National Tertiary Education Industry Union v University of Western Sydney
[2012] FWA 9166
•13 NOVEMBER 2012
[2012] FWA 9166 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
National Tertiary Education Industry Union
v
University of Western Sydney
(C2012/2513)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE | SYDNEY, 13 NOVEMBER 2012 |
Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES;[s186(6)] .
[1] On 2 February 2012 a dispute notification was lodged with Fair Work Australia (FWA) by the National Tertiary Education Union (the NTEU) involving a dispute with the University of Western Sydney (the UWS). The notification alleged two breaches of the University of Western Sydney Academic Staff Agreement 2009 – 2012 (the Agreement) regarding the application of clause 12(41) and clause 19.
[2] After extensive conciliation involving Commissioner Riordan and myself there was a settlement reached on 10 April 2012 regarding Teaching Focused Roles, which involved the notification in so far as it related to the application of clause 12(41). Clause 12(41) is set out below:
“(41) An employee who has been employed on a casual basis to perform at least, or would but for this clause be undertaking, eight hours per week of face to face teaching will be offered a fixed term position in a teaching focused role subject to the following:
(a) fixed term positions will be offered only if there is sufficient teaching work available to require the position to be filled for a period of at least six months;
(b) the employee must have demonstrated the capacity to meet the current and future expectations of the position (including any new duties or skills that may be required) and the School’s strategic directions; and
(c) the employee’s casual employment was not for the purpose of replacing another employee who is absent on leave or temporary transfer, or is undertaking restricted duties, or reduced working hours.”
(My emphasis)
[3] The Terms of Settlement of 10 April 2012 are set out below:
“TEACHER FOCUSED ROLE SETTLEMENT
The parties have entered into this agreement in good faith to try and resolve the problem of long term academic casual employment.
The parties acknowledge and accept that this agreement cannot and will not be used as a precedent, by either side, in relation to any other classification or situation at the University.
Process
1. This process will apply to all casual academic employees who have been teaching a minimum of eight hours per week for at least a semester within the last two years and, in addition, are still employed by the University in a substantial capacity, albeit at below the eight hour per week minimum.
2. University of Western Sydney (UWS) will indentify (sic) the casual who fit this criteria and advise the National Tertiary Education Industry Union (NTEU) accordingly.
3. UWS will advise the potential casual candidates by mail, email and via a notice on the UWS website.
4. UWS will call for expressions of interest for these fixed term (full time or part time) positions by 18 May 2012. These positions will be between 6 months and 2 years duration.
5. Applications for these roles will close on 1 June 2012.
6. Letters of offer to the successful candidates will be made by 30 June 2012.
7. The relevant Dean of School will be consulted about the requirements/duties of the positions. Proposed duties include teaching, marking, unit co-ordination, some professional development, curriculum development, e-learning and learning management system management. The parties note that this is not an exhaustive list.
8. Applications will be considered by a panel consisting of a Deputy Vice Chancellor, or their designated appointee, the relevant Dean of School and a representative from the Office of People and Culture.
9. All applicants who meet the criteria will be interviewed. The applicant/member can submit a proposal of duties or package to UWS. Any proposal must satisfy the appropriate number of hours over the term of the appointment.
10. An applicant who meets the 8 hour test and is otherwise eligible for a teaching focussed role may only be rejected based on the points in clause 12(41)(a), (b), and (c) of the University of Western Sydney Academic Staff Agreement 2009-12.
11. The upper limit of hours for each school will be set by the Dean of School following consultation with the Union. If the Union objects to the weekly face to face teaching hours limit set by the Dean, this limit will be determined, following submissions, by Senior Deputy President Drake.
12. There will be a recording of the Agreed Work Plan.
14. Following a determination by the interview/appointment panel, an appeal committee comprising of a representative from UWS, a representative from the NTEU and Senior Deputy President Drake will be convened to deal with any appeal from an interviewed applicant expeditiously.
13. Any disputes relating to the application of this arrangement will be referred to Senior Deputy President Drake for resolution.”
(My emphasis)
[4] Following this settlement, 73 casual staff applied for Teaching Focused Roles in June 2012. Only 19 appointments were made. The NTEU alleged that the UWS failed to properly implement the terms of clause 12(41) when it rejected the appointment of the unsuccessful applicants. The UWS disputed this allegation. This dispute is the subject of this decision.
[5] The NTEU called for expressions of interest from its members to appeal the decision by the UWS to reject their applications. It submitted:
“......Many of the union’s members stated that whilst they did not agree with the grounds for rejection of their application, they were not prepared to come forward in an appeal for fear of losing future employment with the University and their fear that they would be victimised in the future.” 1
[6] The Appeal Panel heard appeals from eight unsuccessful applicants on 9, 10 and 11 October 2012. The results of these appeals will be notified to the appellants separately.
[7] The NTEU consistently maintained that the Selection Criteria utilised by the UWS were inappropriate and not in accordance with the Agreement. Prior to commencement of the proceedings before the Appeal Panel there was a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the Appeal Panel was charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not the Selection Criteria identified by each school was appropriate or not. The UWS submitted that all the Selection Criteria were appropriate and that, in any event, that issue was not a matter for the Appeal Panel.
[8] I was not persuaded that that issue was one for determination by the Appeal Panel. If there was any discretion to be exercised in the resolution of this dispute it was a discretion that resided in the member of FWA to whom the resolution of the original dispute was allocated, and to whom resolution of disputes concerning the application of the Terms of Settlement was referred pursuant to Paragraph 14 of the Terms of Settlement of 10 April 2012. 2 I was not persuaded to adjourn the resolution of this issue until after the appeals were heard, because of the delay involved.
[9] I heard submissions on this issue immediately before commencement of the individual appeals on 9 October 2012 and, at the conclusion of the appeal process, I allowed both of the parties short further oral submissions. I am satisfied and find that I have jurisdiction to settle any dispute about the Selection Criteria of each school.
[10] Each school developed separate Selection Criterion. The schools whose applicants appealed to the Appeal Panel are the School of Business, the School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, the School of Law, the School of Humanities and Communication Arts and the School of Science and Health.
[11] The NTEU’s submissions on the intended function of the Teaching Focused clause and its application are set out below:
"Intentions of the Teaching Focused Clause
7. The Teaching Focused clause was first negotiated between the parties in 2009 and became a clause in the current Agreement upon certification in 19 July 2010.
8. At the time of negotiation, the intention of the parties was that the clause would operate as a casual conversion clause, that is, to provide a mechanism for long term casual staff to convert to a more secure form of employment.
9. The clause was created in recognition of the following:
a. The high numbers of casual staff engaged across the University sector. The union’s evidence shows that 50% of undergraduate teaching is performed by casual staff employed on a regular and systematic basis.
b. The high numbers of casual staff engaged at the University of Western Sydney, many of whom have been engaged by the University for 12 months or more.
c. Almost all of the casuals employed by the University are employed for the length of a semester (almost 6 months) at any one time and are repeatedly engaged from semester to semester. They are employed on an ‘Academic Casual Employment Authority’.
10. It was not the intention of the parties that these positions would be externally advertised as stated in clause 12(42) of the Agreement.
Application of the Clause
11. This dispute has arisen largely in relation to the application of clause 12(41)(b) which states:
‘The employee must have demonstrated the capacity to meet the current and future expectations of the position (including any new duties or skills that may be required) and the School’s strategic directions;’
12. In or about 21 May 2012, the University wrote to some of its casual employees and invited staff to lodge an online application for a Teaching Focused Role. The letter to staff stated:
‘The Academic Staff Agreement 2009-2012 (‘Agreement’) provides casual academic employees with the opportunity to be offered ‘Teaching Focused Roles’ on a fixed-term basis for a period of no less than six months and no more than two years subject to certain eligibility criteria. Employment during the fixed term period will be on a full time or part time basis.
We are writing to advise that you have met the initial criteria to make you eligible to express an interest in one of these positions...
If you have an interest and preference for teaching, learning and related activities, this is an opportunity for you. Duties may include teaching, marking, unit coordination, some professional development, student consultation, curriculum development, and e-learning and learning management system administration. However this list is not exhaustive...’
13. In an attachment to this letter, the University included a further statement which read:
“Appointments to Teaching Focused Roles are subject to the following requirements being met:
1. Casual academic employees who have been teaching (face to face) a minimum of eight hours per week for at least a semester within the last two years and, in addition, are still employed by the University in a substantial capacity, albeit at slightly below the eight hour per week minimum.
2. The availability of sufficient teaching work for a period of no less than six months;
3. Demonstrated capacity to meet the current and future expectations of the position (including any new duties or skills that may be required) and the School’s strategic directions; and
4. The casual employment was not for the purpose of replacing another employee who is absent on leave or temporary transfer, undertaking restricted duties, or working reduced hours.
Other essential criteria are detailed in the position description for each School’s Teaching Focused Role....””
[12] The UWS submitted that the Appeal Panel was not charged with any role in settling the Selection Criteria. It submitted that clause 12(41)(b) of the Agreement and clause 7 of the Terms of Settlement provide the UWS with "The discretion to determine the selection criteria to be applied in each school and that, as it understands the position, no part of the eight appeals is about whether the selection criteria that was established by the University in that regard was appropriate." 3
[13] The eight individual appellants were heard as an indicative selection of candidates, with the intention that what was heard and then decided by the Appeal Panel would be likely to be of assistance to any other unsuccessful applicant who might be considering an appeal. I hope that my decision will also be of assistance to possible further appellants, any prospective applicants for such positions in the future, and the various schools.
[14] I will deal with the criteria in the order in which they were dealt with by the NTEU. The NTEU submitted that the "other essential criteria" required by the UWS for these roles are unreasonable, unnecessary and not in accordance with the Agreement.
Criterion 1: Requirement for a PhD or PhD Equivalence
[15] The NTEU submission in regard to this criteria is set out below:
“(a) The requirement for a PhD is not a current expectation of any teaching positions currently held by casual academics in any School. Most casual academics across all Schools are currently teaching without a PhD and have done so for many years.
(b) It is clear from the Agreement that it was not the intention of the parties that Teaching Focused Roles would require a PhD. Clause 12(48) of the Agreement outlines the eligibility for appointments to another category of employment, being Career Development Fellowships, and clearly states that a PhD is required for those positions. If the parties had intended that PhD’s would be a current or future requirement for Teaching Focused Roles, then this would have been specified in the clause.
(c) The requirement for a PhD as a current or future expectation of the School is not in accordance with the Agreement. The Teaching Focused positions were advertised as ‘Associate Lecturer’ Level A. Schedule 4 ‘Position Classification Standards’ of the Agreement states that the qualifications for a Level A Academic are:
“A level A academic will normally have completed 4 years of tertiary study in the relevant discipline and/or have equivalent qualifications and/or experience. In many cases a position at this level will require an honours degree or higher qualification, or an extended professional degree, or a 3 year degree with postgraduate diploma. In determining experience relative to qualifications, regard is had to teaching experience, experience in research, experience outside tertiary education, creative achievement, professional contributions and/or to technical achievement.”
A PhD is not required at this level.” 4
(my emphasis)
[16] The UWS submission in regard to this criteria is set out below:
“18. Teaching Focused Roles are classified as Level A roles under the Position Classification Standards in Schedule 4 of the Agreement. Schedule 4 relevantly provides ‘In many cases a position at this level will require an honours degree or higher qualification’ (emphasis added). This permits the University to require the employee to hold a PhD.
19. The University has decided to move to a position where (unless not appropriate for a particular School) all fixed-term and ongoing academic staff hold a PhD. The University is currently going through a transition to achieve that result, with new positions being advertised with that requirement. As academics in Teaching Focused Roles are engaged on a fixed-term basis, this requirement is applied to them. This transition is being made for reasons including:
a. enhancing the reputation of the University, with consequential effects on funding;
b. ensuring the standard of teaching at the University is of the highest quality; and because
c. the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2011 (“Framework”), relevantly requires (in Chapter 3, Section 4) that:
‘The higher education provider ensures that staff who teach students in the course of study:
are appropriately qualified in the relevant discipline for their level of teaching (qualified to at least one Qualification Standards level higher than the course of study being taught or with equivalent professional experience) ......” (paragraph 4.2).
And given that staff in Teaching Focused Roles may be required to teach postgraduate programs, the requirements of the Framework mean that such staff must hold a PhD qualification in order to meet the prescribed standards.” 5
(my emphasis)
Criterion 2: Positive Student Feedback
[17] The NTEU submission in regard to this criteria is set out below:
“(a) The requirement to demonstrate positive student feedback is not a current expectation of teaching positions held by casual academics. Casual academics have never been required to obtain student feedback and are currently routinely engaged by the University to perform teaching work over a semester without any regard to student feedback and without any formal interview or application process.
(b) The requirement to demonstrate positive student feedback as a future expectation of the University is unreasonable and unrealistic due to the following:
i. Student feedback has not previously, and should not now be used, as a performance measure. It is recognised across the industry as being provided only for the professional development of academics.
ii. Student feedback is not an objective test and not a good indicator of teaching performance. It is based on the subjective views of individual students, can be reduced to a ‘popularity contest’ depending on the charisma or ‘likeability’ of an academic and is open to abuse by students who may have received a poor grade or failed a unit.
(c) The absence of positive student feedback is not an indication of poor performance.” 6
[18] The UWS submission in regard to this criteria is set out below:
“20. The University requires applicants for a Teaching Focused Role to provide evidence of positive student feedback in relation to their teaching abilities, for reasons including that the roles are, by their nature, teaching-focused. All staff at the University (including casual employees) have access to the University’s processes for obtaining anonymous student feedback about their teaching.” 7
Criterion 3: Blended Learning and E-Learning.
[19] The NTEU submission in regard to this criteria is set out below:
“(a) Blended learning is the mixing of different learning environments and combines traditional face to face teaching with computer based activities.
(b) The requirement to demonstrate blended learning is not a current expectation of teaching positions held by casual academics. Casual academics are currently routinely engaged by the University to perform teaching work over a semester without any requirement to demonstrated blended learning techniques. This is evidenced by the fact that training in blended learning for casual academics has only recently been initiated by the University.
(c) The current causal pay rates in the Agreement do not include payment for blended learning practices or paid time to receive training in blended learning. Schedule 2 - Casual Pay Rates at subclause (3) states:
“The hourly rate of pay for lecturing or tutoring in addition to the delivery of lectures and/or tutorials, includes:
(a) Preparing lectures and tutorials;
(b) Marking directly associated with the delivery of a lecture or tutorial such as a tutorial presentation or participation but not including marking of course or unit-wide essays or assignments, or other assessment tasks that are not assessable during the delivery of a lecture or tutorial;
(c) Administration of relevant records of the students for which the casual academic is responsible;
(d) Informal consultations with students immediately before and after a lecture or tutorial.”
(d) No training or support has been provided by the University to casual academics to accommodate blended learning practices.
(e) Casual academic staff are severely limited in their access to computer based technology as the University does not provide an office or access to a personal computer for casual academics, and some casuals only have access to a shared office, shared computer and shared phone.” 8
[20] The UWS submission in regard to this criteria is set out below:
“21. To meet student needs, the University is moving towards a ‘blended learning’ environment - where the ability to utilise various different modes of teaching (on line, in person etc) is required. A move towards blended and e-learning is in line with the future expectations of Teaching Focused Roles (and indeed academic roles in general). For this reason, the University requires applicants to demonstrate an understanding of, and experience in, blended learning.” 9
Criterion 4: Scholarly Knowledge of Discipline Area Including a Developing Publication Record in Scholarly Journals and Academic Presses
[21] The NTEU submission in regard to this criteria is set out below:
“(a) The key elements of a TFR are ‘teaching and teaching related activities’. It is intended that the primary focus of these positions is teaching and they will have only a very small research component.
(b) Current casual academics are not paid to perform research and it is not part of their job description.
(c) It is not an appropriate or necessary criterion for casual academic staff to show evidence of a developing publication record for a position that does not require research to be performed.” 10
[22] The UWS did not make a specific submission in regard to this criterion.
Conclusion
[23] In relation to each of the criteria the question is whether or not it is reasonable and appropriate. Is it what an applicant might reasonably expect to have to meet for such a role? The role focuses on teaching at an Academic Level A. What are the usual parameters for such a position taking into account the future expectations of the role and the strategic direction of the school?
[24] Arising from my consideration of the disputed criteria and the Appeal Panel’s determination of the appeals, I hope that some guidance emerges for both future applicants and the UWS as to the process to be engaged in when applying for these roles and the Selection Criteria to be met. As in many things, I am satisfied and find that, less prescriptive is better.
Requirement for a PhD or PhD equivalence
[25] I am satisfied that the Position Classification Standards for an Academic Level A role are the appropriate standards for the Teaching Focused Roles which are the subject of this dispute.
[26] For the reasons set out below I am satisfied and find that neither a PhD (or a DBA) is an appropriate mandatory Selection Criterion for a Teaching Focused Role.
[27] In support of its contentions the NTEU submitted that a PhD is not a current expectation for casual teaching positions, and that all other positions where a PhD is required designate that requirement in the relevant Position Classification Standards. I accept the NTEU submission that these facts are not consistent with the UWS submission that a PhD is an appropriate mandatory Selection Criterion for Teaching Focused Roles.
[28] The UWS relied specifically on the following words of the Academic Level A Position Classification Standard "...In many cases a position at this level will require an honours degree or higher qualification." as entitling it to require a PhD as a mandatory Selection Criterion.
[29] I do not find this submission persuasive. The standard contains alternatives regarding the requirements for such a position. The whole sentence is "...In many cases a position at this level will require an honours degree or higher qualification, or an extended professional degree, or a 3 year degree with postgraduate diploma."
(my emphasis)
[30] Designating a PhD as a mandatory Selection Criterion excludes the possibility of applications by persons who hold the alternative qualifications referred to in that Position Classification Standard and who might otherwise be appropriate candidates. On the plain English reading of the relevant sentence, the qualifications referred to appear to be intended as alternatives, entitling an applicant with any one of the alternative qualifications to apply for appointment, subject to merit. To exclude the alternatives to a PhD is to alter, without consultation, the substance of the Position Classification Standard for that role to a position where the alternatives to a PhD in the Position Classification Standard for an Academic Level A position are inoperative.
[31] The UWS also submitted that a PhD is a necessary mandatory Selection Criterion because appointees might have to teach PhD students and, in accordance with the requirements of "the framework", an academic standard one level higher than the student body is required.
[32] Subsequent to final submissions Miss Kelly from the NTEU provided a further submission on this issue. It is extracted below:
- Are appropriately qualified in the relevant discipline for their level of teaching (qualified to at least one Qualification Standards level higher than the course of study being taught or with equivalent professional experience);
- engage students in intellectual inquiry appropriate to the level of the
- of study and unit being taught; and,
- are advised of student and other feedback on the quality of their teaching
- have opportunities to improve their teaching.’
“The relevant legislative document is attached. The pertinent section, on p16 is below:
‘4.2 The higher education provider ensures that staff who teach students in the
course of study:
The key phrase here is: ‘or with equivalent professional experience’ –
The schools seemed to claim that there would be some revision for 2015 which would enforce this qualification standard in some new, tighter way. Unless they are planning to abolish the ‘equivalence’ clause (and why would they?) This is standard practice, everywhere in the world) this is not true.”
[33] I provided the UWS with an opportunity to respond to this submission which arose in response to the oral submissions of the UWS, not from discussions of the Appeal Panel. The UWS had some understandable difficulties in responding but provided the following:
“The University has regard to the Higher Education Standards Framework when engaging academics in Teacher Focus Roles (TFRs). On that basis, the University, for the most part, requires academics in TFRs to have PHDs or equivalent professional experience. This is because, amongst other things, academics engaged as TFRs will generally be required to teach at a postgraduate level;
Going forward, the University is generally moving towards an academic environment where all academic staff will be PHD qualified (unless specified otherwise). The reasons for this are outlined in paragraph 19 of the University's submissions to the Appeal Committee; and
Some individual Schools at the University have already adopted this strategic direction (ie, requiring all academic staff to have PHD) - for reasons including to seek international accreditation and moving towards a more professional academic environment. We note that clause 12(41)(b) of the University of Western Sydney Academic Staff Agreement 2009 - 2012 provides that a TFR applicant is required to 'have demonstrated the capacity to meet the current and future expectations of the position (including any new duties or skills that may be required) and the School's strategic directions'.
The University is unclear what Ms Kelly’s reference to the 'revision for 2015' relates to.”
[34] Whilst there may be a justification for requiring a PhD in many Teaching Focused Roles, it is unlikely that all such teaching positions will require the teaching of PhD students. I am satisfied that this is simply one other matter that might be considered in the selection process for a particular position.
The UWS has a stated preference for a PhD. Possession of that qualification is likely to be a positive consideration whenever there are applications for these roles. Where there are limited opportunities available these candidates will have a natural advantage. However, there is no necessity for the UWS to make a PhD a mandatory Selection Criterion. If it becomes mandatory for an applicant to have a PhD before they can apply for a Teaching Focused Role the likely result is that exceptional candidates with professional and other experience, and those on their way to a PhD, will have no opportunity for selection and the UWS will have no opportunity to recognise such candidates and select them. This would be a retrograde step despite the appropriateness of the UWS ambition to improve the standard of its academic appointments.
Positive Student Feedback
[36] I am satisfied and find that it is unreasonable to reject an applicant because they do not have a current student feedback survey. The absence of a student feedback survey should not be decisive. However, I am satisfied and find that it is not unreasonable or inappropriate for the UWS to reject an applicant because they do not have any satisfactory and current evidence of excellence in teaching other than a current student feedback survey.
[37] Lack of positive student feedback has been identified as a ground for rejection of an applicant. Some applicants had no student feedback surveys to provide as evidence of teaching excellence. It is not appropriate here to deal with the reason for that situation now although I am not persuaded that all casual employees had access to all necessary information about the survey process. This should be addressed.
[38] When that material is not available it should still be possible for a candidate to establish excellence in teaching. There is of course a natural inference, where a teacher has continued to teach in a particular school without criticism, that their teaching is likely to be satisfactory. However, satisfactory teaching is not evidence of excellence in teaching.
[39] If excellence in teaching is to be a mandatory Selection Criterion a candidate needs to supply current evidence to satisfy this criterion. It does not have to be a student feedback survey. It should be possible for an applicant to provide alternative evidence from supervisors, peers or randomly selected students. In the absence of a positive student feedback survey such other evidence of teaching excellence might well suffice. That material will be variously persuasive in different circumstances involving different applicants and in different schools. Such material should be considered. This is a job application. The requirement to provide evidence of a particular applicant's capacity to perform the work in question is not onerous.
[40] The NTEU argued that student feedback is not a current requirement for the engagement of a casual academic at the UWS and the failure to provide student feedback should not be a reason to reject an application. I agree. However, failure to provide any current evidence of excellence in teaching is a reason to reject an applicant.
[41] The NTEU also submitted that there is no formal interview or application process for a casual position. I am not persuaded that this is a relevant matter. The standards are not necessarily the standards for appointment to a Teaching Focused Role. It is a move to a fixed term position. Excellence in teaching is an appropriate Selection Criteria in that circumstance.
Blended Learning and E-Learning
[42] I am satisfied and find that a selection criterion involving Blended Learning and E-Learning is an appropriate mandatory Selection Criterion.
[43] I am not persuaded by the NTEU submissions regarding this criterion. The subject of this dispute notification is a job application. If there is a new, innovative approach to learning on the horizon that is a matter that a prospective employer might reasonably expect an applicant for a permanent appointment, with professed expertise in their field, to be aware of and able to discuss.
[44] Although I accept that a demonstrated current understanding and experience in e-learning is not a current requirement for an appointment as a casual academic, I am not persuaded that that is a relevant consideration in relation to the application for these positions. Clause 12(41) states:
"Proposed duties include teaching, marking, unit co-ordination, some professional development, curriculum development, e-learning and learning management system management. The parties note that this is not an exhaustive list."
(My emphasis)
[45] E-learning is one of the proposed duties for this role and I am satisfied that its inclusion as a mandatory Selection Criterion is reasonable.
[46] I am not persuaded that, because the UWS has not provided training or experience in blended learning or e-learning to those presently in casual teaching positions, it is not entitled to take into account the absence of such experience or knowledge when assessing applications for permanent positions. The UWS is not under any obligation to provide training, practice or support technology in this area to casual academics who might be applying for Teaching Focused Roles.
[47] This is an area of developing professional interest and an applicant who is interested in their field and pursuing excellence might reasonably be expected to know about, have some experience in, or be generally well-informed about, this area of developing learning.
Scholarly Knowledge of Discipline Area Including a Developing Publication Record in Scholarly Journals and Academic Presses
[48] I am persuaded by the submissions of the NTEU that this criterion is an inappropriate mandatory Selection Criterion.
[49] This role is not a research role. A developing publication record, like the achievement of a PhD, is a matter that might weigh in the balance in favour of one applicant over another. It is not a matter that should be mandatorily required before an applicant can apply for a Teaching Focused Role.
[50] Should any further applicants decide to appeal as a result of this decision provisional dates have been set aside for the hearing of those appeals on 7 and 8 February 2013.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Ms A Vella for the National Tertiary Education Industry Union
Ms N Maiolo for the University of Western Sydney
Hearing details:
Sydney
2012
October 9
1 Submissions on behalf of the applicant para 5
2 Exhibit NTEU 2
3 Respondent’s Submissions para 10
4 Applicant’s Submissions para 14
5 Respondent’s Submissions para 18-19
6 Applicant’s Submissions para 14
7 Respondent’s Submissions para 20
8 Applicant’s Submissions para 14
9 Respondent’s Submissions para 21
10 Applicant’s Submissions para 14
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, AE878925 PR530674>
0
0
0