Academic staff promotion | Human Resources

Eligibility for Ad Hominem promotion | Review of ad hominem promotions process | Ad Hominem promotions: Faculty procedures

Eligibility for Ad Hominem promotion

1. Eligibility for Ad Hominem promotion

1.1. If a staff member is on university conditions of service (PE), he/she must have been confirmed in his/her appointment before applying for promotion. Should a staff member on probation be clearly performing very well, at any point, a Head of Department may make a case for early confirmation of appointment. This must have the support of the Dean and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor responsible for academic matters. The proposal must be based on achievements of SASP (Standard Academic Salary Package) criteria obtained after the appointment of the staff member.
1.2. Joint staff on Western Cape Government conditions of service
If a person is on the conditions of service of a health authority, on a joint Western Cape Government establishment (in addition to 1.1.), he/she must:
- be on the permanent staff if a South African citizen
- be held against a permanent post if not a South African citizen.

2. Committee structures and guidelines

2.1. Faculty Promotion and Remuneration Committee

Each faculty appoints a committee to consider ad hominem promotion, Merit and Excellence awards. Membership: Dean, DVC, two outside Deans, and other members as determined by the faculty board.

The committee

• makes recommendations on ad hominem promotions to the Vice-Chancellor

• makes recommendations on Merit and Excellence awards to the Vice-Chancellor

The committee may lay down the procedures to be followed within the faculty. Faculty specific criteria for ad hominem promotion are applied.

The structure, function and powers of this committee and any sub-committee must be approved by the faculty board. No applications may be suppressed by sub-committees (i.e. the final committee must consider all applications).

Recommendation for ad hominem promotions requires a two thirds majority vote of the internal and external members of the faculty committee respectively.

Recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor on ad hominem promotions must

• contain copies of the candidate's curricula vitae and the names and addresses of the referees consulted, and,

• in the case of a Professor contain the committee's assessment that it is satisfied as to the international standing of the candidate's scholarship.

Faculty promotion and remuneration committees must arrange for feedback to be given to successful and unsuccessful candidates, and to the relevant HODs. An unsuccessful candidate should be informed as to why his/her application was not successful.

2.2 Application for the review of outcomes relating to academic promotion, excellence and merit awards

1. The University Promotion and Remuneration Appeal and Review Committee (Appeal and Review Committee) shall hear all appeals arising from the final decision of any Faculty Promotion and Remuneration Committee (Faculty Committee) in respect of an application for promotion, excellence or merit award.

2. (a) Appeal and Review Committee shall consider appeals by application or automatic reviews.

(b) An appeal by application may be made by any member of the academic staff whose application for promotion, excellence or merit award has not been supported by a Faculty Committee.

(c) The Appeal and Review Committee shall automatically review the decision or recommendation of a Faculty Committee whenever an application for promotion, excellence or merit award fails because –

(i) at least two thirds of the external members of a Faculty Committee entitled to vote have not supported the application while at least two-thirds of the internal members of the Committee entitled to vote have supported it; or

(ii) at least two thirds of the internal members of a Faculty Committee entitled to vote have not supported the application while at least two thirds of the external members of the Committee entitled to vote have supported it.

Composition

3. The Appeal and Review Committee shall be chaired by a Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC).

4. Where the DVC chairing the Appeal and Review Committee is not responsible for transformation, the DVC responsible for transformation or her nominee shall from part of the Committee.

5. Other members of the Appeal and Review Committee shall include:

(a) two Deans appointed by the Vice Chancellor in consultation with the Committee of Deans;

(b) two associate professors or professors from UCT appointed by the Vice Chancellor in consultation with the Committee of Deans; and

(c) two associate professors or professors, retired from UCT or external to UCT, appointed by the Vice Chancellor in consultation with the Committee of Deans.

6. Where the Appeal and Review Committee contemplates substituting the decision of a Faculty Committee, it may co-opt at least two associate professors or professors, at least one of whom must be external to UCT, with relevant expertise to advise it. The co-opted members have no voting rights.

7. No member of the Appeal and Review Committee shall have participated in the processes of the Faculty Committee whose decision is the subject of the appeal.

8. At least five voting members of the Appeal and Review Committee shall form the quorum.

Grounds of appeal

9. An appeal against the decision of a Faculty Committee by application may be made on the following grounds:

(a) that the decision is unlawful;

(b) that the Faculty Committee did not observe procedural fairness;

(d) that the relevant Faculty Committee has failed to provide written reasons within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date an academic member of staff submits of a written request for such reasons.

10. An automatic review will only consider the reasonableness of the decision or failure to give reasons unless the affected member of staff has reason to believe that other grounds of appeal are also relevant.

Process for appeals by application

11. Any persons aggrieved by the final decision of a Faculty Committee may submit an appeal to the Appeal and Review Committee via the HR business partner affiliated to the affected Faculty.

12. Any person wishing to file an appeal is entitled ask for written reasons from the Chair of the Faculty Committee who is enjoined to summarise the decision of the Committee and the reasons the Committee gave for the decision.

While the strengths of the application might be included in the letter of reasons, the letter must consider the weaknesses highlighted in the application as part of the reasons for the Committee’s lack of support for the application.

13. An intention to appeal must be submitted in accordance with clause 11 above no later than fourteen (14) calendar days from the date the decision or a letter of reasons was communicated to the member of staff, whichever is later.

14. The appeal must indicate the relevant grounds of appeal, provide relevant information, and demonstrate the applicability of the relevant grounds. The appeal must also identify the remedy being sought.

15. Once the appeal has been submitted, the Chair of the affected Faculty Committee must provide a reply on behalf of the Committee within fourteen (14) calendar days , provided that the Chair of the Appeal and Review Committee may on good cause grant leave to file the reply out of time.

The reply must provide all relevant information on all issues raised by the appeal. In discharging this responsibility, the Chair of the Faculty Committee must be impartial and refrain from expressing subjective opinions on the merits of the appeal.

16. The Chair of the Appeal and Review Committee may invite the appealing member of staff to submit a response to the reply submitted by the Chair of the Faculty Committee. Such a response must be submitted to the Appeal and Review Committee within seven (7) calendar days and must restrict itself to responding to the reply and not raise new grounds of appeal or allegations.

Process for automatic reviews

17. The Chair of the Faculty Committee or her nominee shall inform an academic member of staff whose application for promotion, excellence or merit award has failed because of the circumstances described in clause 2(c) above that they have a right to an automatic review. The Chair shall also provide written reasons for the decision of the Committee within fourteen (14) calendar days from the time the staff member is informed of the decision of the Faculty Committee.

18. The affected member of staff may opt to make written submissions pertaining to the reasonableness of the decision or adequacy of reasons for the decision. Where relevant, other grounds stipulated in clause 9 above could also be alleged. The submission must specify the relevant grounds of appeal, provide relevant information, demonstrate the applicability of the alleged grounds, and identify the remedy being sought.

19. Where a staff member wishes to exercise the right to make submissions, such submission must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from date the decision of the Faculty Committee or a letter of reasons was communicated to the member of staff, whichever is later.

20. Once the submission has been filed, the Chair of the affected Faculty Committee must provide a reply on behalf of the Committee within fourteen (14) calendar days. The reply must provide all relevant information on all issues raised by the review.

In discharging this responsibility, the Chair of the Faculty Committee must be impartial and refrain from expressing subjective opinions on the merits of the appeal.

21. The Chair of the Appeal and Review Committee may invite the member of staff to submit a response to the reply submitted by the Chair of the Faculty Committee. Such a response must be submitted to the Appeal and Review Committee within seven (7) calendar days and must restrict itself to responding to the reply and not raise new allegations or grounds of review.

Decision making and remedies

22. The Appeal and Review Committee shall determine appeals or reviews within a reasonable time.

23. The Appeal and Review Committee shall determine appeals or reviews based on information submitted to it in writing. The Committee shall not consider evidence in support of the application for promotion, excellence or merit award that was not placed before the Faculty Committee.

24. The Appeal and Review Committee shall make decisions by a two-thirds majority of all its members attending the meeting and entitled to vote.

25. Upon considering all the relevant information, the Appeal and Review Committee may:

(a) dismiss the appeal or review and uphold the decision of the Faculty Committee;

(b) set aside the decision of the Faculty Committee and remit it for re-consideration;

(d) subject to clause 26 below, set aside the decision of the Faculty Committee and substitute it with its own decision.

26. The presence of an irregularity is not enough to warrant substitution of the decision.

The Appeal and Review Committee may substitute the decision of a Faculty Committee in terms of clause 25(d) above only if it finds that –

(a) the decision of the Faculty Committee was unreasonable and unjustifiable; and

(b) the proposed substituted decision is a foregone conclusion having regard to the facts of the case; or

(c) the Faculty Committee was biased against the appellant or cannot reasonably be expected to make a fair decision if the matter is remitted back to it.

27. An unreasonable decision in the context of clause 26(a) is a decision that is not supported by the evidence, that is arbitrary or capricious, that is irrational, or that no reasonable person could have made.

28. Where the Appeal and Review Committee orders the Faculty Committee to supply reasons, the Appeal and Review Committee may reconvene to consider the adequacy or reasonableness of the decision.

29. Where the Appeal and Review Committee contemplates substitution of the decision of the Faculty Committee, it may, subject to clause 6 above, co-opt at least two professors or associate professors, from within or outside the university, with relevant expertise to advise it.

30. No appeal lies against the decision of the Appeal and Review Committee.

31. Where the Appeal and Review Committee remits a decision, the Faculty Committee must reconvene within thirty (30) calendar days and rectify the irregularity identified by the Appeal and Review Committee and make the substantive recommendation on the application afresh. The Faculty Committee shall not consider new evidence in support of the application.

32. The reconvened Faculty Committee retains the full responsibility to determine the application on its merits. It can therefore vote in favour or against the application.

33. The recommendation of the reconvened Faculty Committee is not subject to appeal.

2.3. The Appeal and Review Committee

a. Chair - Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC). Where the DVC chairing the Appeal and Review Committee is not responsible for transformation, the DVC responsible for transformation or his/her nominee shall from part of the Committee.

b. Two Deans appointed by the Vice Chancellor in consultation with the Committee of Deans;

c. Two associate professors or professors from UCT appointed by the Vice Chancellor in consultation with the Committee of Deans; and

d. Two associate professors or professors, retired from UCT or external to UCT, appointed by the Vice Chancellor in consultation with the Committee of Deans.

Where the Appeal and Review Committee contemplates substituting the decision of a Faculty Committee, it may co-opt at least two associate professors or professors, at least one of whom must be external to UCT, with relevant expertise to advise it. The co-opted members have no voting rights.

No member of the Appeal and Review Committee shall have participated in the processes of the Faculty Committee whose decision is the subject of the appeal.

At least five voting members of the Appeal and Review Committee shall form the quorum.

Ad Hominem promotions: Faculty procedures

CHED (2024)
CHED ad hominem 2024 (including invitation, timetable, application form, guidelines, HR174 and HR175 forms)

Commerce and GSB (2024)
Commerce invitation for ad hominem promotion, merit and excellence awards 2024
Commerce guidelines for performance evaluation of academic staff (excluding the College of Accounting) 2024
College of Accounting guidelines for performance evaluation of academic staff 2024
Commerce guidelines for performance evaluation of research staff 2024
Commerce guidelines for performance evaluation of academic teaching staff 2024
Commerce timelines for ad hominem promotions and awards 2024
Template for Commerce performance evaluation portfolio
Adhom checklist and FAQs

EBE (2024)
EBE Guidelines for ad hominem promotion (including invitation, guidelines, summary information sheet, links to HR174 and HR175 forms)
Application Nomination Checklist

Health Sciences (2024)
Health Sciences ad hominem invitation 2024
Health Sciences guidelines and performance criteria for ad hominem promotion for academic staff 2024
Health Sciences guidelines and performance criteria for ad hominem promotion for research staff 2024
Health Sciences guidelines and performance criteria for academic ranking for clinical educators 2024
Health Sciences merit and excellence awards criteria 2024

Humanities (2023)
Humanities ad hominem invitation 2023
Humanities ad hominem timeline 2023
Humanities ad hominem procedures and guidelines 2023
Humanities ad hominem teaching and supervision profile 2023
Humanities ad hominem document requirements 2023
Humanities ad hominem application form 2023
Humanities ad hominem promotion template

Law (2024)
Law ad hominem invitation and guidelines 2024 (including guidelines, invitation, timelines and application form)

Science (2024)
Science ad hominem promotion call for nominations letter 2024
Science ad hominem promotion procedures 2024
Science ad hominem performance descriptions (points system) 2024
Science ad hominem promotion portfolio guidelines 2024
Science ad hominem promotion summary sheet 2024
Science Dean's note 2024

Page last updated 22 May 2023