University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

Appendix I

REMUNERATION AND SALARY STRUCTURES FOR 2012

Remuneration policy at UCT

A remuneration policy and practice must support and reinforce the achievement of the University vision and strategy. Remuneration and related policies reflect the institution’s values by highlighting what it sees as important and therefore what it rewards.

UCT’s strategy and vision is to be an outstanding teaching and research university, educating for life and addressing the challenges facing our society. The vision will, inter alia, be enabled by the implementation of a remuneration policy which attracts, retains and rewards staff who contribute to the realisation of the vision. The University is also committed to fairness and equity in its dealings with staff and the remuneration policy must reflect these University values.

The UCT Council is accountable for remuneration policy and practice. Council sets policy and delegates detailed implementation to its Remuneration Committee (RemCom). The Council Remuneration Committee was chaired by Dr Charles Okeahalam for 2011. The Committee composition includes the Deputy Chair of Council, the Vice-Chancellor, the Chair of the University Finance Committee, the Chair of the University Audit Committee and the Chair of the University Human Resources Committee. The Executive Director Human Resources and the Executive Director Finance are assessor members.

The following policy parameters have been approved by Council as a framework for remuneration decisions: Constructing a specific cost of employment structure that enables UCT to attract

and retain a quality and representative staff in its teaching, research, professional, administrative and service categories; and to do this inter alia with reference to appropriate market rates where these are relevant, and benchmarking specific categories where required

Ensuring internal equity and fairness in and between the various pay categories Building incentives in the cost of employment structure to encourage and reward

excellent performance, on objectively defined criteria Recognising basic needs of staff, and ensuring that compensation addresses cost

of living and inflation, particularly in the lower pay classes Ensuring that staff costs are within the budget set by Council, and are sustainable

over time. Encouraging revenue generation and adherence to cost recovery and private work

policy while retaining a spirit of co-operation and a unified faculty.

The following reflect the different categories of staff at UCT together with the salary structures and increases that have been approved during 2011 and for 2012:

1 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

(a) Senior Staff

Senior staff includes Peromnes grades 1- 5 (payclass 13 and above). It therefore includes the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Deans, Executive Directors and PASS staff in levels higher than payclass 12. For 2011 the consultation process resulted in approval of a range move of 7% for all grades and further alignment of the senior staff performance management system to the PASS 5-12 performance management system including central consistency checks on performance and pay for 2011 and Exceeds 1 and Exceeds 2 awards for performance above the standard package.

Cost of Employment (CoE) ranges for permanent staff in Peromnes 1 to 5 (Payclass 13 and above). Effective 1 January 2012

CoE Ranges (pa)

Peromnes level Min Standard Package

P1

1 726 663 2 031 370

P2 1 335 614 1 571 311

P3 1 032 800 1 215 058

P4 813 160 956 659

P5 640 231 753 213

(b) Academic Staff

The Academics Union (AU) and Management negotiated a new Academic Pay Policy (see Appendix 1 below). The ten comparator institutions identified in the new policy were used as a benchmark for the negotiation of increases for 2012. The following differentiated increases on the Standard Academic Salary Package (SASP) for academic staff were approved for 2012:

Faculty Merit Committee’s recommendations on awarding Ad Hominem promotions approved by the relevant delegated authorities have been incorporated in the individual CoE offers to staff from 1 January 2012.

2 2023/05/06

Permanent Staff % IncreaseJunior Research Fellow 6.0%

Assistant Lecturer 6.0%

Lecturer 6.0%

Senior Lecturer 6.5%

Associate Professor 8.5%

Professor 10.0%

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

The Standard Academic Salary Package (SASP) CoEs (per annum) for permanent Academic staff (excluding Clinical and Pre-clinical staff) Effective 1 January 2012:

Fixed Term contract staff

Fixed Term contract staffMin T1

Min T2 & non-GOB

T3,PEMax

Junior Research Fellow 194 271 277 538 384 581

Assistant Lecturer 194 271 277 538 384 581

Lecturer 223 550 319 362 427 311

Senior Lecturer 255 836 365 481 526 873

Associate Professor 293 493 419 269 614 221

Professor 347 885 496 975 771 584

(c) Professional, Administrative and Support Staff: payclasses 5 to 12

For the 2011 substantive negotiations the PASS 5-12 standard package continued to be benchmarked against the 60th percentile of the national all jobs market. Management and the Employees Union negotiated the collapsing of the performance bands from seven categories to three (A, B, and C) in 2010 with corresponding criteria approved in negotiation with the EU in 2011 as well as the inclusion of Exceeds Awards (level 1 and 2). Exceeds 1 at 7% of the Standard Package of the Payclass and Exceeds 2 at 15% of the Standard package of the Payclass. The following are the differentiated increases approved per Payclass for 2012:

Payclass 6 7.5%

Payclass 7 9.5%

Payclass 8 7.9%

Payclass 9 7.9%

Payclass 10 7.9%

Payclass 11 7.9%

Payclass 12 9.5%

(d) Professional, Administrative and Support Staff: payclasses 1 to 4

Staff in payclasses 1 to 4 continue to be paid at a rate per payclass. This rate is aligned to the 60th percentile of the national all jobs market and was increased by 9.5% with effect from 1 January 2012. Staff earning above the 60th percentile were granted increases of 7.5% for 2012.

Cost of Employment Ranges for Permanent Staff

3 2023/05/06

Permanent Staff % Increase 2011 SASPJunior Research Fellow 6.0% 384 581

Assistant Lecturer 6.0% 384 581

Lecturer 6.0% 427 311

Senior Lecturer 6.5% 526 873

Associate Professor 8.5% 614 221

Professor 10.0% 771 584

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

Payclasses 1-12 for 2012

Payclass Minimum

Standard package

(60th percentile)

Maximum including

performance bonus

Payclass 1 (Rate Per Payclass)   80,271Payclass 2 (Rate Per Payclass)   89,426Payclass 3 (Rate Per Payclass)   101,431Payclass 4 (Rate Per Payclass)   109,705Payclass 5 112,640 132,537 7% or 15%Payclass 6 132,537 155,963 7% or 15%Payclass 7 171,938 202,287 7% or 15%Payclass 8 200,452 235,811 7% or 15%Payclass 9 238,359 280,394 7% or 15%Payclass 10 291,599 343,018 7% or 15%Payclass 11 371,316 436,833 7% or 15%Payclass 12 506,610 596,026 7% or 15%

Ranges for Fixed Term Contract Staff for 2011

Payclass Minimum T1 Minimum T2 Standard Package

Payclass 1 45,589 64,324 80,271 Payclass 2 51,754 73,932 89,426 Payclass 3 58,579 83,684 101,431 Payclass 4 65,532 93,616 109,705 Payclass 5 74 665 112 640 132,537 Payclass 6 84 711 132 537 155,963 Payclass 7 110 204 171 938 202,287 Payclass 8 126 488 200 452 235,811 Payclass 9 150 789 238 359 280,394 Payclass 10 180 238 291 599 343,018 Payclass 11 236 203 371 316 436,833 Payclass 12 304 124 506 610 596,026

(e) Pay for clinical academic staff on the Joint Staff A: of the University and the Provincial Health Department of the Provincial Government Western Cape (PGWC);B: of the University and the National Health Laboratory Service

Details of the approved clinical payline and related conditions of service are detailed in Appendix 2 below.

4 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

(f) National Health Laboratory Service UCT NHLS

Staff on University conditions of service received a 5% increase with effect from 1 July 2011. Pathologist/HOD E1 CoE is R1,426,377 and Pathologist/HOD E2 CoE is R1,488,160.

(g) UCT pensioners

With effect from 1 April 2011 UCT pensioners received an increase of 5%. This increase is aligned to the State pensioners’ increases approved in April each year. UCT pays pensions from revenue to a small and decreasing number of pre-1950 staff and their widows. The number of pensioners in this category is 12 and 2011 cost of paying these pensions is R674,826 per annum. The minimum pension payable to a UCT paid pensioner is R45,358 per annum. A 13th cheque is paid to all UCT paid pensioners.

(h) Medical aid subsidy for retired staff

Subsidy Table for 2012 (approved at December 2011 Council

* The subsidy only applies to one adult over the age of 21.

Authorities in respect of the structure of packages

Council (6 October 1999, item A9(b); and 13 December 1999 item c6) confirmed that officers to whom Council had delegated authority to make appointments have authority, on behalf of the Council, to negotiate and approve the package structures for individual staff (subject to the budget and personnel policies)

5 2023/05/06

Member Detail 2011 Subsidy

2012Subsidy

Principal member 586 639Member + adult dependant 1025 1117Member + child dependent 822 895Member + adult + child 1260 1374Member + adult + 2 children 1497 1630Member + adult + 3 children 1732 1887Member + 2 children 1057 1152Member + 3 children 1294 1408Member + 2 adults* 1025 1117Member + 2 adults + child* 1260 1374

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

In 2003, Council adopted recommendations detailed in the attached resolution, consolidating these authorities, and extending them, given the new structures in place in the Human Resources Department. This resolution explicitly includes authority to enter into contracts and sign documents in connection with the deferred compensation scheme and the management car scheme where participation in the scheme concerned forms part of the individual’s structured compensation. The resolution dealt also with authority to sign housing loan guarantees. Council is invited to confirm the authorities set out on the following schedule.

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE AND APPROVE REMUNERATION STRUCTURES FOR INDIVIDUAL STAFF

Preamble: The Council confirms the policy of setting for each staff members a cost of employment, and allowing the individual to negotiate the structure of his or her remuneration subject to limitations imposed by Council policies such as medical aid and retirement funding. The cost of employment for any individual will continue to be set out by those with authority delegated to them by Council to do this (previous delegations for this are not changed) within the limits or ranges determined by the Salaries Committee, or as negotiated with trade unions according to the mandates given to the negotiating team(s) by the Remuneration Committee.

DELEGATION

Council resolves to confirm and extend the existing authorities, in relation to negotiating individual remuneration packages, as follows:

a) The Council delegates authority to negotiate and approve individual remuneration structures, within the limits of each individual’s approved cost of employment, and subject to approved remuneration policies and benefit plans (including authority to approve and sign contracts for the deferred compensation scheme, where participation in the scheme concerned forms part of the individual’s remuneration structure,) in respect of:

Staff in payclasses 13 to 15, to any one of the HR Executive Director, the HR Administration Manager, and the HR Remuneration Manager, acting individually;

Academic staff of the joint UCT/PGWC and the joint UCT NHLS staff on University conditions of service, to any one of the HR Executive Director, the HR Administration Manager, the HR Remuneration Manager, or any officer of the HR Department authorised to do so by the HR Executive Director in writing for a specified period, acting independently;

Academic staff, other than JMS staff, on University conditions of service, to any one of the HR Executive Director, the HR Administration Manager, the HR Remuneration Manager, or any officer of the HR Department

6 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

authorised to do so by the HR Executive Director in writing for a specified period, acting independently;

Professional, Administrative and Support staff in payclasses 1 to 12, to any one of the HR Executive Director, the HR Administration Manager, the HR Remuneration Manager, or any officer of the HR Department authorised to do so by the HR Executive Director in writing for a specified period, acting independently;

(b) The Remuneration Committee holds authority to set CoE remuneration for all senior staff (pc 13, Peromnes 3 and above) in the Senior Leadership Group.

(c) The Vice Chancellor holds the authority to approve CoE increases for the remainder of the pc 13 staff (Peromnes 4 and 5).

(d) The Council delegates the following authority for the approval of CoEs above the Standard Academic Salary Package (SASP) or above the maximum of the range:

The Vice Chancellor holds authority to approve CoEs above the SASP amounts for Professors. This authority is exercised in consultation with the Remuneration Committee.

The Deputy Vice Chancellor responsible for Academic management, holds authority to approve CoEs above the SASP amounts for academic staff up to and including the level of Associate Professor to a maximum of the CoE of the next rank.

The Vice Chancellor holds authority to approve CoEs above the top of the range of payclass 12. This authority is exercised in consultation with the Remuneration Committee.

The Executive Director, HR, holds authority to approve CoEs above the maximum of the range for PASS staff in payclasses 1 to 11 to a maximum of the top of the range of the next level.

(e) The Council delegates authority to negotiate, and sign all necessary papers relating to, housing loan guarantees for staff, in terms of the rules for housing loan guarantees by UCT for staff to any one of the following, acting independently:

The HR Executive Director; or The HR Administration Manager, or The Principal Officer of the UCT Retirement Fund.

Internal Costing Information for all UCT paid staff

Total cost to the fund holder will include costs over and above the CoE received by the staff member. These are:

7 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

UIF 1%Skills Development Levy 1%

Note: Use CoE to calculate these amounts but this will be slightly more than what is required.

For calculation purposes the following must be noted:

a) Deemed Pensionable Amount (DPA) may vary between 50% and 100% of CoE. The default DPA will be

R 0 to R150000 70%R150001 to R250000 75%R250001 to R400000 78%R400001 + 80%

b) Benefit Amount (BA) = 70% of COE;

c) Unallocated amount (UA) = cash portion of COE left after allocations have been made for compulsory and optional benefits.

The figures above apply to full-time appointments and will be prorated for part-time staff based on the number of hours worked per day.

8 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

Appendix 1:

Pay Policy for Academic Staff

(Approved 23 November 2011)

1. Introduction

The pay policy seeks to set levels of remuneration at amounts which enable the University of Cape Town (the University) to attract, retain and motivate staff. It has been decided that the best way of achieving this aim is to benchmark salaries at the University relative to those at a selection of comparator universities, namely, those universities which share a similar research-led culture to that at the University. Arguably these universities constitute the University’s major competitors for staff and face similar challenges in terms of spending demands and opportunities to earn income. In making this choice of comparator universities the University acknowledges its commitment to offering a quality educational experience to its students and to a flourishing research culture, and thus to maintaining the necessary staffing levels and infrastructural support for each objective. 

The benchmark is to be fixed as follows: the Standard Academic Salary Package (SASP)1 at each rank is to be aligned with the 75th percentile of salaries at that rank at the comparator universities. The rationale for choosing this benchmark is that the University recognizes that, as confirmed by a number of objective measures, it has a pre-eminent status amongst the comparator universities (indeed amongst universities nationally) and primarily owes that status to the quality of its academic and research work. It is thus reasonable to assume that members of UCT’s academic staff who are meeting the criteria for SASP are performing at least at the level of three quarters of staff in comparator universities and thus, independent of their other earnings in terms of scarcity, merit or excellence awards, should be paid accordingly.  Notwithstanding this, movement away from the benchmark may arise as a result of constraints of sustainability and of attempting to match appropriate differentials between salaries at each rank. (This is dealt with in more detail below.) 

The method of implementing the benchmark is complex given the nature and availability of data and is detailed in section 3. The broad thrust of the plan is to fix the benchmark using retrospective data of salary levels combined with an agreed method of projection. Recognising that even retrospective data may be misleading about the true level of the benchmark, this document details a set of triggers which will: (i) suggest a need to treat the data with some caution; and (ii) suggest a judgement about the true level of the benchmark. The effects of variations caused by inaccuracies in the data will be mitigated in the application of the benchmarking process over time.

Implementation of the benchmark is subject to constraints of being financially sustainable. This document attempts to frame a conception of financial sustainability which divorces that notion from the short-term spending priorities of the University; rather whether a particular salary rise is deemed affordable will depend on the fundamental financial health of the University measured by such things as the levels of its free cash reserves. This is dealt with in more detail below.

Finally, it is acknowledged that the salary structure reflects a career path for academics/researchers and thus maintenance of appropriate differentials between ranks also needs to be a goal of the policy. Differentials should be set at levels which, whilst not threatening solidarity within the staff body, should constitute an incentive to earn promotion.

9 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

Here it is proposed that targeted differentials be fixed as bands and that these be implemented in informing the judgements with regard to salary increases arising out of the benchmarking process.

2. Negotiation Process

The salary negotiation process will proceed in the following steps:

i. Parties (i.e., Union and Management) agree to the sources of the relevant data.

ii. The data is used to arrive at a judgement on the levels of the 75th percentile at comparator universities.

iii. The data is scrutinised by both parties relative to the agreed triggers2 to decide whether the data can be relied on in its raw form.

iv. Should it be agreed that a trigger is activated, a fresh judgement of the levels of the 75th percentile at comparator universities will be arrived at.

v. If parties are in agreement at stage (iii) or at stage (iv), then the benchmark is submitted to the test of being sustainably affordable.

vi. If parties agree to a particular salary rise having considered the constraints of financial sustainability then it will be compared to desired differentials between ranks.

vii. If parties reach agreement about the salary rise taking into account the need to maintain appropriate differentials, then the negotiation process for salary rises is complete.

viii. A dispute may occur should agreement be failed to be reached on: what salary rise is determined by the benchmark (this may include an inability to agree on whether the data is reliable, i.e., whether a trigger should be activated); whether the salary rise determined by the benchmark is sustainably affordable; or what an appropriate rise across ranks is, given the desired differentials.

 3. The Benchmark 

In order to retain its leading position as a research-led university, the University must be able to attract excellent staff from within and outside of South Africa while being attractive to young people as a good career option; it is thus imperative to have an appropriate benchmark against which to measure the University’s academic salary levels.

The benchmark must be constructed on the basis that the University should pay its academic staff at the upper quartile of the tertiary market (as determined by an appropriate, agreed set of comparators)3 and that such a benchmark should: (i) be implementable; (ii) maintain competitiveness in salaries; and (iii) be reasonably foreseen to be affordable in the medium term, i.e., sustainable.  In addition, the data must be reliable and comparable.

The benchmark for academic salaries is the 75th percentile of the market (as determined by comparison to the pay line of an agreed set of comparator universities).4 This benchmark is determined as follows:

10 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

i. the retrospective data indicating the 75th percentile as at January of the year in which the salary negotiations are being undertaken (i.e. January of the year preceding the increase date) is taken as the basis;

ii. the year-on-year national CPI as at end May of the year in which the salary negotiations are being undertaken, with a further adjustment for the balance of the year based on estimates from recognised and agreed sources.

This method of establishing the benchmark will be reviewed every three years.

In this way the benchmark would be informed by historical data, thus obviating the need for debate on any forward projections of future increases to be made in the market or what CPI will be in the coming year.

Although the aim in this element of the negotiation process is predicated on determining the 75th percentile of academic salaries at comparator institutions, it is acknowledged that the best available data may be deceptive5. Applying the benchmarking process over a number of years will have the effect of mitigating some of the variation in the data. Nonetheless the parties agree to monitor a set of triggers used to indicate possible unreliability in the data. These triggers include:

i. a detailed examination of the composition of the data set, searching for sources of incompleteness and inaccuracy;

ii. consideration of trends over the last number of years, searching for possible inexplicable movements away from the trends;

iii. a comparison of the salary rises suggested by the data with increases in CPI, searching for large discrepancies;  and

iv. a comparison of the salary rises suggested by the data with increases in salaries in the general job market, searching for large discrepancies.

In any year in which there are grounds for treating the data with some suspicion, those grounds must be articulated and used to arrive at a judgement on a reasonable implementation of the benchmark.

In addition, a review of staff turnover and retention data should be considered in order to determine the adequacy of the benchmark. (See below.)

4. The measure of sustainability

Financial sustainability is a necessary consideration in any pay policy and consequently a discussion of the sustainability of proposed increases is likely to form a part of annual salary negotiations. In order to link admissible salary rises to the underlying financial health of the University, it is agreed that the evaluation of sustainability be made against an agreed set of indicators.

The criteria to be used for discussions on financial sustainability should be a set of data using metrics looking back over a number of years. The indicators of financial sustainability are: (i) the amount of University’s free cash reserves as assessed 6by the March meeting of the UFC, (ii) total academic salaries as a percentage of agreed metrics (which could include operating surplus and some form of staff spend to student volume ratio FTE:SLE); and (iii) total academic salaries measured against subsidies and fees.

11 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

It is understood that any particular event that is likely to have a medium to long-term effect on the above metrics, can be raised by the University in any discussions on sustainability: for example, external events such as a change in subsidy.

Management will have the right to argue that considerations of sustainability may, in a particular year, justify a settlement below the figures dictated by the Benchmark. The Union will have the right to argue that in a particular year sustainability considerations allow and performance warrants a settlement above the Benchmark. 

5. The differentials between Academic ranks  In line with the recommendations from the RFJ task team and national and international benchmarking, there should be appropriate differentials between ranks. The pay policy accommodates a set of differentials between ranks, to provide incentives across the life-span of an academic career, yet maintaining solidarity across ranks.

The suggested differential target between ranks to strive for is 18-22%, with 20% being the ideal. The tolerance level of 2% above and below the ideal of 20% ensures that the target does not become excessively rigid and recognizes the fact that a choice to bring the differentials to the desired norm, may not be compatible with achieving the 75th percentile at a given rank. Nonetheless the rationale for benchmarking salaries requires that salaries are benchmarked at each rank; in addition, large movements away from these targets will frustrate efficient implementation of the policy in future years. Thus the benchmarking element of the policy has a priority over the targeting of differentials between ranks. This policy envisages a process in which benchmarking is carried out and then an attempt is made to impose a structure on salaries which approaches the targeted differentials between ranks; but in doing so a movement from the benchmark figures which exceeds 3.5% will not be permitted. 

The targets for differentials between ranks are to be reviewed at least every three years. 

6. Review of the Policy

The benchmark and the means of tracking it should be reviewed every three years as a matter of course; but may be reviewed at an earlier stage should circumstances require it. The policy has been written in a particular governmental and economic climate and with certain goals in mind. Should there be evidence of radical change in the climate or that the chosen benchmark and mechanism of tracking it are failing to meet the goals of the policy the parties agree to review the pertinent sections. The relevant items include:

i. Large shifts in levels of inflation;

ii. Significant changes in the mandate of the reserve bank with regards to inflation targeting;

iii. Data indicating a failure to attract and retain quality academic staff;

iv. Large shifts in government policy on funding in higher education;

v. Changes in the higher education sector indicating an inappropriateness in the chosen comparator universities.

vi. Sustained tension between the benchmark and the targeted differentials.

12 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

  1 The new name for the RFJ.

2 Here an indicator is a piece of data used to determine the level of another item (e.g. salaries or percentage rises); a trigger is a piece of data used to determine whether some further process is required (e.g. interrogation of a set of data. Some triggers, eg those monitored by the UFC, will be known long in advance.

3 The comparators identified are the following Universities which constitute a set of the research-led Universities in South Africa: WITS, UKZN, UP, US, NWU, NMMU, UJ, Rhodes, and UFS.

4 The comparison is between the UCT SASP and the comparator universities’ salaries excluding HoD allowances.

5 Reasons for this include: (i) incomplete data sets arising from failure of some institutions to upload their data; and (ii) inclusion of out of date data arising from some institutions failing to update their data sets timeously.

6 This assessment will be provided as a matter of course.

13 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

Appendix 2UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

Pay for clinical academic staff on the Joint Staff A: of the University and the Provincial Health Department of the Provincial

Government Western Cape (PGWC);B: of the University and the National Health Laboratory Service

PART A

Introduction

1. Part A of this note deals with pay for clinical academic staff on the joint staff of UCT and the PGWC’s Department of Health (DOH) (more particularly clinical professors and clinical associate professors) in the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) paid by UCT. Clinical academic staff are academic staff who are medically clinically qualified and have both academic responsibilities (owed to the University) and clinical (health service) responsibilities (to the PGWC Department of Health).

2. Clinical academic UCT/PGWC staff on the joint staff paid by UCT include both staff on the joint staff post roll (for whom there is usually a cost-sharing agreement between UCT and the PGWC) and UCT-funded clinical academic staff who are appointed ad hoc to the joint staff because they will perform clinical duties as well as academic duties.

Decision-making

3. The paylines for clinical academic staff paid by UCT will be set by UCT’s Remuneration Committee (RemCom). Although the majority of the clinical academic staff may – and currently do – belong to the Academics Union (AU), the recognition agreement between UCT management and the AU explicitly provides that clinical academic staff are outside the bargaining unit, and that AU does not represent these AU members on pay and conditions of service. The AU does represent these AU members on matters of rights.

4. RemCom (through UCT’s HR department) is bound to consult clinical academic staff paid by UCT on proposed paylines for them.

5. In reaching its decisions RemCom will take note of the pay and conditions of service of equivalent clinical academic staff in the public service, but will not be bound by such pay and conditions of service. It will have regard to the fact that where the PGWC is responsible under a cost sharing arrangement (in most cases the joint agreement) the PGWC limits its responsibility to

(a) the proportion (usually 49%) of the cost as it would be on the public service rate for the post; or

(b) the same proportion of UCT’s actual cost whichever is lower.

Notes on pay for clinical academic staff

6. Some important differences in conditions of service between PGWC-paid and UCT-paid clinical academic staff are

14 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

(a) PGWC clinical academic joint staff are members of the defined benefit Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) while UCT-paid clinical academic staff are members of the defined contribution UCT Retirement Fund (UCTRF);

(b) leave and study and research leave rights and privileges differ;

(c) medical aid and post-retirement medical aid cover differ; and

(d) while similar (and while similar but parallel approvals processes have been put in place) the University’s policy on Limited Private Practice (LPP) privileges is distinct from the PGWC’s policy in terms of which approval may be granted to joint staff on the Provincial payroll for Remunerated Work outside the Public Service (RWOPS).

The UCT Package for clinical academic staff

7. The Occupation Specific Dispensation (OSD) for clinical (medical) specialist staff in the State service introduced a new post and pay structure for State-employed staff with effect from 1 July 2009. The University implemented the first phase of our implementation of a new University post and pay structure for clinical professors and clinical associate professors with effect from 1 July 2009, and deferred further implementation until the way in which the State would implement its pay and post structure became clear. The package outlined below meets the University’s commitment to do this, with effect from 1 May 2011.

8. In the first phase of our implementation clinical professors and clinical associate professors were transferred with effect from 1 July 2009, to a new UCT payline equal to the

OSD cost of employment (COE) grade 1, scale first notch for Heads of Department (Medical) Chief Specialists (for all UCT clinical professors, irrespective of organisational status/structure); or

OSD cost of employment (COE) grade 1, scale first notch for Heads of Clinical Units (Medical) Principal Specialists (for all UCT clinical associate professors).

9. The University increased these new UCT paylines by 7, 5% with effect from 1 July 2010.

10. The UCT remuneration & compensation package for clinical professors and clinical associate professors (i.e. Joint Medical Staff on the joint staff of UCT and the PGWC Department of Health whose primary employer is UCT) includes

pay according to these payline; for heads of UCT departments, a headship allowance; a performance management system (including, for those who qualify, excellence awards) in terms

of the Senate-approved performance criteria for clinical academic staff; academic conditions of service, including but not limited to study & research leave and conference

travel privileges and research support to active researchers; and permission, under defined circumstances to do private work including limited private professional

practice and/or to enter into commuted overtime contracts with the PGWC.

Pay according to UCT paylines for clinical professors and clinical associate professors

11. The University intends, provided this is and remains affordable, to fix the paylines for clinical professors and clinical associate professors so that these are aligned to the paylines for State-employed clinical (medical) specialists at the notches of the OSD scales listed in 2 above, and to apply these to UCT clinical professors and clinical associate professors independent of the OSD stipulations for placing individuals on scales and points/notches of scales (thus independent of years of service or organisational design).

12. The University intends to review these annually, in line with increases and changes applied in the State service, and expects the annual review date to be 1 July, in each case after consultation with the clinical professors and clinical associate professors.

15 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

13. The University paylines with effect from 1 May 2011 are as set out in the attached (schedules 1 and 2).

Performance management and excellence awards

14. Pay according to these paylines will be subject to performance management in terms of the Faculty- and Senate-approved criteria. These criteria are set out in the schedule 3 and 4.

15. Pay at the payline will be subject to a clinical professor or clinical associate professor being rated as meeting the requirements for the clinical SASP (standard clinical academic salary package). The SASP criteria assume the standard of performance the University of its excellent staff.

16. Those clinical professors who qualify according to these criteria will be considered for excellence awards. There will be two categories of excellence award, and a separate payline will be set for each. The University intends, provided that this is and remains affordable, to fix the payline for excellence award level 1 so that it is aligned to the top notch of the OSD scale for Grade 1 Heads of Department (Medical)/Chief Specialists; and to fix the payline for excellence award level 2 to the first notch of the Grade 2 scale. The paylines proposed for these are set out in schedule 1. Excellence awards will be for four years, and will be renewable on application where the applicant is judged to meet the excellence criteria.

17. Those clinical associate professors who qualify according to the criteria will be considered for promotion ad hominem to the rank of clinical professor or for competitive merit awards; excellence and merit awards will be for fixed periods.

18. The OSD limits acceleration on the scale notches and from Grade 1 to Grade 2 for State-employed clinical (medical) specialists to percentages of such staff. The University expects that no more that 20% of clinical professors will qualify for excellence awards, which will be competitive, and that a smaller proportion will qualify for the excellence level 2 awards. The University’s merit awards for associate professors will be limited to a fixed number, and will be competitive.

19. Where a clinical professor was assessed as meeting excellence criteria in 2009 he or she will be moved to the appropriate excellence payline with effect from 1 July 2009 (and similarly in subsequent years). Where a clinical professor was assessed as meeting these criteria in each round will be moved to the relevant excellence payline with effect from 1 January in the next calendar year.

Market premium

20. The Remuneration Committee has agreed that there will be provision for paying a premium on the payline for a clinical professor or clinical associate professor (effectively a scarcity allowance) in cases where this is motivated by the Dean and approved by the Vice-Chancellor in order to attract or retain clinical professors; the premium will be between the SASP payline up to the excellence payline; the payment of such premium is expected to be a rare occurrence.

Headship allowances

21. The University pays allowances to heads of University departments. The range of headship allowances will be set annually, and the headship allowance for each head will be set having regard to a matrix of factors which make allowance for size and complexity.

22. At current (2011) levels the bottom of the range of headship allowances will take a UCT clinical professor’s package to above the top notch of the State-employed Head of a Clinical Department on Grade 1; or a UCT clinical professor on excellence 1 to above the top notch of Grade 2.

Conditions of service

23. The conditions under which full-time clinical academic staff may be permitted to undertaken private (additional) work including but not limited to limited private professional practice and to the procedures for applying for this permission introduced recently, as set out in the attached Schedules 5 and 6.

Joint staff on the PGWC payroll promoted ad hominem to the rank of professor or to the rank of associate professor

16 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

24. Any promotion of a joint staff member is subject to the approval of the University and the Provincial Government of the Western Cape.

25. Where a joint staff member on the PGWC payroll is promoted to the rank of associate professor there has not been and is no change to the staff member’s conditions of service or pay.

26. Prior to 2000 clinical academic joint staff whose primary employer was the PGWC who were promoted ad

hominem to the rank of professor were transferred to the payroll and conditions of service of the University and were paid by UCT as chief specialists/professors. The University claimed the underlying post’s COE (e.g. senior or principal specialist) cost from the Province and met the difference. This was subject to Provincial approval. Since 2000 this has not been the case.

27. Rem Com has agreed to pay a group of joint clinical staff promoted and hominem to the rank of professor in the period 1 January 2000 to 31 August 2008 who remain on the staff of the PGWC Department of Health. The decision was made on the basis that

(a) the University did not/does not have a legal or contractual obligation to make this payment;

(b) the University benefits from the work that these excellent, chair-worthy staff do;

(c) this will not apply to joint staff on the PGWC payroll who are promoted to the rank of professor on or after 1 September 2008; and

(d) the affected staff accept the payment and not claim for any further payment or back-dating.

28. The payment in these cases will be

(a) a once-off payment, for the period 1 September 2008 to 30 June 2009 equal to 40% of the difference between the package earned by the individual from the PGWC and the package of a UCT chief specialist/professor at the entry level during the period;

(b) a once-off payment, for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 equal to 40% of the difference between the package earned by the individual from the PGWC and the package of a UCT clinical professor at the entry level during the period; and

(c) a once-off payment, for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 equal to 40% of the difference between the package earned by the individual from the PGWC and the package of a UCT clinical professor at the entry level during the period; and

(d) a once-off payment in July each subsequent year (or earlier in the event of termination before this date) equal to 40% of the difference between the package earned by the individual from the PGWC and the package of a UCT clinical professor at the entry level for the preceding twelve months (i.e. to 30 June of the year in which payment is to be made).

Claims by UCT from the PGWC and claims by the PGWC against UCT for costs of appointments on the joint staff of UCT and the PGWC’s Department of Health

29. The Teaching Hours formula payment by UCT to the PGWC

The PGWC claim on UCT for the UCT share of the costs of joint clinical staff on the PGWC payroll (the “teaching hours” formula payment) is indexed to defined state-service clinical (medical) specialist pay. The impact of this is shown below:

(a) Teaching hours formula payment 2008

For period 1.1.2008 to 30.6.2008

A. section 69: University’s liability for the cost of teaching medical students by joint staff whose salaries are paid by the administration

Approved number of teaching hours p.a. 40678 x Senior Specialist hourly tariff R167.41 =

17 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

R6 809 904 x 94.5% (other 5.5% attributable to NHLS) x 6/12 = R3 217 680

(Section B & C of teaching hours formula applied only to NHLS. Was later replaced by NHLS Access Fee formula)

For period 1.7.2008 to 31.12.2008

40 678 x R211.66 = R8 609 905 x 94.5% x 6/12 = R4 068 180

(b) Teaching hours formula payment 2009

for period 1.1.2009 to 30.6.200940 678 x R211.66 = R8 609 905 x 94.5% x 6/12 = R4 068 180 for period 1.7.2009 to 31.12.2009

Introduction of OSD, therefore hourly rate should now have been based on medical specialist mid-point but only back-dated the correction to Jul 2010, and confirmed that they would not be amending the prior periods. Therefore:40 678 x R234.82 = R9 552 008 x 94.5% x 6/12 = R4 513 324

(c) Teaching hours formula payment 2010

for period 1.1.2010 to 30.6.201040 678 x R234.82 = R9 552 008 x 94.5% x 6/12 = R4 513 324 for period 1.7.2010 to 31.12.201040 678 x R304.09 (mid-point of Grade 1 Medical Specialist) = R12 369 773 x 94.5% x 6/12 =R5 844 718

(d) Teaching hours formula payment 2011

for the period 1.1.2011 to 30.4.201140 678 x R304.09 = R12 369 773 x 94.5% x 4/12 = R3 896 478

for the period 1.5.2011 to 31.12.201140 678 x R324.76 = R13 210 587 x 94.5% x 8/12 = R8 322 670

30. Claims by UCT

i. For posts for which UCT claims 49% of the approved costs

The University’s decision to adopt a remuneration and compensation package for clinical professors and clinical associate professors requires that for each appointment we have the PGWC DOH approved corresponding/equivalent position as UCT may claim the lesser of

49% of UCT’s package cost; or 49% of the cost of the approved corresponding/equivalent post.

The Grade and Notch system for the equivalent means that the onus is on UCT (the FHS HR office) to secure:

PGWC agreement to the corresponding/equivalent post for each existing appointment and each new appointment

PWGC agreement to a claim up to the Grade and Notch on which the appointee would have been had he/she been on the PGWC payroll.

PGWC agreement to the inclusion of headship allowances in the UCT package cost (subject of course to the claim limit set out above)

PGWC agreement (a) to making excellence or scarcity payments; and (b) where justified, to the adjusting the approved corresponding/equivalent post cost on the Grade/Notch scale for the post.

18 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

For example a UCT clinical professor, head of department at excellence 1 (thus paid at a pay point aligned as far as possible to the OSD head of a clinical department (medical) chief specialist Grade 1 Notch 5, together with a headship allowance) could be mapped to any one of the following state-service equivalents:

OSD head of a clinical department (medical) chief specialist at any of the five grade 1 notches or the five grade 2 notches; or

ODS head of a clinical unit (medical) principal specialist at any of the five grade 1 or six grade 2 notches.

The same would apply to a clinical associate professor.

ii. The legacy appointments

All legacy appointments give rise to claims related to specified clinical posts, and the corresponding/equivalent post grade and notch needs to be established for the purpose of claims.

Commuted overtime

31. The State (in this case the Department of Health of the PGWC through one or more of its hospitals) may contract with a clinical professor or clinical associate professor for additional work in terms of (a) an overtime contract; or (b) (more usually) a “commuted overtime” contract. A “commuted overtime” contract is a contract providing for an extension of the contracted minimum working hours per week by a specified number of hours and for specified work. The University is not a party to these contracts. However, for joint staff on the University’s payroll, where the University is the primary employer, and where the individual has a commuted overtime contract, the University makes payment to the staff member on behalf of the Province Government’s Department of Health, and claims the amounts paid from the Province on a quarterly basis.

Payment of commuted overtime is made in terms of the State’s rules governing commuted overtime. In particular, commuted overtime is not payable during periods of study and research leave. This is a source of unhappiness among joint staff (both those on UCT conditions of service and those on Provincial conditions of service) but representations at various levels on this have been unsuccessful.

The rates at which commuted overtime are payable are based on a formula that takes into account the number of commuted hours worked and the salary of the employee.

PART B

Introduction

1. Part A of this note deals with pay for clinical academic staff on the joint staff of UCT and the National Health Laborartory Service (NHLS) (more particularly clinical professors) in the Faculty of Health Sciences (FHS) paid by UCT. Clinical academic staff are academic staff who are usually medically clinically qualified and have both academic responsibilities (owed to the University) and clinical (health service) responsibilities (to the NHLS).

2. Notes on pay for UCT paid staff on the Joint UCT/NHLS Staff

Pathologist and Registrars received 5% increase in the 2011/2012. Below is the current salary package (1/7/10 scale + 5% for pathologists, and scientist at HOD level, 1/7/10 scale + 7% for medical officer etc, 1/7/10 scale + 6%  for scientist below HOD)Pathologist / HOD- E1- R1 426 377.00Pathologist/ HOD - E2- R1 488 160.00 Junior Registrar - TC1-R658 479.15  Senior Registrars - TD1-R745 929.45Medical Specialist - D2 - R947 031Medical Officer -  D3 - R888 168

19 2023/05/06

University of Cape TownHuman Resources Department

Scientist - E2 - R1 417 296

3. Private work

Staff on the NHLS joint staff may not engage in private professional practice. Any other private or additional work is subject to obtaining prior permission.

Schedules

1. Clinical pay document for 2011 as approved by the Vice-Chancellor, including the following: Paylines for clinical professors and clinical associate professors on the UCT payroll on the

joint UCT/PGWC staff. Standard Academic Salary Package (SASP). Performance criteria for clinical academic staff. Merit and excellence awards for UCT/PGWC clinical academic staff. Rules on private work including limited private practice. Procedures for obtaining permission to undertake private work including limited private

practice.

20 2023/05/06