Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences FACULTY LEADERSHIP TEAM (FLT) 5 March 2015 Present: Professor Stephen Flint (in the Chair) Professor Ann Webb Professor Tim O’Brien Professor Stephen Yeates Dr Louise Walker Professor Mike Sutcliffe Professor Richard Winpenny Professor Jim Miles Professor Hugh Coe Professor Tony Brown Professor Paul O’Brien Professor Peter Duck Professor Andy Gibson Professor Steve Watts Rachel Brealey Sue Field Nicola Cosens (for Pauline Morgan) Ian Bradley Pia Pollock (Secretary) In attendance: Catherine Davidge (for item 1) Rob Derbyshire Tanya Aspinall Steve Blatch Apologies: Pauline Morgan 1. HEALTH AND SAFETY RECEIVED: An update from the Faculty Safety Coordinators was received and the following items were discussed in detail: i) Other significant events Regarding point 2a in the Safety Services Report, the importance of evacuating a students (staff or others) when the intermittent building alarm changed to a continuous alarm was reinforced and Heads of School were asked to remind relevant staff of their responsibilities in any such events, irrespective of the perceived cause. It was reported that the incident had been taken forward formally. Another significant incident relating to circular saw usage (point 2b) had occurred. The investigation had shown that a risk assessment was in place but that it had not taken sufficient account of the presence of apprentice technicians. Heads of Schools were asked to ensure that all risk assessments in workshops (and laboratories) were up to date [AP40: HoS]. It was requested that Colin Baines as the Faculty Technical Resource Manager would be included to the list of Faculty contacts regarding any future incidents. ii) Fire Evacuation Marshal (FEM) co-ordinator for Sackville St Building It was felt that the Sackville Street Building did not have a sufficient number of fire evacuation marshals and, moreover, it was requested that a staff member would be appointed in the Faculty to liaise with all FEMs in Sackville Street Building and the Minutes page 1 University Fire Evacuation Coordinator in arranging evacuations. It was reported that additional colleagues had indeed been appointed to the marshall role a while ago but due to the nature of work of these colleagues, they had been elsewhere at the time an evacuation was needed. However, it was agreed that the Director of Faculty Operations would take this forward with the Faculty's Safety Advisor [AP41: DoFO]. iii) MECD workshop It was reported that the workshop and related exercises, which had included discussions on experiences around considerations of safety critical implications, had been very useful. iv) Evacuation of Alan Turing Building The HoS for Mathematics raised an issue about the evacuation during a fire alarm and the need to ensure that the traffic would be stopped on the west side of the building which was close to the assembly point and had to be crossed to reach it. During recent evacuations delivery and service traffic had continued to access the area where large groups of people had been evacuated plus if there was a fire then the University would be putting the drivers in danger. It was requested that traffic was stopped in this, and any similar, areas in such instances. It was agreed that the Safety Coordinators would take this forward [AP42: Safety Coordinators]. v) Student illness and ambulance service to find the building The HoS for Computer Science reported that a student had taken seriously during a laboratory in the Kilburn Building and it had taken about 40 minutes for the ambulance service to arrive due to the difficulties in finding the building. It was suggested that instructions on finding exact locations would be reviewed. The Head of School was asked to highlight the incident to the University’s First Aid Co- ordinator (Janet Makin) [AP43: HoS Computer Science]. vi) Major incident in Pariser building on 4 March A major incident had taken place in the Pariser Building due to a mixture of chemicals being left in a lab. Some of the chemicals had started to crystallise which had the potential to cause an explosion and therefore the building and its adjacent buildings had been evacuated. A controlled explosion had been carried out in a safe setting away from the main buildings of the University. The HoS of the School concerned (MACE) apologised for the disruption this had caused and reported that the coordination of the events by the Estates had worked well. A risk assessment had been in place but it would now be reviewed. It was noted that communication to and between staff in a situation like this would also be reviewed. It was noted that the incident did not appear to require any follow up from the Police and was not RIDDOR reportable. The group discussed the management of the event such as this one and who was "in charge" of the events and therefore entitled to speak to the police. It was noted that an Emergency Incident Manager should be in place and that they were required to attend the incident at any date and time when on duty. It was agreed that the Emergency Incident Plan should be circulated to FLT members [AP44: Secretary]. Colleagues were also reminded that to report an incident they just needed to call Security (note: the telephone number is on the staff card). Heads of School should have received training on/around the Emergency Incident Plan on/around their appointment and this would be checked with the Risk & Compliance Office [AP45: Secretary]. It was noted that the general staff were sent only one email about the incident and it was suggested that the communication to the staff would be reviewed and consideration given as to what other topics should be covered, for example the use of car parks [AP46: DoFO]. Minutes page 2 A question was asked about the University’s responsibility of classifying and packaging materials that the University sent to companies involved in the projects with the University. It was reported that the requirement only applied to materials with a "hazard" symbol. 2. MINUTES 2.1 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING RECEIVED: Minutes of the last meeting held on 5 February 2015. RESOLVED: That the minutes were approved. 2.2 MATTERS ARISING NOTED: a. AP31: Nominations for the University’s USA Strategy Group Nominations had been previously called for the EPS USA Strategy Group and it was reported that nominations had now been received and the first meeting was currently being set up. It was reported that the EPS has two representatives on the University’s USA Strategy Group which was being chaired by Professor Keith Brown. It was noted that The University of Manchester had significantly less students from the USA than some of our competitors and that the University’s branding was being looked at in order to raise its profile. It was also suggested that Schools should consider exhibiting at large international conventions and conferences in the USA. For example, the annual Geology conference attracted c.7000 attendees (cost of a stand was c. £2000) and it was estimated that this had provided a few MSc students for the School. A copy of the picture of EAES exhibition stand would be circulated electronically [AP47: Secretary]. It was agreed that Schools would look into options such as this. b. AP32: Faculty of EPS Teaching and Research Strategic Fund The group was informed that each HoS had been sent information on applications for the fund in their area. c. AP33: Research: Post-REF assessment The University had previously requested that Schools would undertake the calibration exercise of RRE against the REF results and it had been suggested that a similar methodology of that developed in Physics & Astronomy would be used in EPS. It was reported that the AD for Research was working with Research Directors on the calibration, RAE rating and monitoring how the outputs should be taken forward. d. AP34: Teaching & Learning: Distance learning It had been previously agreed that the each School would provide a brief summary of their position on Distance Learning, including programmes that had the potential to be delivered by DL and a timescale for introducing Distance Learning on these programmes. It was reported that only a couple of responses have been received so far although some had gone directly to the Chair of the Project Group. e. AP35: Reports from the Heads of School: Chemistry Regarding the item on the ‘Compliance event’, it was noted that the event had been found unsatisfactory for most part other than the last session involving information on legal matters. It was noted that the Director of Faculty Operations had given feedback to the relevant central University colleagues and it had been reported that Minutes page 3 the Registrar and the Head of Compliance and Risk would review the content of the event. f. AP36: Reports from the Heads of School: Mathematics It had been reported that the School had a number of open academic positions and had had numerous queries from applicants who had experienced difficulties with the Jobtrain system. It was reported that the information had been referred on to relevant colleagues within HR and that some issues still persisted with the system, namely with multiple document upload. The group was informed that a new system would be put out to tender shortly as the contract of the current system ran out in 10-12 months, and that consultation for the tender would take place prior to this. g. AP37: Faculty Strategic Priorities for eLearning Group members had been asked to provide any feedback on the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences eLearning strategy action plan and a reminder was sent around to all Heads of School but there were no additional comments.