plans to encourage staff to take their recreation leave as soon as possible in the year following its accrual. Recreation leave shall normally be taken under mutually agreed arrangements and shall not accumulate (as at 31 March of each year) beyond: a) 40 days’ entitlement for general staff. b) 20 days’ entitlement for academic staff.

without prior approval of the Director: Human Resources (or nominee). If a staff member accumulates more than the maximum allowable days, the Director: Human Resources (or nominee) may direct the staff member to take the excess leave. The HRU has developed guidelines “Directing Staff to Take Recreation Leave” for implementation by the Director: Human Resources or her nominee, which in this case is the Divisional Pro Vice Chancellors, Portfolio Pro Vice Chancellors and Executive Directors. These guidelines have been circulated to these officers. Benchmarking

No data available.


10.3 LONG SERVICE LEAVE LIABILITY Description

Long service leave liability is shown as average calendar days per staff member (headcount) by academic and general and Division and Portfolio (Table 38). 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 leave liability. The rate of accumulation of long service is 91 days for the first 10 years service and 9.1 days per year for subsequent years. 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 are calculated by using the following formula:

Long Service Leave Liability Total Staff Numbers (Headcount)

Table 38: Long Service Leave Liability Average Days for Academic and General by

Division and Portfolio as at 31 March 2005

Award Division and Portfolio Average Accumulated

Long Service Leave (Calendar days)

Academic Division: Business 58.87 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 66.52

Division: Health Sciences 49.62


Chancellery 129.54 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 42.31 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 38.33

Academic Average 55.64

General Division: Business 21.06 Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 55.19 Division: Health Sciences 43.95


Chancellery 36.79 Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 49.94 Portfolio: Finance & Resources 62.69 Portfolio: International & Development 29.84 Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 45.59 Portfolio: Research & Innovation 39.41

General Average 46.91

Whole University Average 50.76


Summary A large long service liability to the University causes a large financial liability to the organisation. On average academic staff have a higher long service leave liability (55.64 calendar days per staff member) when compared to general staff, (46.91). This correlates with academic staff having on average a longer length of service hence more time to accrue long service leave. Trend

Long service liability average days 2003 2004

2005

Academic Average 60.00 58.58 55.64

General Average 50.10 46.14 46.91

Whole University Average 54.30 51.42 50.76

The average long service liability of all staff has decreased from 54.3 days in 2003 and 51.42 days in 2004 to 50.76 days in 2005. Academic staff averages (60, 58.58 and 55.64) have continually decreased over the period. The increase in applications from staff wishing to exercise their entitlement to payment in lieu of long service leave (Clause 68.3.5 of the Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004) has helped in decreasing the liability. However as 18.69% of our staff are in the perceived retirement age of over 55 this liability needs to be monitored carefully. The HRU has provided advice that encourages that all pre-retirement contracts contain a clause seeking a commitment to use all or a portion of outstanding long service leave during the life of the contract. Benchmarking

No data available.


10.4 FAMILY FRIENDLY LEAVE INITIATIVES Description

Table 40 shows the number of staff who were committed to flexible work arrangements of a reduced work year, 1/2 leave, 4/5 leave or who took paid maternity leave for the period 1 April 2004 to 39 March 2005. A reduced work year is where a staff member receives additional unpaid leave within a twelve month period in return for a prorata reduction in their annual salary. The reduced salary is averaged over the year to allow the staff member to be paid during the extra weeks leave. This includes 46/52, 47/52, 48/52, 49/52, 50/52 and 51/52 leave. 1/2 leave is an arrangement where a staff member can take 6 months or 12 months unpaid leave over a 1 to 2 year period and have the reduced salary spread over the 1 to 2 years. 4/5 leave allows staff to take 12 months unpaid leave and the reduction in salary is spread over the 5 years. During this reporting period the UniSA Academic and General Staff Enterprise Agreement 2004 and the UniSA Document Services Enterprise Agreement 2004 were certified and new types of family leave were provided to staff, due to the inconsistency in application and the short time of application these extra leave types are not shown. However next year the HRU will include statistics on family responsibility leave, pre-natal leave, adoption leave, phased in return to work, partner leave, foster parent leave and child rearing leave. Currently 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 HRU is investigating the possibility of capturing the data differently in order to more accurately reflect these statistics in the next report.

Table 39: Take up of Family Friendly Leave Initiatives by Division and Portfolio, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

Division and Portfolio Reduced work year 1/2 Leave 4/5 Leave

Paid Maternity

Leave Division: Business 5 0 0 6

Division: Education, Arts & Social Sciences 1 0 0 6

Division: Health Sciences 0 0 0 4

Division: Information Technology, Engineering & the Environment 0 0 0 6

Chancellery 3 0 0 0

Portfolio: Access & Learning Support 13 0 0 7

Portfolio: Finance & Resources 1 0 1 0

Portfolio: International & Development 2 0 0 6

Portfolio: Organisational Strategy & Change 1 0 0 2

Portfolio: Research & Innovation 2 0 0 2

University-wide 28 0 1 39


Summary

A total of 68 staff participated in family friendly initiatives. Out of 29 staff recorded as utilising the Reduced Work Year component of the program, 3 were male. Twenty nine staff represents a 1% participation rate across the UniSA workforce. This is a very low participation rate. Thirty nine staff took paid maternity leave. This represents 3% of female staff (excluding casuals).

Trend

Take up of Family Friendly Initiatives in total 2003 2004

2005


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 reduced work year leave from 21 in the 2003-2004 period to 29 in the 2004-2005 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 40 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 2004 to 31 March 2005. The percentage of total staff who submitted a claim utilises the University’s headcount figures (excluding casuals). Due to the confidential nature of workers compensation claims it is not possible to show data broken down by Division and Portfolio as individuals may be identified from this data. Table 40: 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 56 56 22 2.52%

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 2004 to 31 March 2005

02468

101214161820

Caught in orBetween

Chemicaleffects

Laceration RepetitiveMovement

Slip/trip/fall Sprain/Strain Stress

Event

No

of C

laim

s


Definitions

Caught in or Between – an injury to a person or body part when caught or trapped in or between two objects. Chemical effects – an injury to a person from exposure to chemical products over a period of time. Other Events - includes any injury that does not fall into the specified categories. Summary

There were a total of 56 workers compensation claims registered between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2005. A total of 56 staff submitted a claim, which represents 2.52% of staff. The data indicates that the three major causes of injury or illness to staff for the reporting period were:

• Repetitive Movement from working at computer based workstations (15 injuries), • Sprain and Strain from manual handling tasks (18 injuries), and • Slips/Trips/Falls (11 injuries).

This information directs the targeting of preventative strategies across the University. Included in these strategies was the introduction of the WorkPace software 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) in 2005 and 2006 as staff use the program. The University has also introduced an online learning program in occupational health safety and welfare (OHS&W), this program was introduced to assist with the awareness of OHS&W matters including manual handling. It is anticipated that with an increase in awareness of OHS&W hazard and risks that the injury rate will decrease. Trend


Number of Individual Claims 68 55 56

This data indicates that the number of claims registered by staff in 2005 had increased by 1 representing a 1.8% increase in comparison to the 2004 statistic. However, this statistic represents a 17.6% decrease when compared to the 2003 statistic. The three major causes of injury/illness to staff over the three year period have remained relatively consistent as sprains/strains from manual handling tasks, repetitive movement and slips, trips and falls. Over the three year period sprains and strain injuries from manual handling tasks have increased from 12 to 15, repetitive movement injuries have increased from 14 to 18 and slips, trips and falls have increased from 10 to 11. This may be attributed to staff having a relatively low awareness level for the prevention measures to be taken for these types of work tasks. It is anticipated that with the further implementation of the OHS&W online learning programs, introduction of the WorkPace program, and an increase in the general awareness of staff, that these types of injuries will decrease in the next reporting period. Benchmarking

No data available


1.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS LOST Description

Table 41 shows total number of days lost due to work related injuries that resulted in a workers compensation claim during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005. Table 41: Total Number of Days Lost Due to Workers Compensation Claims,


No of Days

Total University 376

Summary

376 days were lost due to 22 lost time workers compensation claims. This high number of days lost can be attributed to 3 claims that were lodged in the reporting period which account for, to date, a total of 273 days lost. These 3 claims represent 73% of the total days lost for the reporting period. Trend

Total Number of Days Lost due to Workers Compensation Claims

2003 2004 2005


The total of 376 lost time days is 25 days more than the total lost time days for the same period in 2004, an increase of 7.1%. The increase in lost time days in the 2005 reporting period can be attributed to complications with a medical treatment and two staff that required a bilateral carpal tunnel release related to repetitive movement injuries. 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 2004 to 31 March 2005 is shown in Table 42. Table 42: Total Cost of Workers Compensation Claims, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Total Cost

Total University $125,247

Summary

The total cost of workers compensation claims registered for the reporting period is $125,247. A significant proportion of this cost is due to six claims lodged during the reporting period. These six claims to date have contributed to $87,170 of the total cost for claims. The cost of these six claims to date represents 69.6% of the total cost to injuries/illnesses registered in the reporting period. Trend

Total Cost of Claims 2003 2004 2005

Total University $126,664 $105,850 $125,247

The total cost of claims over the period has increased by $19,397 representing a 18.3 % increase in costs. However, over the three year reporting period there has been an overall 1.1% decrease. The types of injuries that have attributed to the greatest amount in the total cost during the reporting period are repetitive strain injuries and slips, trips and falls. Benchmarking

No data available.


1.4 INCIDENCE RATE Description

The average time lost rate shown in Table 43 is the average time lost per incident of injury/illness for the reporting period. This average time lost rate provides a measure of the severity of incidents being experienced by the University. The incidence rate is calculated as: Number of lost time Incidents in the Period x 100 Number of Staff (Headcount, excluding casuals) The ‘number of incidences in the period’ refers to all cases of lost-time injury/illness which were recorded in the period. Table 43: Incidence Rate, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Incidence Rate

Total University 0.99

Summary

The data indicates that there is marginally less than 1 workers compensation claim for every 100 staff members. The goal of the University through Occupational Health and Safety Services will be to further improve this Incidence Rate during the next reporting period.

Trend

Incidence Rate 2003 2004 2005

Total University 1.36 0.99 0.99

There has been a 27% decrease in the incidence rate over the three year period. This indicates that the number of incidents of lost time injury/illness has stabilised in real terms in relation to the total numbers of staff. Benchmarking

The Mercer HR Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor 2004 reports the average lost time occurrence incidence rate for organisations with more than 1000 staff as 1.24. The University’s stabilized performance may be attributed to continuous improvement in OHS&W practices across the University and the increased awareness of staff by completing a range of online OHS&W learning programs.


1.5 FREQUENCY RATE Description

The frequency rate shown in Table 44 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 44: Frequency Rate, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Frequency Rate


Summary

This data indicates that just over 5 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 for the next reporting period.

Trend

Frequency Rate 2003 2004 2005


The frequency rate has remained relatively consistent over the reporting period. Benchmarking

The Mercer HR Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor 2004 reports the lost time occurrence frequency rate for organisations with more than 1000 staff as 7.56 and all Australian industries as 13.74 (this includes manufacturing industries). The University data of 5.06 shows that the incidence rate is significantly lower than the average.


1.6 AVERAGE TIME LOST RATE Description

The average time lost rate shown in Table 45 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 45: Average Time Lost Rate, 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005

Average Time Lost

Rate (days)


Summary

The data indicates that each accepted lost time claim recorded, resulted in an average of 17.09 days lost time. This represents an overall increase of 7.1% when compared to 2004. The goal of the University through 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 of over 17 days per claim is largely due to 3 claims that were registered in the reporting period, which so far have contributed to 273 lost time days. Evaluating the average time lost rate excluding these 3 claims, results in an average time lost rate of 4.68 days. Trend

Average Time Lost Rate 2003 2004 2005


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

The Mercer HR Human Resources Effectiveness Monitor 2004 reports the average lost time rate for organisations with more than 1000 staff as 21.1 days and the all Australian industries (includes manufacturing industries) average is 22.33 days. The Australian Universities HR Benchmarking Program reports the 2004 average time lost rate, using a sample of 22 Universities, to be 26.39 days.

ANNUAL WORKFORCE PROFILE REPORT 2004-2005w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/pdf/2005_annual_report.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of ANNUAL WORKFORCE PROFILE REPORT 2004-2005w3.unisa.edu.au/hrm/pdf/2005_annual_report.pdf ·...