DTI Logo Fair Work Logo


Fair Work Act 2009                                                    






s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards


Four yearly review of modern awards


Educational Services Award




10.11 AM, FRIDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2016


Continued from 1/09/2016





MS GALE:  Good morning.  The last witness we had yesterday dealt with - I'm sorry, not the last witness, the first witness we had yesterday, Dr Kenny, in the course of his evidence a question arose as to a survey instrument which he spoke about.  The NTU has, as requested, provided a copy of that survey instrument to the Commission and to the parties by email.  I would like to tender that survey instrument.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you.  That will be exhibit AF.





VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes.  Anything arising from that, Mr Pill, Ms Pugsley?


MR PILL:  No, other than to confirm that I had a chance to look at the instrument overnight.  I have indicated to Ms Gale, on the basis of the instrument, we would not be seeking to recall Dr Kenny.  Obviously whilst the matters are fresh in the mind of the Commission, the main difference between this and the answer document is that there is some preamble that appears in the various sections including, for example, if you look at the top of the front page, section A, we see the language of:  "Academic workload remains one of the key areas of concern for our membership."  The evidence indicates that many staff are working longer hours and enduring increasingly heavy  performance expectations.  So we have some contextualising of the questions that follow and as the witness gave evidence ahead of different sections which are numbered with capital letters, there is some preamble wording that precedes the questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  I take it you will address it in submissions as to the weight of the survey.


MR PILL:  Yes, your Honour.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Ms Pugsley, anything arising?


MS PUGSLEY:  Nothing further.


MS GALE:  Your Honour, we seek to call Andrew Giles as a witness.

<ANDREW GILES, AFFIRMED                                                       [10.13 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE                                     [10.13 AM]


MS GALE:  Thank you, Mr Giles.  Could you please state your name and address again for the record?‑‑‑Andrew Giles, (address supplied).


Have you prepared a statement in these proceedings?‑‑‑I have.


Have you had an opportunity to review it recently?‑‑‑I have.


I understand there are a number of corrections that you wish to make to that statement?‑‑‑Yes.


They are as set out in the copy that has just been provided to the Bench and to my friends at the Bar table.  Can I just confirm with you that on page 4, in paragraph 11, in three instances you wish to change the word "is" to "was"?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 14, in the first line, to change the word "are" to "were"?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 17, in the first line, to change "provides" to "provided"?‑‑‑Yes.


In the second line, "is" to "was"?‑‑‑Yes.


In paragraph 19, to add the word "are" before the last word of the paragraph?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 21, to make several changes from present to past tense as follows.  In the first line, to change the word "are" to "were"?‑‑‑Yes.


After the word "TOIL", to change "is" to "was"?‑‑‑Yes.


In the next line to change the word "are" to "were"?‑‑‑Yes.


In the next line to change the word "advise" to "advised"?‑‑‑Yes.

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                               XN MS GALE


In the next line to change "fail" to "failed"?‑‑‑Yes.


And "is" to "was"?‑‑‑Yes.


In the next line to change "is" to "was"?‑‑‑Yes.


In the last two lines in each instance to change the words "has been" to the word "was"?‑‑‑Yes.


In paragraph 22, in the second line, to change the word "is" to "was"?‑‑‑Yes.


In the third line to change "ensure" to "ensured"?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 24, in the first line to change "is" to "was"?‑‑‑Yes.


In the second to change "have" to "had"?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 26, in the third line to change the word "is" the first time it occurs to "was"?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 27, in the first line to change "are" to "were"?‑‑‑Yes.


With those changes, do you say that this statement is true and correct?‑‑‑I do.


Do you adopt it as your evidence in these proceedings?‑‑‑I do.


Thank you.  No further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Exhibit AG.  Any objections?




CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY                                  [10.17 AM]

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                     XXN MS PUGSLEY


MS PUGSLEY:  Good morning, Mr Giles?‑‑‑Good morning.


So you ceased employment with Deakin University in August 2013; is that correct?‑‑‑That's correct.


Are you currently employed by a university?‑‑‑No.


As set out in your attachment AG1, for the last 10 years of your employment at Deakin, you were employed at level HEW10; is that correct?‑‑‑Yes.


At the time of your departure from Deakin, you were covered by an enterprise agreement?‑‑‑Yes.


Are you aware that since your departure, a new enterprise agreement has come into place at Deakin?‑‑‑Yes.


But that came into effect at the end of 2013 after your departure?‑‑‑I'm not sure of the date, but I'm sure you are probably correct.


You were probably aware that there was bargaining going on around about that time?‑‑‑Yes.


HEW10 is the highest level of general staff at Deakin, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.


They have a one to 10 level structure.  I am going to hand you a copy of the enterprise agreement under which you were employed at the time of your departure?‑‑‑Thank you.


Can I ask you to turn to page 61 of that document.  So schedule A, general staff salaries are set out on page 60 and 61, and in the middle of 61 there is HEW10 which unlike the other levels only has one step?‑‑‑M'mm.


As at 30 April 2012, the annual salary was $100,309?‑‑‑M'mm.


Were you paid pursuant to the enterprise agreement or were you paid above the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑No, pursuant to the agreement.

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                     XXN MS PUGSLEY


So you were paid at that rate to the best of your memory?‑‑‑Yes.


If I can take you to page 70 and halfway down on page 70, the descriptors for higher education worker level 10 are set out?‑‑‑Yes.


Again, level 10 is the top of the range with the most complex duties required?‑‑‑Yes.


If I can take you to clause 29.7, that's on page 30?‑‑‑Yes.


That's in clause 29 which deals with overtime for general staff.  29.07:  "A general staff member in receipt of a salary in excess of HEW7 will not be eligible to receive payment for overtime but will be allowed time off work equivalent to period of overtime worked."  So you were entitled to time off in lieu at ordinary time rates?‑‑‑Yes.


From 2006 until 2012, your position was executive officer to the vice-chancellor; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


That's the most senior position in the office of the vice-chancellor?‑‑‑At that time, yes.


So at HEW10 at the top end of the scale, a senior position, you had some autonomy, for example, in relation to deadlines and so on.  Would you agree with that?‑‑‑Yes.


So you talk about having received documents at 5 o'clock on a Friday afternoon?‑‑‑M'mm.


There would have been a scope, wouldn't here, to request those sending the documents to the vice-chancellor to send them earlier than five to change the deadline?‑‑‑Not really because mostly those documents that I talk about in there were required to be sent to the vice-chancellor's office by close of business and that was a decision amongst the senior executive, not a decision for me.  So the senior executive and the vice-chancellor would negotiate that.


But you weren't required to receive documents after five on every day of the week?‑‑‑No.

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                     XXN MS PUGSLEY


You also referred to beginning work at 7.30 or 8 o'clock in the morning.  In a senior autonomous highly paid role, I suggest to you that's hardly surprising that you would have sometimes come in at those hours?‑‑‑No, it's not surprising.


At paragraph 7 of your statement, you refer to an audit that took place in 2004?‑‑‑M'mm.


That was the AUQA audit?‑‑‑M'mm.


AUQA stands for the Australian Universities Quality Agency; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


It's now called TEQSA?‑‑‑Correct.


Essentially it's responsible for registration of providers and accreditation of courses?‑‑‑Yes.


You refer to having worked late in relation to the AUQA audits.  So on that occasion you were working with the vice-chancellor and the other senior officer; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


So you refer to working until 1 am on one occasion, but you only refer to one occasion on which you worked until 1 am; is that right?‑‑‑Yes, that was an example, yes.


That was 2004?‑‑‑Yes.


You also worked in another HEW10 position which was Director of Community Engagement?‑‑‑Yes.


How many staff did you have reporting to you?‑‑‑In that role, I had four direct reports and one of the direct reports then had a team of people under her, it was an events manager role.  So there was an events team that reported to her.


So one of your roles as a manager would be to help the staff reporting to you manage their workloads; would you agree?‑‑‑Yes.

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                     XXN MS PUGSLEY


You also refer to various roles in the university community such as fire warden, et cetera, and the fact that that takes up staff time?‑‑‑Yes.


I have been instructed that the university calls for expressions of interest for people to fill these roles, but they're not directed to do so?‑‑‑I've got to try to think back about just how on earth we ever got fire wardens.  Yes, I think you could be right.  I think that the occupational health and safety area did ask areas.  I don't know if it was expressions of interest.  I think they asked areas to nominate somebody.


So if a member of your staff took up such a role, would you take that into account in terms of their workload?‑‑‑Yes.


You refer at paragraph 16 of your statement to the PPR?‑‑‑Yes.


That's the performance review process?‑‑‑Yes.


If I could hand to you the current version of the document that gets filled in, in relation to that.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Sorry, that document is MFI37.



MS PUGSLEY:  Thank you.


On page 5 of that document, there is a heading:  "End of year review and factors impacting performance"?‑‑‑M'mm.


That heading, "Factors impacting performance", gives a staff member an opportunity to indicate whether excess workload has affected their performance; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


You also note in your statement that the university provides training to staff on how to prioritise work?‑‑‑Yes.


Can you recall an online time management program?  Is that what you're referring to?‑‑‑No, it wasn't online.  It was a face-to-face workshop run by HR.

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                     XXN MS PUGSLEY


My instructions are that there is currently an online program, but that might not have been the case in your time?‑‑‑No, not in my time.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  I will just mark this document MFI38.



MS PUGSLEY:  Thank you.


THE WITNESS:  And this is obviously the new performance review that's not the one in my time.


MS PUGSLEY:  Was there the opportunity in your time for staff to indicate factors affecting their performance?‑‑‑Yes, yes, there was.


You also refer to open dates and there has been a fair bit of evidence about university open days in these proceedings.  It's true, isn't it, that an open day can't function unless you have some general staff attending?‑‑‑Yes.


It's - what - one day a year or - - -?‑‑‑Not at Deakin.  In my time it was three.  Well, at least three because you have an open day on each campus.  So depending on what year you're talking about, that's how many campuses Deakin might have had.  And some staff would work all of them, so you didn't just work the open day on your campus.


You also indicate that you didn't ever receive a general instruction not to tell your staff to work long hours?‑‑‑M'mm.


As a manager, were you conscious of the hours that your staff were working?‑‑‑Yes.


What sorts of things did you do to try and ensure they weren't working excessive hours?‑‑‑So I had two staff members who were in the same geographic location that I was and several who were at other campuses.  So we had regular meetings and we had some planning documents that would assist us plan events because most people were involved in community engagement activities and events.  So we had some documents, some plans, and we would have sometimes weekly, sometimes fortnightly meetings to discuss what was coming up and to make sure that if people were working at events at night or on the weekend, they then - we all knew when their time in lieu would be occurring.

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                     XXN MS PUGSLEY


You also refer to the vice-chancellor's office needing to be staffed from eight until six?‑‑‑Yes.


Which I think under the enterprise agreement you were employed under was the span of hours at that time which might have changed?‑‑‑Yes.


But there was no individual staff member who was required to be there from eight until six each day, was there?‑‑‑No, it was a roster system, an informal roster system.


If I can take you back to the enterprise agreement and page 32, there is a clause relating to workloads for general staff at 31?‑‑‑Yes.


At 31.6, there is provision for staff members who have concerns about excessive workloads to ask their manager to hold a workload review.  And at 31.5, there is also the capacity for an individual to use the dispute resolution process under an enterprise agreement?‑‑‑Yes.


You also say that you are not aware of staff members being paid time in lieu on their departure from the university?‑‑‑Yes.


You wouldn't normally be aware, would you, of what other staff were paid.  That would be between them and the university on their departure?‑‑‑Correct, but people gossip.


In relation to IT equipment, you note that for senior staff a home office would be set up for the more senior staff?‑‑‑Yes, I wouldn't characterise it as a home office.  There would be items of IT equipment that would be provided by the university, so a phone or an iPad or a laptop.


Your paragraph 29 refers to it as a home office?‑‑‑Do I?


Yes?‑‑‑Yes, there are some senior staff who would have a printer and kind of a work station they could plug their laptop into at home.


Not all staff had that provided?‑‑‑No.

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                     XXN MS PUGSLEY


That's because, isn't it, you would expect the more senior staff to be doing more work from home than ordinary staff?‑‑‑Sure, sure.


I have no further questions.




MR PILL:  Just very briefly.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                           [10.31 AM]


MR PILL:  Mr Giles, you were taken to your attachment and the various positions that you held at the higher classification, HEW10?‑‑‑Yes.


Is it fair to say the substance of your evidence is that they were all senior roles in the university?‑‑‑Yes.


In addition to the $100,000 salary under the EA, you also received 17 per cent superannuation contributions from your employer?‑‑‑Yes.


Also had the capacity to receive bonuses?‑‑‑Yes.


At paragraph 19, you give evidence about never seeing a general instruction from Deakin University management to staff?‑‑‑Yes.


Are you including yourself on the Deakin University management side or the staff side?‑‑‑Well, both, if I may.


But notwithstanding that you never sent such a general instruction, did you ever refuse to approve overtime or TOIL when one of the staff that you were managing submitted a claim for overtime or TOIL?‑‑‑We never ever got to the point where people were putting in a claim when I was supervising any staff, but most recently the community engagement and event staff.  So all of the TOIL arrangements would be made with the staff members individually.


Through a process of discussion between you and the individual staff?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                              XXN MR PILL


At 26, you give evidence that TOIL is not an activity that is budgeted for?‑‑‑Yes, correct.


You appreciate that TOIL is essentially a substitution of an hour that's already been paid for, for an hour off?‑‑‑Yes.


So there is no need to budget for TOIL?‑‑‑Except that in cases particularly with events and community engagement events, if someone has done - as an example, if someone in the events team has been doing graduations, that would involve a substantial amount of TOIL and then a substantial amount of time to compensate them for that to be taken.  So you would have to make arrangements then if there were subsequent events after graduations for that to be filled and because there was no budget for that back-filling, you would have to make other arrangements with the events team.  So that's just one example.


Is it a fair summary, and you make this point in a number of paragraphs, that in these roles you had to prioritise and manage your tasks and there were occasions where the tasks couldn't be done and indeed just weren't done?‑‑‑Well, with events and community engagement events, you have to make the best arrangements you possibly can with the resources that you have got.


That is resources to other activities?‑‑‑Yes.


Some of those activities may, to use your language in paragraph 13, some things would simply be dropped?‑‑‑Yes.


I have no further questions.




MS GALE:  Just briefly, Your Honour.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE                                                 [10.35 AM]

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                            RXN MS GALE


MS GALE:  Mr Giles, you said that the decision about deadlines for when documents were to be provided to the vice-chancellor's office was a decision of the senior executive.  Can you just explain what is the senior executive in that context?‑‑‑The senior executive in my time was comprised of the deputy vice-chancellors and the pro-vice-chancellors and vice presidents.  It moved around a bit in my time as executive officer, but it was the most senior people from each area of the university and became to include the deans were part of the senior executive as well.  And so the decisions about the documents were by agreement with them about when things were due and, to illustrate that example, it was always at close of business or nearly always at close of business on a Friday.


So just to be clear, you described yourself, I think, as the most senior professional staff member in the vice-chancellor's office?‑‑‑Yes.


And you were an executive officer?‑‑‑Yes.


But you were not part of the senior executive?‑‑‑No, not part of the senior executive.  I would take the minutes at the meetings of the senior executive and arrange the agenda and make sure that the papers were in a form that was acceptable to the vice-chancellor.


You were also asked about the workload review process for professional staff under the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑Yes, yes.


The clauses that provided for people to seek a review of their workload?‑‑‑Yes.


Why do you think there wasn't widespread use of that process?‑‑‑Well, in my experience, I have never heard of anybody ever accessing a workload review, not even using those terms "workload review."  And I understand there is a clause in the enterprise agreement about it, but I'm not aware of any paperwork or template to talk about a workload review and I've never heard those words used as a colleague saying:  "I've got someone coming to see me about a workload review."  That's just not in - - -


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  Why do you think that's the case, Mr Giles?  Why do you think that's the case?‑‑‑I think - I think generally that people feel they have to discuss their workload in informal discussions with their manager on a weekly or fortnightly basis or during the performance review, although the performance review, in my experience, is also not about workload, it's about whether you are meeting your goals and targets.  So it's a cultural matter.  I'm not aware of anyone who has ever accessed that clause in the enterprise agreement.

***        ANDREW GILES                                                                                                                            RXN MS GALE


Is one possibility, given your response there, that individuals saw it as something they would discuss on an ongoing basis with their supervisor that their concerns or issues were addressed through that, just as you managed it with your staff?‑‑‑That would be the best case scenario and that's what I tried to do when I was supervising other staff.  But I'm aware of many other examples of people where it was welcomed.  Staff knew that you manage your workloads as best you can and really to raise that with some managers is not acceptable and you are sticking your neck out.


Thank you.


MS GALE:  No further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  You are excused?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [10.38 AM]


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Who is the next witness?


MR PILL:  It's one of ours, Mr Andrew Picouleau from Monash University who is physically here in Melbourne.  I call Andrew Picouleau.

<ANDREW PICOULEAU, AFFIRMED                                           [11.39 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR PILL                                      [11.39 AM]


MR PILL:  Mr Picouleau, can I get you to restate your name and address for the record, please?‑‑‑Andrew Picouleau, (address supplied).


You are an industrial relations consultant?‑‑‑That's correct.


And formerly employed by Monash University?‑‑‑Yes.


How long were you employed by Monash University?‑‑‑Fifteen or 16 years.


When did you cease to be an employee of Monash University?‑‑‑I retired from my long-term role as director of workplace relations at the end of last year.  I did a little bit of casual work earlier this year.


Can I hand you a copy of your statement with six attachments?  Have you prepared this statement in this proceedings?‑‑‑Yes.


Have you had a chance to read a copy of that statement recently?‑‑‑I have.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                      XN MR PILL


Is it true and correct?‑‑‑It is.


I tender that statement.









MR PILL:  Just remain there and Ms Gale will have some questions for you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE                                          [10.40 AM]


MS GALE:  Good morning, Mr Picouleau?‑‑‑Good morning.


You have been involved in higher education employment matters for quite some time?‑‑‑I'm afraid so.


Can I just put to you a number of propositions about things that have changed in the last 20 years in university employment?‑‑‑Of course.


Is it fair to say that there has been an increase in the use of email and the internet in the last 20 years?‑‑‑Very fair to say that, yes.


And an increase in online engagement with students?‑‑‑Certainly.


An increase in remote access to university systems for staff?‑‑‑I believe so, yes.


But there is an expanded use of student evaluations of teaching?‑‑‑Look, I'm not sure how much it's expanded, but, I mean, student evaluation of teaching is certainly something that is undertaken at Monash and has been for some time.


There has been an increase in the number of university policies?‑‑‑I think that's probably a fair statement.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


That there have been changes in the terms of appointment for staff to expressly impose an obligation on employees to comply with university policies.  That's a new feature in the last 20 years?‑‑‑I think there's always been an obligation to comply with university policies.  Perhaps it's been made more explicit.


That there is now a greater expectation for rapid turnaround of documents?‑‑‑I think that's a statement that applies to the whole world that we live in, if I may say, Ms Gale.


That universities are now concerned with more intensive use of their physical resources on weekends, through lunch breaks, evening classes and so on?‑‑‑That's certainly an issue, yes.


Also that there has been an expansion in the extent of teaching delivery and other activities across the year?‑‑‑To some extent, I would say, yes.


Would you agree within the last 20 years there has been a growth in the level of both internal and external accountability requirements?‑‑‑I think that's true, yes.


There has been an increase in the extent to which university staff might be expected to work overseas?‑‑‑Yes, certainly to some extent.


In paragraph 10, you talk about your experience particularly at Monash and other Go8 universities.  Can you just explain for the tribunal what you think distinguishes the Go8 universities from the rest other than affiliation to a particular employer association?‑‑‑Yes, yes.  Well, the Group of Eight universities regard themselves as  research intensive universities, so the ones that have the largest engagement in research activity.  That would be the most important distinguishing characteristic, I think.


Can I take you to your attachment 1 at the page which is the enterprise agreement to page 65?‑‑‑M'mm.


On the bottom of that page, you will find clause 65 on professional staff workloads?‑‑‑Yes, I have it.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


Am I right in understanding 65.2 as imposing an obligation on the university to take reasonable positive steps to ensure that professional staff members do not work excessive or unreasonable hours and that where they work long hours those hours will be appropriately compensated?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.


It then sets out what reasonable and positive steps might be?‑‑‑Yes.


Has that provision imposed an unreasonable administrative burden on Monash University?‑‑‑No.


Have the things required by that clause been done by Monash University?‑‑‑Yes, I think so.


At paragraph 18 of your witness statement, you talk about the history of academic salary regulation referring back to the Academic Salaries Tribunal and then early awards for academic staff?‑‑‑Yes.


At the time that you're talking about there, the mid-1980s, or perhaps mid to late 1980s, is it fair to say that the allocation of performance requirements on academic staff largely related to teaching and administration and beyond that they determined their own work?‑‑‑Look, I think that's generally a fair statement.  We're talking about a very long time ago now and very early in my career, but I think the concepts of performance management of academics were much less developed at that time, yes.


Particularly in relation to research, I put to you?‑‑‑I think that's a fair statement, yes.


There is now a much higher level of accountability for what academics do with their non-teaching time, isn't there?‑‑‑Yes.


That accountability is in the form of performance expectations?‑‑‑Yes.


It is in the form of work planning and review processes?‑‑‑Well, when you say accountability, perhaps.  I mean, it would depend on the particular circumstances, discipline, department, the way they managed research activity and performance.  It would vary.


If I can take you back to the enterprise agreement and to the academic workloads clause which starts on page 58.  It's clause 59 and if I ask you to look at 59.5 at the bottom of page 58?‑‑‑Yes, yes.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


Do you think it's fair to say that one of the purposes of this clause is to provide time for academics to undertake research?‑‑‑I don't find anything particular objectionable about that statement.  Yes, okay, yes.


Back at 59.1, there's a series of dot points of the university's commitments in relation to academic workloads and they conclude with the phrase:  "Taking into account the operational and teaching requirements and research performance standards of the university and the relevant academic unit"?‑‑‑Yes.


Is it fair to say that in academic workload allocation at Monash University there is a balancing between the desire to allow staff to do as much as they wish to within their discretion as professionals on the one hand and the university's need to actually have certain things done on the other?‑‑‑Yes.


Those things include both the teaching requirements, the operation of the teaching requirements and the research performance expectations?‑‑‑Yes.


Throughout this clause in the approach to academic work there is reference to hours and time in several places?‑‑‑Yes.


Is it right that the approach that's taken, though, is one of considering, if you like, an estimated or an assumed time that various activities will take rather than direct measuring of the time of the work performed by academic staff?‑‑‑Yes, the clause in my understanding of it, yes, doesn't really deal in a detailed way in, you know, sort of the allocation of hours so much as it deals with the approach to be taken to allocating particularly teaching related activities.  And then, of course, it has a kind of a global kind of cap on allocatable hours in a year and it provides guidance about the approach to be taken in regard to allocated work again, talking about teaching related activities.


That cap on allocatable hours is at 59.10, isn't it, the university recognises 1645 hours per annum as the maximum annual allocated hours?‑‑‑Yes.


That includes hours allocated for teaching for research and scholarship and for other activities?‑‑‑I'm not quite sure that's how you read 59.10.  My understanding was allocated hours talked about contact hours and associated activities and that there's a distinction between allocated hours and, you know, self-directed work.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


So are you suggesting that the university could require an employee, an academic employee, to work 1645 hours on their teaching and their admin and to do their self-directed work perhaps including all of their research in additional time on top of 1645?‑‑‑Well, subject - - -


I put it to you that, in fact, that schema there encompasses all of the allocated work?‑‑‑Well, my response to that would be to say that obviously these things would need to be balanced.  If the university required an academic staff member to undertake teaching and associated activities that approached that cap, then they would have to allow for that in terms of reduced expectations with regard to research output.


So within 59.10, those percentages that are mentioned there as the starting point for discussions, the 40/40/20 distribution?‑‑‑Yes.


And then the following words that say that they can be varied?‑‑‑Yes.


Is it correct to say that that is those percentages should always add up to 100 per cent?‑‑‑Yes.


But once varied, others are varied down?‑‑‑Yes.


And that it's 100 per cent of 1645 hours?‑‑‑Yes, yes, I think so.


Towards the bottom of that page in 59.11, there's a list of things described as teaching duties and one of the points about halfway down the list is supervision of honours year and post-graduate students?‑‑‑Yes.


So in terms of this institution-wide workload provision, PhD supervision is counted as teaching work rather than as research work; is that correct?‑‑‑Yes, it's an interesting point.  It is controversial within the academic community at Monash, as I understand it, as to exactly where the dividing line is with regard to HDR supervision.  And because participation in HDR supervision is also regarded as a research activity for some purposes.  But I accept that that's included in the definition of "teaching" at 59.11.


In fact, some faculty workload models might count PhD supervision as research.  Others might count it as teaching?‑‑‑I think that's highly likely, yes.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


So thinking about the system of workload regulation for academic staff at Monash as a whole, is it fair to say that it has the following characteristics.  That the objective is to have a total workload that can be done in 1645 hours?‑‑‑The objective, I think 1645 hours in my mind has always been about what the university would direct staff to undertake, academic staff to undertake.  There's always been behind this the understanding that there is this autonomous self-directed component to academic work which is an area into which the university is reluctant to venture or intervene.  So I think that's an important consideration.


So is it fair then to say that the objective is that the university's imposition of workload onto staff shouldn't exceed 1645 hours, but that there is nothing to prevent academic staff from working more than that if they choose to?‑‑‑In the realm of self-directed work, I think that's correct.


Within that allocation of work that the university requires of an academic staff, teaching and administrative duties are allocated in such a way as to leave enough time in their overall workload to undertake sufficient self-directed activities like research to meet the university's expectations?‑‑‑Yes, you must allow, though, for the range of - or the different kind of activity profiles of different academics.  Not all academics are as research active as others.  We have academics who are highly successful in the realm of teaching and, you know, they're regarded as leaders in that area of activity and who undertake a higher teaching load and that's recognised and they're not expected to undertake as much research activity.  And we regard this clause as providing for that range of possibilities.


So within the total package of a full workload, there can be a variable emphasis on research, on admin, and on teaching?‑‑‑Yes


And presumably on community engagement and professional consultancies?‑‑‑Absolutely.


There might be time allowed for someone to be undertaking their PhD studies, for example?‑‑‑Yes, certainly.


If Monash still ever employs anyone who hasn't yet got a PhD.  So those percentages vary?‑‑‑Yes.


But, as you said, they should all add up to 100 per cent.  So the research expectations that are placed on a particular academic will be adjusted to meet the proportion of time that they have available to do research and vice versa.  That the university will try to give them enough time to do research in order to meet the expectations or will adjust the expectations if there is less time available for them to do research.  Is that how it works?‑‑‑Yes, there's a more detailed structure that lies behind that which we could go into.  But, I mean, for the purposes of the workload clause, you know, I think that's a reasonable summary.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


So where is the more detailed structure set out?‑‑‑Well, for example, the university has introduced concepts such as education-focussed academics or professional practice academics and it has rules around how they are to be regarded for the purposes of complying with the research performance expectations.


Those would be academics with a smaller proportion of their workload available for research?‑‑‑That's right, yes.


The specifics of the allocation of work in each academic's circumstances are actually worked out at a very local level, aren't they, between that academic and their supervisor?‑‑‑Yes, or their head of department probably more often, but, yes.


So the head of school or head of department is not necessarily the person's supervisor?‑‑‑Not necessarily.


That's a consultative process, but in the final analysis that head of department has to make an allocation?‑‑‑Yes.


So the academic might not be entirely happy with the allocation they get, but they have the opportunity to be consulted about it?‑‑‑Yes.


So in that very local discussion, the head of school has to have an idea of how much time is fair to allow that person to do research?‑‑‑Yes.


And that has to take account of how much is expected of them in terms of other workload outputs as well?‑‑‑Yes, certainly.


It is the case, isn't it, that Monash University aspires to continually improve its research productivity levels?‑‑‑It certainly is.


Is it the case that in recent redundancy and voluntary severance processes at Monash University that research output has been a factor in identifying academic staff for redundancy?‑‑‑Yes.


Is it the case that fixed-term contract academic staff who fail to meet research output expectations may well not have their contracts renewed?‑‑‑Yes, I suppose that's a possibility, yes.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


Universities, including Monash, are well used to performance management processes in relation to long-term projects, aren't they, to projects that extend beyond a year?‑‑‑Yes.


So, for example, many academics as a condition of probation over a three-year probation period might have completion of a PhD as a condition of probation?‑‑‑Yes.


Over that three-year period there would be regular discussions with that academic staff member about how they were proceeding in relation to their probation requirements?‑‑‑Yes.


The university knows how to make an assessment or expects its line managers in their case to know how to make an assessment of whether someone has made satisfactory progress towards the PhD so that they can assess whether there is a problem about whether the person is going to meet their probation requirements over a three-year period.  That's the case, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.


Don't those same sorts of judgments come into play in deciding whether someone is making satisfactory progress towards meeting their research output expectations?‑‑‑I think so, if I understand the links you are drawing there, yes, I think so, yes.


So if you have got a research output expectation that is measured over, say, three years or five years, you have to generate a certain amount of income or produce a certain number of publications, you would expect the line managers of staff to be able to have a sensible discussion with them about progress towards those expectations in any particular year?‑‑‑Yes.


Your current workload regulation in relation to research, if we can focus on it.  We have talked a bit about teaching, in particular, but if we can think particularly about research.  Isn't it the case that your current provisions aim to allocate a full-time load that enables research output expectations to be met?  It doesn't look at inputs.  It doesn't look at the elements of:  "I'm allocating you the requirement to conduct this laboratory experiment or the requirement to write this article."  It's:  "I'm allocating you a requirement to generate an output and this is the amount of time in your workload that's going to be available for that to occur"?‑‑‑Certainly our measures of research performance are all measures of research outputs.  For example, well, publication success in obtaining grant income, HDR completions.  These are all examples.  So, yes, they're the measures of research performance.  There's no explicit link between those measures of performance and a particular amount of time that the staff member might devote to achieving those outcomes that I'm aware of.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


But there is a link between those expectations and the amount of time that the employee is allocated in their workload or the proportion of their workload that is allocated for research activities?‑‑‑There would often be a link in terms of the history of research performance of a staff member and their teaching allocation.  So I guess you can say by inference, there is a kind of an indirect link, but it's not a specific one.


When the university sets its performance expectations in relation to research, does it take any account of how much time that staff had available to do research?‑‑‑The research performance standards are set or have been set by a process at a faculty and department or discipline level through discussion within those organisation units.  It would be - I think it would be dangerous for me to speculate as to exactly how or what kind of discussions occurred between the academic staff in agreeing on those performance standards.


And invoking them in your enterprise agreement clause as a basis for developing workloads, an hours-based, time-based concept of workload, to what extent were you satisfied at the bargaining table that the expectations were achievable within the appropriate allocations of time?‑‑‑Well, the way you have described it isn't the way I think of the way the clause is structure or as it was agreed.  The clause does refer to at some points research performance standards and them being a relevant concept.  But it doesn't - it's careful to avoid tying research performance standards to the allocation of hours.  The references to research performance standards are about obligations to consult about any significant changes to research performance standards, for example, or I think perhaps also for them to be broadly to be taken into account in determining allocated work.


Including an allocated proportion of time for research?‑‑‑Well, yes.  I can't quite agree with the way you have expressed that.  You talked about an allocated proportion of time.  I think the use of the word "allocated" there, doesn't fairly describe what the clause requires or the way the workload models operate.


Isn't it the case that the workload model provides that an academic will have allocated to them a percentage of time in each of the categories, an allocated proportion of time in that sense?‑‑‑My understanding is - yes, my understanding of the workload models is that they specify those kind of concrete tasks that are undertaken directed work as we have discussed, which is contact hours, associated administrative activities.  But they do not in terms specify the time to be spent on research.  I'm sorry to be - I don't mean to be argumentative about it, but I think it's an important distinction.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Mr Picouleau, can I ask is the starting point to look at what the teaching allocation is and what the other activities are, assign them with the percentages and then balance is left to research?  We heard some evidence yesterday that the university looks at what the research output is first and then allocates a percentage for that and then allocates time for teaching and time for service activities and the like?‑‑‑My understanding would be that the starting point is to identify what the requirements of the faculty or the organisational unit are in terms of teaching activities and how they are to be distributed and had regard - and in that process regard is had for research activity and performance as demonstrated by the record of the particular staff member.  But the starting point would be what - - -


What are our teaching needs?‑‑‑Yes, what are our teaching needs, exactly, thank you, Commissioner.


Thank you.


MS GALE:  So I'm trying to understand this from the perspective of an academic who is having a discussion with their head of school about workload allocation.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Mr Picouleau is not put as an expert on academics.  He is put up as an industrial relations consultant.  So I'm struggling a bit with the way this question is going, I must say, because we are trying to inform ourselves - just from the way he has actually positioned his statement.


MS GALE:  Your Honour, Mr Picouleau has given fairly - - -


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  He can talk about the enterprise agreement and how it all comes together and all those sort of things, but you have now just strayed, it seems, as to what an academic does beyond what the agreement does, but, anyway.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  Mr Picouleau, have you ever had negotiations with academics about their workload allocation?‑‑‑No, no, that wouldn't be my role.


Right, there we go.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  There we go.  Thank you.


MS GALE:  The model at Monash doesn't attempt to capture the actual hours worked in relation to any area of academic work, does it?‑‑‑It attempts to capture the time spent on teaching activities.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


But surely it attempts to capture an assumed fair estimate of the time spent on teaching activities rather than the actual spent by any individual academic?‑‑‑I would accept that description.


You have said that you think there is considerable variation in how long different academics may take to undertake similar research tasks, for example?‑‑‑Yes, that's certainly my understanding of perceptions based on my various conversations with academics over the years.


Wouldn't you get the same variability in relation to the time required to, for example, prepare a new unit for delivery?‑‑‑I think that's probable, yes.


Can I take you to the section of your witness statement, perhaps starting at about paragraph 28, 29, where you express your concerns about the NTEU's proposed clause for academic workloads for the award?‑‑‑Yes.


One of the concerns you express is - I'm sorry, if I can take you back to paragraph 25, you express concern at the concepts introduced by the NTEU clause such as required work, ascertained hours, ordinary hours, workload?‑‑‑M'mm.


Can I suggest to you that ordinary hours workload might be new words, but it's basically what Monash University already does, that Monash University has an idea of a full-time workload that's concomitant with those ordinary hours of 1645?‑‑‑Well, I think I've been trying to say that Monash, as most university would be, have been careful to avoid opening up a discussion with academic staff about precisely how they approach their self-directed work.  So I think that has to be - that's my concern, I guess.


I am talking about the work that the university requires of academic staff, the work that is allocated within their workload, not what they do above and beyond?‑‑‑Sure.


The university has a concept of a full-time workload?‑‑‑Yes.


Presumably you need that in order to consider what a part-time workload might be?‑‑‑Yes.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


Is it simply the introduction of the word "hours" into the label that - I mean, in the way that that concept is described in the union's clause, I put to you that it is exactly the same thing.  It's a label for a full-time workload based on an assumption about how long that workload will take rather than a measuring of the hours of work?‑‑‑Look, the problem for me is this is introducing the concept of these - well, one of the problems is introducing the concept of the ordinary hours of an academic.  It's just not a concept that's been used or I'm familiar in the context of academic employment and it raises a number of issues which I have tried to identify in my statement.


What happens at Monash University at the moment if an academic is allocated more than a full-time workload?‑‑‑Well, I'm not aware that that would occur or has occurred.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  They would be in breach of the agreement, wouldn't they?‑‑‑Yes.


The agreement refers to a maximum?‑‑‑Yes, I mean, the - yes, I'm just - yes, I don't - I'm not aware that that's happened or that that is something that would be undertaken.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  That will be a convenient time to have an adjournment.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [11.17 AM]

SHORT ADJOURNMENT                                                                  [11.17 AM]

RESUMED                                                                                             [11.40 AM]

<ANDREW PICOULEAU, RECALLED                                          [11.40 AM]



MS GALE:  Mr Picouleau, who at Monash University has overall responsibility for ensuring compliance with the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑Well, in my role as director of workplace relations, I have the delegated responsibility for ensuring compliance.  Is that what you mean?


I guess that's probably as good an answer as one can get for a university structure.  I presume the vice-chancellor is ultimately responsible for everything?‑‑‑I believe so, yes.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  The buck stops there.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


MS GALE:  So you have described faculty workload models being developed that needed to be in compliance with the enterprise agreement?‑‑‑Yes.


Were you then ultimately responsible for ensuring that they were in compliance?‑‑‑Yes.


You didn't expect music academics, for example, to necessarily get it right?‑‑‑No, no.  We were certainly there as a source of advice and support in that endeavour.


In the approach to workload regulation used by Monash University, is it the case that disciplines and subject areas tend to be grouped together into sort of cognate groups for the purposes of workload regulation?‑‑‑My understanding is it really operates on the basis of the organisational unit, so a department will have a workload model, a department or a school.  So a department, for example, there might be a department of mathematics or a department of chemical engineering or something.


So they would tend, though, structurally to be grouped around discipline groups?‑‑‑Yes.


You would expect those models to take account of any diversity within that group as to how work is performed?‑‑‑Yes.


Can the witness be shown this document, please?  Mr Picouleau, do you recognise that as the list of policies maintained on the Monash University website?‑‑‑Yes, I think that that looks like one of the lists.


Could that be marked, your Honour?





MS GALE:  Do you have any role in the selection or supervision of sessional academics?‑‑‑No.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


At paragraph 44 of your statement, you talk about whether sessional staff might be engaged for a number of teaching periods over a number of years.  You note that's not Monash's preferred approach and you say there are a significant number of sessional staff who are not so engaged?‑‑‑Yes.


Do you have any idea of what proportion of Monash's sessional staff are not engaged for more than one semester?‑‑‑Look, based on looking at sort of staff data over the years, I'd be guessing it would be probably sort of 30 per cent would be not engaged, maybe 40 per cent not engaged for more than a single semester.


Somewhere around 30 to 40 per cent?‑‑‑That'd be my impression, yes.


Would that be equally true for teaching and lecturing staff as, for example, for demonstrators or marking staff?‑‑‑I think it's likely to be, yes.


At paragraph 45 you refer to the fact that the existing rates for tutorial and lecture incorporated not only the hour of delivery, but some time for additional preparation time and associated activities.  Do you say that that payment is a payment in any way for policy familiarisation or discipline currency activities?‑‑‑Not for discipline currency.  I mean, it might be that in preparing for a tutorial or lecture that it might incidentally arise that there was a need to look at a particular relevant policy to, you know, some aspect of the lecture or tutorial.  I don't see that as impossible.


But if, for example, a sessional academic was required to undertake some professional development activities offered by a professional organisation in order to maintain their registration, say, as a nurse or as an accountant or as a lawyer that would not be encompassed, would it, by the preparation time?‑‑‑No.


Do you suggest that that sort of activity is paid for using the other required academic activity rate?‑‑‑Engaging in professional development, as you have just described?


Yes?‑‑‑No, certainly not.


Do you suggest that time spent on reading or talking to other staff about or making enquiries about relevant university policies is paid for at the other academic activity rate?‑‑‑Not unless it was the subject of some specific direction, no.


You give some evidence starting at paragraph 46 about some cost estimates that were prepared for you by a Mr Membry?‑‑‑Yes.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


He has prepared for you some calculations are appended to your statement at attachment 3?‑‑‑Yes.


And he has calculated the cost of the policy claim and the cost of the discipline currency's claim and he has done so on the basis of some information about the existing number of sessional staff at Monash University?‑‑‑Yes.


And in relation to the discipline currency claim he has looked at their duration of employment or the number of hours they're engaged for as well as simply the number of sessionals; is that right?‑‑‑Yes.


He has taken account of the fact that some will be paid at the PhD rate at level A6 and others will be paid at the level A2 casual rate for people who don't have a PhD or do subject coordination duties; is that right?‑‑‑Look, he explains in some detail his methodology.  I wouldn't want to try and pars what's in the memorandum, from memory.


I am taking you to the memorandum in some detail because I'm asking you about his methodology?‑‑‑M'mm.


Am I right that he has - - -


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Sorry, Ms Gale, as I have mentioned on a number of a number of occasions, this is an enquiry, modern award review.  If you are asking this witness about the methodology of something he did not do, it's not an appropriate line of questioning.  You may want to make arrangements with Mr Pill to call the person who wrote the report, but all he has done is annexed the report.  He did not create the methodology.  It's not a fair question to put to this witness.  And as I said, this is not adversarial litigation which the parties seems to be again traversing to adversarial litigation when it's not that sort of matter at all.


MS GALE:  Your Honour, I'm simply trying to get a clearer understanding of the data that's been provided.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  He is not in a position to tell you the methodology used.  He didn't do it.  He has simply annexed it.  He has told you he didn't do this report.


MS GALE:  Indeed.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE


Mr Picouleau, do you know what proportion of the university's sessional staff have employment outside the university in the profession or discipline in which they teach?‑‑‑It would be a guess.  I couldn't give you a number, anything more than a guess based on my, you know, direct current knowledge.


What would that guess be?


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  For my own part, I don't know that I would be assisted by knowing what the guess of a witness is.


MS GALE:  You have given evidence that a number of Monash University sessional staff are also engaged at other universities.  You don't know the number or proportion of your sessional staff who would?‑‑‑Well, as I have said, I wouldn't want to venture an estimate, but I am confident that that is the case, that that does occur.


Do you accept that some of Monash University's sessional staff would have an annual income below the tax-free threshold?‑‑‑How can I know?


Does Monash University collect data on the actual hours worked by its academic staff?‑‑‑No.


Does it collect data on the actual hours worked by its general professional staff?‑‑‑Well, when you say collects data, it would certainly - it has a payroll system that includes information about the work that is paid for and so it assumes a model of ordinary hours and it records work done outside the ordinary span of hours.  So in that sense it has data on its professional staff working hours.


It has data on the hours that have been authorised, effectively?‑‑‑Yes.


But no data on how much other time professional staff might do that they haven't claimed for?‑‑‑No.


Do you have any data on - or does Monash University have any data on the extent of after hours use of IT systems by general staff?‑‑‑Not that I'm aware of.  I wouldn't say that it couldn't be generated from our IT systems.


No further questions.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                  XXN MS GALE




MR PILL:  Thank you, your Honour.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                                   [11.53 AM]


MR PILL:  Mr Picouleau, can I ask you to turn back to the enterprise agreement and clause 59 and can take you to page 59 first.  You were asked a number of questions about workload models?‑‑‑Yes.


Both as to what they took into account, where they were determined, how they operated.  I'm sorry, can you turn to page 60, sorry, and there's a heading:  "Academic Workload Models"?‑‑‑Yes.


And 59.14, under the workload models, how is research treated in accordance with clause 59.14?‑‑‑Well, I don't believe that the workload models specifically refer to research.


What do they do with?‑‑‑They deal with essentially allocation of teaching responsibilities, associated activities, and perhaps administrative responsibilities.  Perhaps also supervision of higher degree research students.


How then are the academic activities as an academic that I am going to perform for the coming year, how are they set or determined?‑‑‑There's a performance development process that the university applies to academic staff which - and there's a concept there of the engagement profile where the academic staff and their supervisor will discuss their plans for the year in prospect and that would include a discussion about what research activities might be undertaken in the following year.


How is the engagement profile populated?‑‑‑There is a form, an online form, that goes back and forth between the staff member and the supervisor and they discuss what should go in it.


Who sets out the research activities?‑‑‑The staff member would.


You were asked some questions about that process.  It was put to you it is a consultative process that ultimately there could be a situation, though, where the staff member was not happy.  Do you recall that line of questioning?‑‑‑I do.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                    RXN MR PILL


I appreciate the Bench's qualification about your lack of direct involvement.  Is there a mechanism by which a staff member who is not happy with their allocation can seek to have it reconsidered?‑‑‑Indeed, there is.  If we turn over to a later provision in that clause, it talks about a process for resolving concerns about unreasonable workloads.


In your experience, can you inform the Commission about the invocation of that provision?‑‑‑It's very rare, in my experience.  I'm not aware of more than a handful of formal - the invocation of the formal process for resolving concerns about unreasonable workloads.


You were asked about responsibility and ultimately the buck stops with the vice-chancellor.  Can I direct you to 59.20 of the enterprise agreement under the heading:  "Academic Workloads Advisory Committee."  What's the role of the committee relative to your role as the director of workplace relations?‑‑‑It's a consultative committee where there is an opportunity for engagement between the director of workplace relations and workplace relations staff and representatives of the NTEU Monash Branch to discuss issues regarding academic workloads and to make recommendations where it's thought appropriate to do so.


You gave a couple of answers about self-directed work.  Ms Gale put a number of questions to you seeking to ask you to agree with a connection between time and research performance standards and your answer was to the effect that in relation to self-directed work, the university have been careful and reluctant to venture or intervene in self-directed work.  When you used those terms, "reluctant to venture or intervene in self-directed work", what are you referring to and why has the university been reluctant?‑‑‑When I'm talking about self-directed work, I'm talking about the activities related to the conduct of research by academic staff and when I talk about reluctance, there is a very sort of - there's a very clear divide between academic work and its conduct by academics and managerial processes at a university.  It's understood that that work is undertaken in an autonomous way by individuals as individual academics or sometimes in groups and it's a matter that should not be interfered with or constrained by university management.  And so it's left to be determined and managed within, you know, the academic community within the university.


In the same context you were being asked about the connection between research, performance standards and hours and you said that if there had been a history of their research performance that that could impact on their teaching allocation?‑‑‑Yes.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                    RXN MR PILL


You also gave evidence that in allocating teaching, regard would be had to their previous research performance.  Can you just expand on what you mean by those?‑‑‑Well, I'm aware that in certainly some - I don't know about all, but some workload models operative in departments of the university, the amount of teaching allocated there will be sort of a formula or an algorithm of some kind whereby the - where there's a demonstrated level of research output by the staff member, that will be taken into account in the amount of teaching that's allocated.  So that someone who is very research active will have a lighter teaching load than someone who is less research active measured in terms of research outputs.


At Monash University, you mentioned, for example, education focussed, how does one become an education focussed academic at Monash University?‑‑‑Well, generally by agreement.  There would be a discussion with that staff member where they had been identified as someone who was making a particular or an outstanding contribution to the development of teaching methodologies, innovations in, you know, curriculum design and so on, and they'd be invited to become an education focussed staff member.


Mr Picouleau, you were given this document which is a list of policies and procedures.  How long were you at the university?‑‑‑Fifteen, 16 years, yes.


Have you read all of the policy and procedure documents referred to in this document?‑‑‑I must admit that I have not.


What expectation is there for casual academic or casual professional staff at the university to read the policies and procedures in this list?‑‑‑Well, they would only need to read a policy where some relevant subject matter arose in the conduct of their work would be my feeling.  There is - I should - perhaps it might be helpful to explain it.  New staff go through an online induction process which provides summaries of certain key policies regarding equal opportunity, occupational health and safety.  I believe there might be also ethical conduct and one or two other things.  But in terms of actually reading the source documents, that would only be expected to be undertaken where there was some reason for them to do so.


Does the university have other supports and resources available to staff to deal with issues covered in the policies?‑‑‑Certainly.  For example, in regard to any human resource policy issue, there are advisors assigned to all faculties and divisions, organisational units, who are able to advise staff members about the operation of HR policies.


What about issues concerning students?‑‑‑They would be matters that would be dealt with within faculty student services units.  That would be my expectation.  And then there's all relevant central administration divisions that deal with student administration.

***        ANDREW PICOULEAU                                                                                                                    RXN MR PILL


So just backtracking to academics, you mentioned the annual performance process and there's this concept of a supervisor.  In a practical sense, what level of supervision does a head of school or a supervisor provide for academic staff at Monash University?‑‑‑It would be very light touch.


What does that mean?‑‑‑A head of department - well, apart from sort of deciding on what the teaching allocation is in the year in prospect and agreeing on obligations regarding other administrative activities, I wouldn't have thought there would be much interaction at all.


No further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you.  We will adjourn until quarter past one.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                          [12.05 PM]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT                                                         [12.05 PM]

RESUMED                                                                                               [1.21 PM]


MR PILL:  Thank you, your Honour.  We have video link from Perth and we have Prof Dawn Freshwater.


THE ASSOCIATE:  State your full name and address.


PROF FRESHWATER:  Dawn Silvia Freshwater, (address supplied).

<DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER, AFFIRMED                               [1.21 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR PILL                                         [1.22 PM]


MR PILL:  Prof Freshwater, can you hear me in Perth?‑‑‑Yes.  The volume is quite low, Commissioner.


We're just seeing if we can adjust that for you.  Can you hear me now clearly?‑‑‑Yes, Commissioner.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  You're speaking to Mr Pill.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                                           XN MR PILL


MR PILL:  I know it's very, very hard.  We are very, very small - - -?‑‑‑Yes.  I actually can't see who I'm speaking to at all.  I'm sorry.


Yes, understood.  It is Stuart Pill.  I'm about midway down waving my hand.  It's not really necessary that you see me, so long as you can hear me clearly.  For your information, the other three members that you can see on the split screen are the members of the Full Bench.  Now, Prof Freshwater, could you re‑state your name and work address for the record, please?‑‑‑It's Prof Dawn Silvia Freshwater and I work at the University of Western Australia, at the Crawley Campus in Perth.


Thank you.  You're the senior deputy vice‑chancellor and registrar at the University of Western Australia?‑‑‑I am.


Have you prepared a statement in these proceedings?‑‑‑I have.


Do you have a copy of that with you, together with the two attachments to that statement?‑‑‑Yes, I do.


Have you had a chance to read that recently?‑‑‑Yes, I have.


Is it true and correct?‑‑‑Yes, it is.


I seek to tender that statement.





MR PILL:  Prof Freshwater, if you would just remain there.  Mr McAlpine, from the NTEU, will ask you some questions and the bench may have some questions, as well?‑‑‑Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE                                 [1.24 PM]


MR McALPINE:  Thank you, Prof Freshwater.  Can you hear me clearly?‑‑‑Yes, I can.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


My name is Ken McAlpine and I'm appearing for the National Tertiary Education Union in these proceedings.  As a general proposition, do you consider the way workloads are administered at the University of Western Australia to be appropriate?‑‑‑I do.


Do you think that the way workloads are administered supports the operational requirements of the university?‑‑‑They do.


Can I take you to paragraph 14 of your statement.  There you describe how each particular school of the university regulates their own activities and how much teaching and other things have to be done.  I put it to you in relation to what you've said at paragraph 14, in the end it's going to be the head of that school who is the one with the final responsibility for determining matters such as workload allocation.  Is that correct?‑‑‑The head of school, in collaboration with the senior team within the school and the academics, work together to understand how best to distribute the workload across the school in order to deliver the requirements of that particular school.


So, for example, if the workload allocations weren't consistent with the budget or the policies though, it would be the head of school that would be responsible for that, wouldn't it?‑‑‑At the moment workload allocation is not correlated with budget.  Obviously there are policies that we work with and codes, but in essence the head of school is responsible for the leadership - the academic leadership - of the particular school to which he's appointed to.


Thank you.  Can I take you now to paragraph 17.  You give evidence about the European Union Working Time Directive and its relationship to academic staff.  Do you see that?‑‑‑I do.


Over the page, as part of that paragraph, you talk about the exemptions from the European directive.  It's clear, isn't it, that academic staff generally are excluded from that European Union directive.  Is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.


Would it be fair to say that in your experience in the United Kingdom, as in Australia, the duration of working time is not measured for academics?‑‑‑That's correct.


There should be over there in Perth a copy of extracts from the University of Western Australia Academic Staff Agreement.  I wonder, if you don't have those, could those be please shown to the witness.  Thank you?‑‑‑I have the specific clause in front of me.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


You have the document with the cover sheet of the agreement and then a number of clauses.  I think the first one is the Intellectual Freedom clause on the next page.  Is that correct?‑‑‑That's correct.





MR McALPINE:  Can I take you to clause 36.1 of the agreement, please?‑‑‑Mm'hm.


Now, in 36.1.2 it says:


All schools are required to have a workload model in place prior to the commencement of semester 1, 2015.


That has happened, hasn't it?‑‑‑That's correct.


If I take you to 36.3.1 down at the bottom of that page, there is a recital which says:


The scope of academic work includes teaching, research, administration and service to the ... broader community.


That means that a workload allocation will include an allocation for teaching.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Dependent on the nature of the contract, of course, because some academics are research only.


Yes.  I'm sorry.  Yes, for what's commonly called a teaching and research academic, a workload allocation will include an allocation for teaching, won't it?‑‑‑Broadly it will, yes.


I'm not talking about the agreement here.  I'm just talking in a generic sense.  In considering whether a teaching allocation is reasonable, one would need to know what the other requirements or allocations were in relation to the other matters.  Is that correct?‑‑‑The broad distribution of work is something that's discussed at an individual level - individuals case by case of course within the context of discipline and a variety of other considerations - so there is no generic allocation of those activities.  It's an individual discussion.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Okay, but my question was - and I'll rephrase it slightly - if I'm having that discussion with my supervisor, the question whether my teaching allocation is reasonable could only be determined by reference to what my other work requirements are.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Yes, the discussion would take place in the round of the whole allocation and of course in the context of other included work, which might be consultancy, et cetera.


Yes, but in those discussions, whoever they're with, wherever they occur, whether or not the teaching allocation were reasonable would depend upon what the other requirements were, would it not?‑‑‑Yes, as a whole.  You're looking at the workload as a whole.  I think that's what you're getting at, so you would have to look at the whole in order to determine what the allocation might be and a fair distribution of that workload, and in the context of the whole school, of course.


Thank you.  Looking at subclause 36.3.2 - and I'm not asking you for an interpretation of necessarily that provision.  I'm asking you as a general proposition what do you see the distinction as being between assigned tasks and self‑directed tasks for academic work?‑‑‑Well, I think this is actually really down to the very specific detail around individuals and in particular disciplines and particular contracts, so that discussion is something that takes place that is particular not only to a school, but particular to a discipline and to an individual.  Of course there is an expectation that academic staff will engage in teaching and research, and there are some requirements that go along with that in order to administer those duties and some wider opportunities for service to the university that sit outside of the assigned tasks.  So, for example, we don't necessarily expect as part of an assigned task that a staff member would take up a role as a head of school.


So it's possible that something that might be an assigned task for one academic might be self‑directed for someone else.  Is that right?‑‑‑Yes.  Broadly speaking, that would be correct.


Taking into account what is said in 36.3.1 and 36.3.2, I'm asking you now about 36.3.3?‑‑‑Mm'hm.


It says:


The workload allocated to a full‑time academic staff member should not exceed an average of 37.5 hours per week averaged over a calendar year.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


That is said to come to 1725 hours per annum.  Leaving aside what it says about fractional employees and just looking at full‑time employees, when it talks about the workload allocated, it's talking about the scope as described in 36.3.1 - that is, teaching, research, administration and service - isn't it?‑‑‑Yes, except that I would also state that it includes a number of self‑directed, not necessarily required, tasks.  One example would be that within our terms and conditions, we permit academics and encourage academics to be engaged in, for example, external consultancy work.  That's not necessarily a required task, but we do allow for that within our allocation.


Yes, so a person who already had a full‑time load who did that sort of additional consultancy work and brought in additional money or got paid directly or whatever, in that sense that's not part of their allocation workload.  Is that fair to say?‑‑‑It would be part of their allocated workload if it was on load, yes.  They would be actually having that discussion with their individual supervisor and determining the priorities.  Actually we make an allowance within the workload for that sort of activity even though it's not a required task, so there is a discussion with the supervisor as to what the consultancy is and of course there has to be an allowance made for that.


Okay, but you say it's not a required task, but it's part of the work - - -?‑‑‑It's a self‑directed task.


Thank you.  In your opinion, 36.3.3 - the reference to 1725 hours per annum, that hasn't required the introduction of time recording at the University of Western Australia?‑‑‑No, it hasn't.


Is it fair to say that there is nothing in 36.3.3 that prevents an academic staff member working more than those hours on additional self‑directed work?  Is that fair?‑‑‑That's fair.


That's because some academics choose to work over and above their workload allocation as a result of their passion, say, in relation to their area of research or maybe in relation to some area of community service or engagement.  Is that fair enough?‑‑‑That's agreed.  I would argue that actually the 37.5 hours that you're talking about that is encapsulated within the clause, does also include self‑directed tasks and community‑related work and we actually include an allocation for citizenship which is not specified.  It's not made explicit and it is completely self‑directed, and related to individual pursuit within discipline and personal development and promotion.  So within that allocated time that we're referring to here as part of this clause, it is actually within the scope of that time allowed to have quite a lot of self‑direction that's not falling within any of the assigned or required tasks.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Yes.  Thank you.  Now, the reference to 37.5 hours per week, you've said that doesn't require the introduction of time sheets.  I put it to you that the way that operates in a practical sense is not that we measure the number of hours, but that when we look at the workload allocated to an employee, we're really saying that that's the sort of workload which a competent employee should be able to do in 37 and a half hours.  We don't come back and check whether they've actually taken that time, do we?‑‑‑Currently?


Currently?‑‑‑No, we actually have a discussion - a very collegiate discussion - about what's required within a school or within a division or a discipline in order to deliver on the requirements of that particular school.  A lot of modification is made around the distribution of workload at an individual level, at a school level, to account for sabbatical, overseas study leave and all the self‑directed tasks allocated within that time.


Yes, but I'll just ask the question a slightly different way.  When we talk about 37 and a half hours a week, it's not the responsibility of the university to actually know that the duties are going to take exactly that amount of time.  It's based upon a fair estimate of what we think can be done in that number of hours.  Is that fair?‑‑‑We don't prescribe the number of hours it takes to conduct a particular task.


Now, given the terms of 36.3.3, I'm going to ask you a question about why in principle the university and an employee shouldn't be able to agree on higher workload requirements in relation, for example, to a higher salary.  Do you think that that's an appropriate arrangement?‑‑‑No, I don't.


Why is that?‑‑‑Well, the consequence of that, of course, has potentially significant financial impact on the university.  To that end we would very much, I believe, need to be much more managerial about the allocation of activities and the workload allocated to a particular individual, including specifying more explicitly those activities.  In that regard, I believe that has a detrimental impact both on the job satisfaction, but also on the academic culture, collegiality and I also believe that that would have a negative impact on the attractiveness of the current academic culture and climate within which we're working, and recruitment to that.


So in your opinion the cap that is set in 36.3.3 should apply to all academic staff?‑‑‑It's averaged out and, in that averaging out, that's what we say in this clause; that it does apply to all academic staff members.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


The University of Western Australia is very successful in receiving research grants.  For example, in particular from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council.  Is that true?‑‑‑We are reasonably successful in the competitive climate.


Certainly compared to the Australian university average, you would be well above that, wouldn't you?‑‑‑The average, yes, in terms of - are you talking about the Go8?


No, I'm talking about the average of all 37, I think, universities?‑‑‑Yes, that's true.  Our benchmarks are the Go8.


Yes.  As a consequence of that, you have several hundred research only staff - I think you referred to them earlier.  Is that fair?‑‑‑We have a number of research only staff.  Our workload allocation, the way in which we manage our expectations of staff, is that a number of staff are on research only contracts.  Of course that's on restricted funding and we are bound with the agreement with the research councils in order to deliver those research grants - the way in which we manage the workload of those individuals.


Okay.  So how does the university meet the obligations in relation to 1725 hours per annum in relation to those research only staff?‑‑‑Those research only staff are also party to this clause.  They are of course, as you would expect, engaged in research that's under supervision and it is in collaboration and discussion with the research supervisor that those allocated duties and the priorities are managed within that context, and within teams.  We're talking about individual academics here who work across teams and often across a range of teams across the nation and internationally, and so it's really important to recognise that those duties are allocated and executed across a broad team.  That's under supervision.


Can you explain to the Commission how the supervision arrangements work if I am a research only staff member who - sorry, I'll ask another question first.  There would be some people working at UWA where the chief investigator on their research project was from another university.  Would that be true?‑‑‑That may be the case, but there would also be somebody who is working on the ground with them.  The chief investigator may be not on the ground, but all staff will have somebody that they're working to within the university.


Yes, that was going to be my next question.  A person might have a chief investigator and also a supervisor at the university.  Is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


In coming up with the 1725 hours per annum they would presumably sit down with their supervisor and maybe the chief investigator, and have a discussion about what the allocated duties were, say, for the coming year or for the project?‑‑‑And more broadly.  More broadly, because a whole team would be involved.


Yes, but in a formal sense of determining the university's requirements, it would be their own supervisor that did that.  Would that be fair?‑‑‑It would be within the context of the discussion around the objectives with their supervisor.


Thank you.  Now, the university has many research fellows.  Is that correct?‑‑‑Sorry, can I just clarify what you mean by "research fellows".  Are you talking about externally funded research fellows on grants?


Primarily, I suppose so.  I'm just saying the term "research fellow" is a term that applies - it's a title that applies to many of the academic staff at the university, does it not?‑‑‑It applies to staff who normally are appointed on research fellowships externally, yes.


Some of the more junior research fellows will actually be studying for a PhD.  Is that correct?‑‑‑No, not quite.


Can you explain that?‑‑‑Well, I'm talking about externally funded research fellows who would be on grants, being classified as fellows.


Okay?‑‑‑I think you're referring to PhD students.


Yes, but there are PhD students who are also employees of the university working on research, are there not?‑‑‑Yes, so academics.  You're referring to some of the academics.


Yes, academics.  They're employed as academic staff and they're currently studying for a PhD say at the University of Western Australia.  Is that right?‑‑‑That's correct.


It's correct to say that the workload regulation clause - that is clause 36 that I've taken you to - excludes casual employees.  Their workload regulation is entirely separate.  Is that correct?‑‑‑That's correct.


Looking at clause 36.10, the clause that limits workloads - sorry, the workload clause excludes persons who are students employed during the course of their studies.  That's correct, isn't it?‑‑‑That's correct.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


So under the enterprise agreement, there's no limitation on the workload that can be given to those people.  Is that fair?‑‑‑Casual employees - you're talking about clause 36.10?


Yes, I am?‑‑‑Yes.


My question doesn't relate to casual employees.  My question relates to employees who are also students of the university.  That clause doesn't apply and therefore the enterprise agreement doesn't limit the amount of work that can be given to those people.  Is that fair?‑‑‑The agreement - that cause applies, the agreement doesn't, but the nature of the supervisory relationship means that there is obviously time allocated for studies, particularly if we have supported somebody to undertake full‑time study as part of their future employment within the university.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC:  Prof Freshwater, it's Deputy President Kovacic here.  Would students normally be engaged as causal employees?‑‑‑It may happen during - so you're talking about - sorry, are you talking about just generally undergraduate, postgraduate students?


Well, in the context of clause 36.10 of the agreement, it just talks generally about students so presumably it could be any of those.  Would they be employed as casuals or would there be some other form of employment that they might be engaged under?‑‑‑They would be usually employed as casual.


MR McALPINE:  But there will be a significant number of PhD students who are employed on a fixed term basis.  That's correct, isn't it?‑‑‑I'm not sure that that's the case actually.  I don't believe that's the case.  I wouldn't have the numbers, but there are certainly not a significant number of PhD students who are currently staff members employed on a fixed term contract.


Taken as a whole, there would be a significant number of employees who were also students of the university, would there not?‑‑‑As a whole, so that includes casual employees?

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                             XXN MR MCALPINE


Well, I'll leave them out for the time being.  There would be a significant number of employees who were also students of the university.  Non‑casual employees?‑‑‑Apologies if I'm appearing slightly vague here and confused.  I think what's confusing me is we actually provide very much a reduced rate opportunity for all of our staff to do the graduate certificate in education, for example, and we actually provide a time allocation for that also.  We see it as part of their professional development.  That would be one example.  We offer that - actually that particular program we offer for free, so while an academic staff member was - if they wanted to undertake that program, it's fair to say they would be a student.


Thank you?‑‑‑But at the same time as being employed.


Does the university have any data collected during the last decade - does the university have any data on the actual working hours of academic staff of which you're aware?‑‑‑Of which I'm aware, no.  I've been at the university for under three years.  Of which I'm aware, no.


Are you aware that university indirect research funding depends upon, in part, a survey done in 2011 which was done at all universities measuring what proportion and how many hours academic staff spent on teaching, research and other matters?‑‑‑I'm not fully aware of all the material contained in that, but I am aware - I'm also not aware that there has been any work that correlates - I think what you're talking about there is hours and performance, but I'm not quite sure.  I'm a little bit uncertain of your question.


Okay.  I have no further questions.  Thank you, Prof Freshwater?‑‑‑Thank you.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Now Mr Pill is speaking to you.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL                                                     [1.54 PM]

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                                        RXN MR PILL


MR PILL:  Prof Freshwater, I appreciate it's difficult from Perth.  It's Stuart Pill again.  I just want to ask you a couple of questions about some of the matters that you were asked about and some of your responses.  The first one was you were asked questions about self‑directed work and part of your response was that academic staff at the University of Western Australia undertake consultancy.  Then you gave evidence that the university makes allowance for that in the workload.  Can you explain further to the Commission what allowance is made at the University of Western Australia for that type of engagement of activity?‑‑‑As part of the benefits and terms and conditions associated with the recruitment of academics, we do make provision within their contract for them to undertake consultancy work.  Of course there are a number of policies associated with this, primarily related to conflict of interest and having discussions around the nature of that consultancy work, and the timeliness, et cetera, of it with the supervisors.  So there is a policy that's related to this, but what we do is we have provision for academics to engage in consultancy as part of their working hours and we don't specify what that is, but we do actually suggest that this equates on average perhaps to one day a week.  It's not required work, so we're not requiring every member of staff to be engaged in consultancy, but it's actually seen as a benefit to the academic and they see it as a benefit to them.  We also see it as a benefit to the university, of course, because it helps to cement our relationships with industry, often with other universities and with external agencies and non‑government agencies.  It can lead to further research and further collaboration, so we make a provision for that.  It's actually within our workload that we're currently working with.  There is an allowance for that.  We don't specify hours, but we do make allowance for that to happen as part of on‑load, so, know, this is part of - included in that allocation that we've been talking about under clause 36.  There is also provision for academics to take consultancy work offload, but again that's subject to the policy and it's in negotiation with the supervisor.  It's always in the context of the overall workload and teaching, research and the other specified duties of that particular individual.


Thank you.  At the University of Western Australia under the workload models, is there an estimate of time for research tasks?‑‑‑Assuming that an individual is a teaching and research academic, we don't estimate any time allocated to research tasks at all, but what we do do is we have a discussion around the distribution of research and teaching more broadly with each individual at the school level.  We don't specify any time actually allocated to any research task.


You were also asked whether you record time or whether the clause required you to record time.  You said that, no, you had not.  Why don't you record time for academic staff?‑‑‑Well, there are a number of reasons that we don't do that.  Aside from the particularly onerous and laborious task that that would be and would require quite a lot of monitoring and regulation and intervention, I believe from senior leaders within the institution we don't feel that there is any need to do that.  We actually work within the context of an academic culture and a collegiality which allows the individual academic to make a judgment about their own priorities, about how they allocate their time to those priorities and their activities.  Each individual undertakes their activities in a completely different way based on their own aptitudes, their own personal circumstances and their own preferences.  We prefer to allow that to happen in as much freedom as possible.  Of course what we're not doing is prescribing specific ways of allocating activities or understanding how they'll be executed.  In addition, it's really important to recognise that one of the most attractive benefits of working within the higher education sector as an academic is precisely that ability to be self‑organising and self‑directed, and indeed much of what academics do - and I speak as an academic myself - cannot be scheduled.  It's not actually something that you can place a particular time frame around.  It is actually work that, you know, spans a number of boundaries.  I might be teaching and actually realise that this is really relevant to my research, it's interrelated, and so to start specifying and to try and put parameters around those activities, I think it becomes really problematic as well as a disincentive.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                                        RXN MR PILL


I appreciate you have said that you don't estimate time for research activities.  Can you assume for the purpose of this question that you did.  You were asked by Mr McAlpine about the concept of paying a higher salary.  If you had to attach additional payment to an additional allocation based upon estimated time for research, what impact would that have on the academic work and academic work allocation at UWA?‑‑‑Well, aside from the consequence of the additional payment, which would of course be very difficult for us to manage, we would have to impose more monitoring.  We would have to impose, I think, much more explicit prescription of the activities that we would expect and we would have to be monitoring and measuring that much more closely.  I believe that that goes against the ethos and the academic culture which not only the University of Western Australia espouses, but which is internationally one that's known and understood and again, as I say, makes it an internationally attractive proposition for all academics.


What impact would that have on the research that's undertaken by academics?‑‑‑Well, my view is that it would have quite a constraining impact on the nature and the type of research.  By the very nature of that, it would put some parameters around the work that's being conducted and set some boundaries around that, and that would particularly impact the research.  It may also impact the ability of the individual academic researchers to work across geographical boundaries and across different time frames.


No further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you, professor.  You're excused.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                            [2.02 PM]


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  We'll take a short adjournment to allow the change of video link?‑‑‑Thank you.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT                                                                    [2.02 PM]

RESUMED                                                                                               [2.06 PM]




MS PUGSLEY:  Thank you, your Honour.  I call Prof Marie Herberstein.


THE ASSOCIATE:  Professor, could you please state your full name and address.

***        DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER                                                                                                        RXN MR PILL


PROF HERBERSTEIN:  My name is Marie Elisabeth Herberstein.  I live at (address supplied).


EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS PUGSLEY                               [2.07 PM]


MS PUGSLEY:  Thank you, Prof Herberstein.  For the record, could you please re‑state your name and your business address?‑‑‑Yes.  My name is Marie Elisabeth Herberstein.  I work at the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University.


Have you prepared a statement for these proceedings?‑‑‑Yes, I have.


You have a copy with you?‑‑‑I do.


Could I please take you to paragraph 3 of the statement and the last line?‑‑‑Yes.


Should "2105" in that last line read "2015"?‑‑‑Indeed, yes.


Can I take you to page 5?‑‑‑Yes.


Paragraph 14?‑‑‑Yes.


The fifth line and the sentence beginning, "This approach toteaching", should there be a space between the words "to" and "teaching"?‑‑‑Yes, there should be.


With those two matters corrected, are there any other amendments you wish to make to this statement?‑‑‑No.


You now say that statement is true and correct?‑‑‑It is.


I tender the statement of Prof Herberstein.




***        MARIE ELISABETH HERBERSTEIN                                                                                         XN MS PUGSLEY


MS PUGSLEY:  Prof Herberstein, Mr McAlpine from the NTEU will have some questions for you?‑‑‑Of course.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE                                 [2.09 PM]


MR McALPINE:  Thank you, Prof Herberstein.  Could I take you to paragraph 7 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.


You quote a provision of the enterprise agreement at the bottom of the page there.  You say:


The written allocation -


which it says above "will be developed by the head of department" -


will specify the workload that the staff member will undertake in the coming academic year.


Can you just give me a general description based on your knowledge of how that is specified.  It says it's written, so what is written down?‑‑‑Yes.  We work with spreadsheets and the spreadsheets allocate tasks or staff members can nominate tasks that they wish to engage in during the year.  The three major areas are teaching tasks, research tasks and service tasks, both internal service - service for the university - but also service for the scientific community. It's a pre‑formatted spreadsheet that I hope makes it easier for the staff member to list their activities, but I don't pre‑fill it in.  Usually staff members, by their history, know the kind of units that they're teaching in.  I send out an empty spreadsheet and then the staff members fill it in, in terms of what they want to do, in terms of the lectures that they want to give, guest lectures in other units, practical teaching, the kind of research activities they want to do, how many students they want to take on and the kind of service they want to do.  When they complete filling in the form, then we have a meeting - a face‑to‑face meeting - and I discuss their plans with them and go through it, and there is sort of a mutual moderation of their plans.


Thank you.  Can I take you now to paragraph 13 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.


I think on the fifth line you say:


On many occasions, my suggestions of reducing workload - for example, by sharing a unit with someone else -

***        MARIE ELISABETH HERBERSTEIN                                                                                     XXN MR MCALPINE


and the rest of that?‑‑‑Yes.


You have suggested on a number of occasions that things be reduced, but, nevertheless, those suggestions for reduction have been rejected by the staff member concerned?‑‑‑Yes.


Now, you wouldn't issue a direction or a requirement that that work not be done, would you?‑‑‑Look, it's a collegiate process and I want to give my colleagues the flexibility and the liberty to direct their own work.  I do discuss with them very seriously about how they're going to manage their workload.  For example, if they want to take on 10 PhD students, I seriously ask them whether that's really achievable, but I wouldn't necessarily stop them taking on the 10th student.  The same goes with units and lectures.  I am thinking of a particular staff member who has been running a very large unit and, you know, every year I've been talking to him about how we can - who can share this unit with him and reduce the teaching load.  It's a case of ownership, I suppose, in some cases.  Staff members feel very protective of their unit and it's theirs.  You know, I wouldn't direct them.


Thank you.  Now, can I take you to paragraph 14 near the end of your statement - in fact in the last sentence.  You say:


We have also instigated writing retreats for staff during their not teaching semester, where they work off campus for a period of time with the express aim of finishing off a piece of writing.


Why do you adopt that practice?‑‑‑It was suggested during one of our staff meetings that this could be a productive way forward.  It was discussed at the staff meeting that we should trial it.  It's really an odd thing, because they could stay at home and write their papers, anyway.  We wouldn't have to do this as formal as that, but I think by calling it a writing retreat it gives the staying away from - or feeling obliged to come to work and hence be interrupted on a daily basis.  It gives it a more formal commitment to the task.  It also indicates, I think, that the department values staff concentrating on writing their papers and finishing their papers, and that the department is supporting them if they want to dedicate time away from the department to finish off a paper.  It has been received very positively by our staff and I think as long as it helps them finish their papers - I think we should be retain it.

***        MARIE ELISABETH HERBERSTEIN                                                                                     XXN MR MCALPINE


Sorry, for the benefit of the Commission, where do these retreats take place?‑‑‑It's variable.  We have, for example, offices at the edge of campus where no one can find you and we can organise that staff could access these offices, and feel that they are in isolation there.  If they wish to go to the library and spend their days in the library, that of course is possible.  If they wish to stay at home, that's possible, as well.  I discuss with them where they could take their writing retreat.  Sometimes staying at home is actually not very productive because of the - you know, maybe there are children at home or there are other distractions, so moving away into a different building or a different room can do the trick.


Those types of writing retreats, you would say, improve the efficiency of the way people get their work done?‑‑‑Yes.  As I said, it does two things.  It highlights the support of the department for staff to focus on their research and generating high quality research, but I think it also helps the staff to focus.  They're going away with a particular purpose of focusing for a number of days on finishing a piece of work without being interrupted.


I might suggest it to the Trade Union movement, as well.


COMMISSIONER JOHNS:  And to the Commission.


MR McALPINE:  Can I take you ahead to paragraph 23 of your statement?‑‑‑Yes.


You say, in summary, that you're very concerned for your colleagues who experience long work hours.  What experience do you have of colleagues working long hours?‑‑‑I certainly know as a head of department, but also as a colleague, that some of my colleagues are working very long hours and they're struggling with that balance.  They're struggling with saying no to certain tasks and with prioritising their tasks.  Certainly, you know, when I started in this business, you know, it took me a few years also to understand how I work and how I best work, and how I should arrange my work.  It's really a long learning process, but it can be a successful learning process.  My experience with my colleagues is that for some characters it doesn't really matter how much mentoring or help I can offer them in terms of balancing their workload and being more practical, and more astute.  I think it's just part of their character.  For others, it's very successful that I can help with colleagues being a little bit more aware of how they work and how they can be more efficient and effective, and thereby reduce the actual working hours.

***        MARIE ELISABETH HERBERSTEIN                                                                                     XXN MR MCALPINE


Would it be fair to say - and I'm asking you this on the basis of what you've said in paragraphs 21 and 22 - that actually limiting the time spent on particular tasks can result in more efficient and productive work?‑‑‑I believe so.  It's also my own practice of understanding that I have other demands on my time and that I need to limit the time I'm spending on a particular task.  I could easily spend two weeks writing a single lecture.  I could read lots of books and lots of papers, and find lots of images that I could incorporate into my lecture.  There really isn't an end.  I could honestly spend days and weeks just for a single lecture, but I have to be pragmatic and I have to understand that there are other demands, and therefore I have to curtail the amount of time that I spend and just try and focus on it and make it happen.  I'm sorry, I think I may have missed the question somehow.


No, I don't think you did, professor?‑‑‑Okay, good.


As a head of school, would it be fair to say that you have to consider on the one hand providing a fair and equitable workload to the academic employees and on the other hand the budget and staffing constraints imposed upon you by the university?  Is that a fair statement?‑‑‑Yes.  It's a compromise - sorry, it's a management - I don't compromise the workload for my colleagues, but it is a management of both.  I have to deliver for the department, particularly the teaching aspect, but also the research aspect.  I have to help my colleagues work within that constraint.


I have no further questions.  Thank you.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY                                            [2.20 PM]


MS PUGSLEY:  Prof Herberstein, I have one question for you arising out of Mr McAlpine's questioning.  Mr McAlpine asked you about your colleagues working long hours - the fact that some of your colleagues work long hours.  What sorts of things do you put in place to assist those colleagues of yours who are working long hours if they are people who report to you?‑‑‑If, for example - it's often around teaching - a unit unexpectedly doubles in enrolments which can increase the workload, then we put in place additional tutors and additional support to help manage that unit.  If it's a case of a staff member spending more time in refining lectures, practicals, trying to perhaps revise the entire unit in one semester, then what I would do is I would sit with the staff member and say, "Rather than writing 30 new lectures for one semester, spread it out over a few years so that perhaps every year you just revise 10 new lectures and the next 10 you go the next year, and so on."  It's more a - I'm trying to help them spread out the workload a little bit more manageable.


Thank you.  No further questions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Thank you, Prof Herberstein, for your attendance.  You're excused?‑‑‑Thank you very much.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW                                                            [2.22 PM]

***        MARIE ELISABETH HERBERSTEIN                                                                                      RXN MS PUGSLEY


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Before we adjourn the proceedings today, we would ask the parties during the period before the next time we reconvene, which is 9 October, if you could perhaps reach some agreement on the way in which we'll deal with it in terms of directions in relation to the filing of written submissions at the end of the case.  At this stage we will be sitting through on evidence, unless we need more days, until 3 November.  Mr Pill?


MR PILL:  Yes, perhaps just to help shape that discussion, we have had some discussions.  It's not necessarily the case, but we thought it might be prudent to explore whether the 4th might be allocated as an additional day.  The 2nd and 3rd are Wednesday and Thursday - - -


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  There may be a problem with 4 November.


MR PILL:  I certainly appreciate that.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  We can't sit on 4 November, unfortunately.  I have commitments in Sydney.  We would have to come back another day.


MR PILL:  Yes, I understand that.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  That's not going to be a problem.


MR PILL:  One of the related questions, your Honour, is at the commencement of this week there was an additional statement filed by the NTEU for an Associate Professor Hepworth.  It attached within it another statement from a Mr Michael Evans from the NTEU and the NTEU were seeking leave to rely upon that statement, and we did indicate that we would consider our position in relation to that.  We have had the opportunity to do that.


We just wanted to note a couple of matters and then it is really a matter for the bench, but, if it is allowed in, we will be seeking to cross‑examine both of those witnesses and we would at least seek the opportunity potentially to call a rebuttal witness in relation to surveys.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Well, speaking for myself, our preliminary view would be that we would allow those materials in because we are in an award modernisation matter and we don't want to cut off the bench learning about matters.  Even though it extends the time - - -


MR PILL:  Yes.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  - - - that's the usual approach in these matters.


MR PILL:  I accept that, your Honour.  Without derogating from that, we did just want to try and get a little bit of certainty for the future.  We have had directions for material; March, July.  You had an interchange with Ms Gale where it was suggested that they would potentially be calling a Dr Paul Kniest.  I understand that they are now not going to call Dr Kniest.  My clients don't want to be in a position in a month's time where the NTEU say, "Well, we now decide we want to call Mr Kniest."  On that basis, given the comments of the bench, we're not opposing this going in.


We would seek the opportunity to potentially file a statement in response and just ask that it be noted as to how we've got to this point, because obviously my clients have prepared material in response to the known case at the relevant time.  We, therefore, have on my count with these two additional witnesses a total of eight more witnesses to go, which we could well get through on the two hours of 21 October and 2 and 3 November.  That would be our goal and then it's really a matter for the bench whether you seek to list a further back‑up day.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  I note in the current timetable the Bond evidence is listed for 28 October.  On paper at least there are theoretically eight witnesses.


MR PILL:  Yes.  I'm not really in a position to assist the Commission with that.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  No.  It seems ambitious, to say the least.


MS GALE:  Indeed.  Neither are we in a position to assist the Commission in relation to that, not representing BUASA in any manner.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes.  I'm wondering if I might get Commissioner Johns to re‑list the Bond matter for directions.  What I think we might do is potentially vacate 28 October and rather than interrupt the case, continue this case on 28 October if the parties are available on that date.


MS PUGSLEY:  Your Honour, I'm fairly sure that I'm in another matter on that day, but I'll let you know.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  The alternative of course is that we vacate - 28 October is a single day.


MR PILL:  Yes, and it's all in Brisbane, too, your Honour.




MR PILL:  Well, it's not listed in Brisbane, but all the parties are in Brisbane and are separately represented.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes.  I'll get Commissioner Johns to sort it out.  It may be that if all the parties are in Brisbane, we might actually sit in Brisbane and we won't change your timetable on that basis.


MS GALE:  Your Honour, the other thing you flagged earlier in the week was the possibility of some further dates being listed in December after written submissions.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Well, what I said when you had your discussions about written submissions, it would be most unlikely you would be able to get your written submissions in that quickly, because the hearing is going to finish on 3 November at the earliest and the parties normally are given an opportunity to put in detailed written submissions.  I think you should have those discussions and work out how much time each party wants.


I don't want to benchmark myself against penalty rates, but when we gave timetables to parties, all that happened was we then got further extensions and further extensions being sought on written submissions, and given the time of year where we're sitting in this case, that doesn't give me great confidence that the written submissions will be in this year.  I would rather get the parties to actually do the written submissions in whatever time they require, but we're still going to deal with whether you need any more days beyond 3 November.


MR PILL:  Well, I think the answer is possibly not, but it would be prudent if the Commission could accommodate at least a back‑up day, if I can put it that way, that can be vacated if not required.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  Yes.  What I might do is get Commissioner Johns again to deal with that offline, because I can't really deal with that readily.


MR PILL:  No, I appreciate that, your Honour.  They were the only matters.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  What we might do is actually probably just offer two days or something, to make sure that we cover out the evidence.


MR PILL:  I would encourage your Honour.  Hopefully it won't encourage lengthening the case, if your Honour please.


VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI:  All right.  There being no other administrative matters, we will then adjourn until 19 October.




EXHIBIT #AF (COPY) SURVEY INSTRUMENT........................................ PN6462

ANDREW GILES, AFFIRMED....................................................................... PN6470

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS GALE................................................... PN6470

EXHIBIT #AG STATEMENT OF ANDREW GILES.................................. PN6497

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY................................................ PN6498

MFI #37 PPR........................................................................................................ PN6541

MFI #38 DOCUMENT....................................................................................... PN6548

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL......................................................... PN6571

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE................................................................ PN6588

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6600

ANDREW PICOULEAU, AFFIRMED........................................................... PN6602

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR PILL.................................................... PN6602

EXHIBIT #12 STATEMENT OF ANDREW PICOULEAU......................... PN6612

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE........................................................ PN6615

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6717

ANDREW PICOULEAU, RECALLED.......................................................... PN6717

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GALE, CONTINUING........................... PN6717

MFI #39 LIST OF POLICIES MAINTAINED ON MONASH UNIVERSITY WEBSITE............................................................................................................................... PN6729

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL................................................................. PN6763

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6787

DAWN SILVIA FRESHWATER, AFFIRMED............................................. PN6790

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR PILL.................................................... PN6790


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE............................................. PN6803

MFI #40 EXTRACTS FROM UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA ACADEMIC STAFF AGREEMENT...................................................................................... PN6814

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PILL................................................................. PN6873

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6880

MARIE ELISABETH HERBERSTEIN, AFFIRMED.................................. PN6885

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS PUGSLEY........................................... PN6885


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MCALPINE............................................. PN6898

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS PUGSLEY........................................................ PN6923

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.......................................................................... PN6926