University of Cape Town
Human 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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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
1 726 663
2 031 370
1 335 614
1 571 311
1 032 800
1 215 058
813 160
956 659
640 231
753 213
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
(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:
Permanent Staff
Junior Research Fellow
Assistant Lecturer
Lecturer
Senior Lecturer
Associate Professor
Professor
% Increase
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.5%
8.5%
10.0%
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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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:
Permanent Staff
Junior Research Fellow
Assistant Lecturer
Lecturer
Senior Lecturer
Associate Professor
Professor
% Increase
2011 SASP
6.0%
384 581
6.0%
384 581
6.0%
427 311
6.5%
526 873
8.5%
614 221
10.0%
771 584
Fixed Term contract staff
Fixed Term contract staff
Junior Research Fellow
Assistant Lecturer
Lecturer
Senior Lecturer
Associate Professor
Professor
(c)
Min T1
Min T2 &
non-GOB
T3,PE
Max
194 271
277 538
384 581
194 271
277 538
384 581
223 550
319 362
427 311
255 836
365 481
526 873
293 493
419 269
614 221
347 885
496 975
771 584
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%
3
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human Resources Department
(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
Payclasses 1-12 for 2012
Payclass
Payclass 1 (Rate Per Payclass)
Payclass 2 (Rate Per Payclass)
Payclass 3 (Rate Per Payclass)
Payclass 4 (Rate Per Payclass)
Payclass 5
Payclass 6
Payclass 7
Payclass 8
Payclass 9
Payclass 10
Payclass 11
Payclass 12
Minimum
112,640
132,537
171,938
200,452
238,359
291,599
371,316
506,610
Standard
package
(60th
percentile)
80,271
89,426
101,431
109,705
132,537
155,963
202,287
235,811
280,394
343,018
436,833
596,026
Maximum
including
performance
bonus
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
or 15%
or 15%
or 15%
or 15%
or 15%
or 15%
or 15%
or 15%
Ranges for Fixed Term Contract Staff for 2011
Payclass
Payclass 1
Payclass 2
Payclass 3
Payclass 4
Payclass 5
Payclass 6
Payclass 7
Payclass 8
Payclass 9
Payclass 10
Payclass 11
Payclass 12
Minimum T1
45,589
51,754
58,579
65,532
74 665
84 711
110 204
126 488
150 789
180 238
236 203
304 124
4
Minimum T2
64,324
73,932
83,684
93,616
112 640
132 537
171 938
200 452
238 359
291 599
371 316
506 610
Standard
Package
80,271
89,426
101,431
109,705
132,537
155,963
202,287
235,811
280,394
343,018
436,833
596,026
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human Resources Department
(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.
(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
Member Detail
Principal member
Member + adult dependant
Member + child dependent
Member + adult + child
Member + adult + 2 children
Member + adult + 3 children
Member + 2 children
Member + 3 children
Member + 2 adults*
Member + 2 adults + child*
2011
Subsidy
586
1025
822
1260
1497
1732
1057
1294
1025
1260
2012
Subsidy
639
1117
895
1374
1630
1887
1152
1408
1117
1374
* The subsidy only applies to one adult over the age of 21.
5
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human Resources Department
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)
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,
6
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human Resources Department
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
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:
7
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human Resources Department



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:
UIF
Skills Development Levy
1%
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
R150001 to R250000
R250001 to R400000
R400001 +
70%
75%
78%
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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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.
The comparison is between the UCT SASP and the comparator universities’ salaries excluding HoD
allowances.
4
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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human Resources Department
Appendix 2
UNIVERSITY 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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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


9.
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).
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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human 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 =
R6 809 904 x 94.5% (other 5.5% attributable to NHLS) x 6/12 = R3 217 680
17
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human Resources Department
(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 30.6.2009
40 678 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 30.6.2010
40 678 x R234.82 = R9 552 008 x 94.5% x 6/12 = R4 513 324
 for period 1.7.2010 to 31.12.2010
40 678 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 30.4.2011
40 678 x R304.09 = R12 369 773 x 94.5% x 4/12 = R3 896 478
 for the period 1.5.2011 to 31.12.2011
40 678 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.
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
18
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human Resources Department
Notch 5, together with a headship allowance) could be mapped to any one of the following stateservice 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 426 377.00
Pathologist/ HOD - E2- R1 488 160.00
Junior Registrar - TC1-R658 479.15
Senior Registrars - TD1-R745 929.45
Medical Specialist - D2 - R947 031
Medical Officer - D3 - R888 168
Scientist - E2 - R1 417 296
19
2016/02/13
University of Cape Town
Human Resources Department
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
2016/02/13