Whose Fault? Where Are the Faults Laid on?--An Analysis of the Reasons for Re-appeal Cases During the Process of Application for Promotion by Teachers in Colleges and Universities

• Main Authors: Ming-chao Chen, 陳明招
• Other Authors: 許繼峰
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/07123992013385363490

碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 勞工所 === 97 === The application for promotion by teachers in colleges and universities is an important event in academic world. It not only represents the teacher’s academic efforts but also symbolizes the promotion of individual academic fame and status. However, the number of the re-appeal cases about faculty promotion and its ratio out of all re-appeal cases show that teachers are dissatisfied with the process of the faculty promotion to a considerable degree. The main purposes of the research are as follows: to understand and analyze the re-appeal cases with which the Teacher Grievances Committee has dealt with, to analyze the categories of reasons why teachers apply for re-appeals, to analyze the administrative cases over the faculty promotion, to realize the differences between the judiciary opinions and the result of Teacher Grievances Committee, and to examine the procedures of the faculty promotion and the relief methods. According to the analysis, the reasons why teachers propose re-appeals can be induced into seven categories, among which “the faculty evaluation committee’s specialty and fairness” occupies the highest ratio—35.59%. Yet, 83.31 percent of the re-appeal cases are rejected. In addition, in the category “violating the related laws and regulations,” 70.65 percent of the re-appeal cases are accepted, which suggests that the applicants think that the key to the failure of their promotion is the committee’s specialty and fairness. However, if they can’t present definite reasons to show the fact that their promotion evaluation or judgment made is illegal or inappropriate, they should respect the committee’s professional academic judgment; by contrast, in the category of “violating related laws and regulations,” as long as the applicants can definitely points out the fact that the evaluation violates the J.Y. Interpretation No. 462 and related regulations, most of the re-appeal cases can be considered to be acceptable. The J.Y. Interpretation No. 462 can be applied to every school and different subjects. It was found that in the promotion cases, if teachers refuse to accept the re-appeal judgment and propose the administrative cases, over 80 percent of the judgments are the same as those made by the Teacher Grievances Committee. If teachers are unwilling to accept the appeal judgment and propose the administrative cases, 90 percent of the judgments are the same as those made by the Petitions and Appeals Committee, which demonstrates the special relief methods for re-appeals are worth depending on.