Workload Review Clause Samples

Workload Review. ‌ Originally Signed September 19, 2019 The parties agree that during the life of this agreement, the Labour Management Committee under Article 6 will review concerns from Component 3 members related to workload, will review other current and historical information related to shifts in workload, and may make advisory recommendations to the Union and/or the University. LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING #5‌ Originally Signed Nov. 28, 2022 The parties recognize that there has been growth year-over-year in the number of students with academic accommodations. This growth has an impact on the workload of Sessional Lecturers, above and beyond the supports offered through the Centre for Accessible Learning (CAL), which varies based on the complexity and number of academic accommodations. The Parties are agreed to form a joint committee to:

Workload Review. (i) An employee who believes a review of their workload is warranted shall meet to discuss the concern with their immediate supervisor and if the concern is deemed valid, to identify possible methods to resolve the concern. (ii) In the event that a resolution cannot be reached, the employee may refer the concern in writing to the next level manager. The decision, in writing, shall be provided to the employee within five (5) working days. (iii) An employee who is dissatisfied with the decision in Article 62:03(f)(ii) may grieve the decision at Step 2 of the grievance procedure within five (5) working days from the date the employee received the decision. The college President or designate shall hold a hearing to discuss the grievance with the employee and the employee’s representative. The decision at Step 2 shall be final for such grievances.

Workload Review. A faculty member, who believes his/her workload to be excessive for any reason, including coordination and self-studies for accreditation, may request an administrative review by his/her ▇▇▇▇ or appropriate management supervisor. This review shall be completed within a reasonable period of time, and a written summary with recommendations shall be furnished to the faculty member, College, and the Faculty Association.

Workload Review. (i) An employee who believes a review of their workload is warranted shall meet to discuss the concern with their immediate supervisor and if the concern is deemed valid, to identify possible methods to resolve the concern. (ii) In the event that a resolution cannot be reached, the employee may refer the concern in writing to the next level manager. The decision, in writing, shall be provided to the employee within five (5) working days. (iii) An employee who is dissatisfied with the decision in (ii) above, may grieve the decision at Step 2 of the grievance procedure within five

Workload Review. 3.1 Any issues arising from an Academic Staff Member’s work planning and workload shall, in the first instance, be dealt with between the Academic Staff Member and their immediate Line Manager with a view to resolving the concerns. This shall include reviewing the recent history, current work planning and work load against this policy, procedures and guidelines and relevant Employment Agreement (where applicable). Advice and support may be requested from the Human Resources Department, the Academic Member of Staff’s Union or other colleagues. Where possible, resolutions of the issues shall be reached in consultation with the Academic Staff Member. 3.2 The Academic Staff Member may be required to record their work activities for a period of time (i.e. 1-2 weeks) to assist with the resolution process. 3.3 Workload issues shall be managed in a timely manner as agreed with the Academic Staff Member and others involved. 3.4 Where work related stress is diagnosed by a Medical Practitioner appropriate support and processes shall be initiated by the line manager, with advice from Human Resources and the Health & Safety Adviser. The Academic Staff Member may also self-refer to appropriate services.

Workload Review. 42.01 The Parties recognize the importance of discussions regarding workload for the benefit of delivering a safe, respectful, effective, efficient, quality public service. Employees are encouraged to regularly discuss the manageability of their workloads with their direct supervisors. Excessive workloads are of concern to Employees, the Union and the Employer. Where an Employee or group of Employees is concerned they cannot meet workload expectations, they may raise the concern with their immediate out of scope supervisor or manager. The Manager shall meet with the Employee or group of Employees within fourteen (14) days of the concern being raised to discuss and resolve the concern. The Manager shall provide a timely reply in writing.

Workload Review. ‌ Originally Signed September 19, 2019 The parties agree that during the life of this agreement, the Labour Management Committee under Article 7 will review concerns from Component 3 members related to workload, will review other current and historical information related to shifts in workload, and may make advisory recommendations to the Union and/or the University. LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING #10‌

Workload Review a) Supervisors are responsible for the ongoing management of workloads and shall monitor the workload of staff members to ensure that the allocation of work is fair and reasonable. b) A staff member who believes that the workload assigned to them is: i) inequitable – that is, not fair in comparison to the workloads of other staff in their work unit, or ii) unreasonable – that is, could not be expected to be completed by a staff member with the required knowledge and abilities within ordinary working hours, or iii) unbalanced – that is, does not provide adequate opportunity to undertake a balanced range of workload elements should in the first instance discuss the matter with their supervisor to seek a variation in their workload allocation. The staff member can seek the support of the relevant union at any stage of the process. c) Every reasonable attempt shall be made to settle workload concerns informally and as quickly as possible.

Workload Review. A staff member who believes that the workload assigned to them by their Head of School (or equivalent) is inconsistent with the guidelines above, for example, it is: a) inequitable – that is, given the staff member’s academic classification level and fraction of employment, their workload is not fair in comparison to the workloads of other staff in the School, or b) unreasonable – that is, could not be expected to be completed by a staff member with the required knowledge and abilities within the 1725 hour limitation (pro-rata for part-time staff), or c) unbalanced – that is, does not provide adequate opportunity to undertake a balanced range of workload elements, should in the first instance discuss the matter with their Head of School (or equivalent) to seek a variation in their workload allocation. If this does not lead to a resolution of their concern they may seek a review by their Pro Vice Chancellor. Allocation of activities in accordance with the Academic Workload Guidelines will be one aspect considered as part of the workload review.