Public Service Coordinating & Bargaining Council, and Centre for Public Service Innovation: Ministry & entity briefings

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson gave a brief background to matters on the agenda. She noted that the Committee had, when doing oversight, expressed its concern about hiring, retention and release of personnel, as well as the number of labour court cases where government was unsuccessful. The Committee’s engagements with the Public Service Commission (PSC) had brought to light problems in the legislation around national and provincial entities, and the Committee was also aware of many issues affecting municipalities. She believed that it would be useful to hold a public service seminar for Parliament, to highlight and discuss oversight that cut across all sectors. The PSC had been invited, and should engage further with the Committee after this meeting. The Committee hoped to gain a better understanding of structures such as bargaining councils, their functioning and challenges, and how they could be improved and better coordinated.

Public Service Coordinating & Bargaining Council (PSCBC) briefing
Mr Khumbula Ndaba, Head: Labour Relations and Remuneration Management, Ministry of Public Service and Administration, gave a briefing outlining the structure, challenges and obstacles facing the Public Service Coordinating and Bargaining Council (PSCBC).  

Mr Ndaba noted that section 23 of the Constitution conferred bargaining rights on employees. These rights were regulated in the Labour Relations Act (LRA), whilst the Bargaining Forum for the public service was established by Schedule 1, section 2 of the LRA. 

The PSCBC had a Safety and Security Sectorial Bargaining Council, which covered members employed under the South African Police Services Act and the Public Service Act, and applied to all provinces. The Education Labor Relations Council (ELRC) covered all educators employed in the national and provincial departments and provincial chambers of the. There was also a Public Health and Social Development Sectorial Bargaining Council, which covered employees in the health and social development sectors. The General Public Service Sectorial Bargaining Council dealt with all other employees in the public service who were not covered by these specific sectors that he had just outlined..

Mr Ndaba outlined the structure of collective bargaining in the public service, saying that this was built on the three pillars of central bargaining at the PSCBC, sectorial bargaining at sectorial councils, and bargaining in provincial and parliament chambers. The parties comprising a bargaining council (BC) comprised the employers, and all trade unions admitted to the council. There were currently eight trade unions admitted to the PSCBC, namely, Congress of Allied Trade Unions (with constituents of SADTU, NEHAWU, POPCRU and DENOSA) and an independent labour caucus, comprising of HOSPERSA, NAPTOSA, SAPU and PSA.

The registered scope of the PSCBC was the public service, in respect of matters that were regulated by uniform rules, norms and standards that applied across the public service, or in respect of terms and conditions of service that applied to two or more sectors, or that were assigned to the State as employer in any sector.

The General Public Service Sectorial Bargaining Council (GPSSBC) was responsible for sector bargaining. This was established in terms of section 35, read in conjunction with section 37, of the LRA, and under PSCBC Resolution No 10 of 1999. He noted that this sector dealt with matters related to all other staff not specifically covered by the sectorial bargaining councils for Education and Labour Relations, the Public Health and Social Development Sector, or the Safety and Security Sectorial Bargaining Council. The Minister for Public Service and Administration was responsible for managing bargaining at this level.

The GPSSBC scope spanned nine provincial governments, 93 provincial departments, 34 national departments and 305 000 employees. Its core operations involved concluding and enforcing collective agreements, preventing labour disputes, performing dispute resolution functions referred to in section 51 of the LRA, establishing and administering a fund to be used for dispute resolution, and creating an environment conducive to the provision of operational services by the PSCBC.

Mr Ndaba highlighted that the Education Labour Relations Council was established in terms of section 35, read in conjunction with section 37 of the LRA. It focused on matters related to educators only. The Minister of Basic Education was responsible for managing bargaining at this level. The ELRC’s scope extended to the State in its capacity as employer and those employees to whom the Employment of Educators Act, 1998, applied.

The Safety and Security Sectorial Bargaining Council (SSSBC) was established in terms of section 35, read in conjunction with section 37 of the LRA, and by designation of PSCBC Resolution No 10 of 1999. It dealt with matters related to all staff employed with the South African Police Service (SAPS). The Minister of Police was responsible for managing bargaining at this level. The scope extended to the state, as employer, and its employees of SAPS who were appointed in terms of the SAPS Act and Public Service Act (PSA).

The Public Health and Social Development Sectorial Bargaining Council (PHSDSBC) was established in terms of section 35, read in conjunction with Section 37 of the LRA, and by designation of PSCBC Resolution No 10 of 1999. It dealt with matters related to all staff within the Departments of Health (DOH) and of Social Development (DSD), as well as all health professionals appointed in terms of the Public Service Act who were working in a health facility. The Minister of Health was responsible for managing bargaining at this level. It covered all employers and employees of the national DOH, as well as the nine provincial DOHs, and, similarly of the national and nine provincial DSD offices. All other employees employed in health and social development facilities under the Public Service Act and the Correctional Services Act were also included, as well as any other health and social development workers, as defined in schedule 1 of the PHSDBC Constitution, who were employed under the Public Service Act.

Mr Ndaba stated that the Further Education and Training (FET) sector was a recent addition. The FET lecturing staff were included under a separate bargaining unit under the ELRC, while the FET administrative staff were accommodated within the GPSSBC. He noted that each sector had established provincial chambers, and there were national departmental chambers for GPSSBC. The chambers were not juristic persons and thus had their collective agreements ratified by the Sector Council. The executing authority of each national department, or the Provincial Premier, was responsible for managing bargaining at this level.

He noted that a provincial Charter would function in the provincial administration for which it was established. Its jurisdiction would be limited to issues of a transverse nature in the provincial administration, and those that would affect the provincial administration concerned, or which would need special or specific attention in the provincial administration. It would also deal with matters that would affect more than one sector, as designated by the Council, in the provincial administration.

Mr Ndaba stated that there were challenges and obstacles in the functioning of the bargaining councils. One related to matters remaining on the agenda, without resolution, for extended periods of time, which compromised Government operations. There was often ineffectual referral of matters to task teams. Various inconsistencies in determination of scopes were apparent. For instance, administrative staff in SAPS who did not receive sector-specific benefits negotiated in a sector that focused on uniform staff. In some cases, similar occupations were treated differently; for instance, nurses employed by Department of Correctional Services fell within the health scope but nurses employed at schools did not. He also noted the challenges related to the implementation of Occupation Specific Dispensations (OSD), such as incorrect implementation and amendments of original proposals through sectorial bargaining. This had, in some cases led to financial shortfalls. He also noted the challenges at provincial and departmental chambers, where various departments had signed agreements with labour without consulting custodian departments.

Mr Ndaba stated that there may be a need for the parties to review the scope of the Councils, a need for more oversight in the form of monitoring and quality assurance to be exercised over Councils, a need to improve financial oversight and reporting of the PSBC and lastly for Chambers to have clear terms of references.

Discussion
Mr A Williams (ANC) referred to the section on the challenges, obstacles and way forward, asking if the parties had been consulted, and whether the views presented were collective, or the views of the presenters. In particular, he queried if labour had been consulted.

Mr E Nyekembe (ANC) noted that the Councils comprised employers and labour. He asked if there had been consultation on the structures, and whether the submissions came from a particular department only, or were inclusive of input from other partners.

Mr Ndaba said that the challenges outlined in this report had come from an assessment by the DPSA, but that the PSCBC had also undertaken a similar exercise, and the DPSA was represented at that PSCBC, so many of the findings were the same, in particular those around the management of task teams, and the time taken to process issues through a bargaining council. National Treasury was part of the employer grouping. Members sat on the PSCBC as employers, but were also represented in the GPSBC and benefited from the work.

Mr E Marais (DA) asked to what extent the strategies of government were being incorporated in the collective bargaining process, such as the policy to keep inflation under 6%, and whether this was also borne in mind by the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) when bargaining on wages and salaries.

Mr Ndaba responded that the DPSA would not impose the position of the employers on labour. This was a bargaining process, which implied that the State would put forward the position of government, would outline the reasons and its positions, and then negotiation would follow.

Mr Marais asked who contributed to, and who administered the fund for dispute resolution.

Mr Nyekembe enquired if there was a mediation or conciliation body, and, if so, whether it comprised employees of the bargaining council, or outsourced services.

Ms Melissa Ntshikila, State Chief Negotiator, DPSA, noted that the fund was sourced from the fees levied on employers and employees for the disciplinary functions. Panelists who were accredited to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration performed the functions around disputes, and the money was then used, via service level agreements, for the panelists. She stated that the employer and employee paid half of the levies. The DPSA would like to play a more active role in how the funding was expended.

Mr Marais noted that only the SAPS was mentioned in regard to the Safety and Security Sectorial Bargaining Council, and enquired about the position of Departments of Defence and Correctional Service members.

Mr Marais noted the possibility of the “need to review the scope of the Council by the parties” , and asked what exactly this meant.

Mr Ndaba said the Ministry had noted the weaknesses in some Councils, and had also noted that some  employees were disenfranchised by the scope of their councils, and this was the reason why the Ministry believed that the parties had to debate these issues, to try to reach lasting solutions. He noted, in this regard, that members of the SAPS were governed under the SAPS act, but some were employed in terms of the PSA, with some being disadvantaged due to their sectorial grouping when bargaining was done and resolutions were reached.

The General Secretary of the PSCBC also spoke about the challenges. He stated that there was no agency for the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements in government or the PSCBC. In the private sector, there were employers who were not members of the collective bargaining agreement, but who had collective bargaining agreements extended to them. For this reason, there was a need to set up agencies to enforce compliance. In the PSCBC there was only one employer, who would abide by the agreements.

Mr Mpfariseni Phophi, Deputy Chairperson: Employer Representatives, PSCBC stated that a major challenge was that other government agencies introduced salary increments during February and March, before general salary negotiations started. It was then very difficult if, for instance, it had already been announced that one sector of employees would receive a 20% salary increase, to try to negotiate around a 2% increase. The money was effectively all sourced from the same purse. He asked that the Committee assist in ensuring that there was better alignment.

Mr Marais said that his question on how the fund was administered had not been answered in full. He would have expected this to be reflected in the financial statements.

Ms Ntshikila stated that no separate fund had been established. In 1999, when the PSCBC came into operation, certain provisions were put in place to deal with dispute resolution. Funds were set up for that purpose in the normal budget allocation. Previously, the PSCBC administered the funds but when there was decentralisation, each sector administered its own funds, through levy agreements. The financial statements accounted for all the money administered.

Mr Marais noted that this explanation was still confusing, and there was no clarity on the fund. He hoped that the financial statements would not be as confusing as this explanation.

Mr Williams was still not clear on the labour involvement in the bargaining input, and requested submissions from the labour representatives on their role.

Mr Nyekembe asked how much time would be needed to attend to these problems.

Mr Ndaba noted that the Department would have to come up with appropriate time frames in the coming year.

The Chairperson concluded that there were still many issues that needed to be discussed with the DPSA and PSCBC.

Centre for Public Service Innovation briefing
The Chairperson noted that the Committee had previously attended a conference, and had visited the Centre for Public Service Innovation (CPSI) noting that it displayed many innovative and progressive aspects, such as projects for the disabled.

Ms Thuli Radebe, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Public Service Innovation, stated that CPSI was established as a section 21 company, with an outsourcing model, and consisted of several projects run by expatriates. It had a small unit of five senior and middle managers to manage the contracts. When it had become a government department, it had developed internal capacity and now consisted of sixteen members. The role of the CPSI was to encourage and develop service delivery innovation and to bridge the gap between the National System of Innovation and the public sector, and ensure that innovations were translated into improved service delivery. She described the role of the CPSI, therefore, as “unearthing, encouraging, rewarding, showcasing, piloting, and mainstreaming innovation in the public sector”.

She noted that the CPSI would work in partnership with sectors to identify challenges relating to government policies, would then set up integrated stakeholder teams to interrogate the challenges, explore innovative solutions to improve service delivery, and produce a funding model. CPSI also oversaw all testing and piloting, ensured that models were in line with government legislation, and would try to ensure that outdated rules and regulations on intellectual property were addressed. CPSI wanted to ensure that ownership was appropriately allocated, for mainstreaming and sustainability. One example of such a project was the Track and Trace system used by the Department of Home Affairs, which had been conceptualised in CPSI, and funded by the private sector. Another example was the electric car in the science and technology sector.

The CPSI model had three work streams. Research and Development (R&D) would ensure that there was a real need behind a particular innovation, and that the solutions were responding to real life challenges. The Solutions Support and Incubation to Demonstrate led the piloting and mainstreaming of innovative solutions. An enabling environment was fostered for the culture and practice of innovation. These work streams were supported by a small Corporate Services Unit, to ensure compliance with all Public Service and National Treasury regulations and other legislation. A unit dealing with stakeholder and partnership management aimed to leverage best practices in the private and not for profit sectors, to leverage corporate social investment, and to manage sponsorship and in-kind support.

Ms Radebe outlined the way in which communication took place. The Annual Awards programme, which was the primary feeder, was the way in which innovations aligned to government priorities were identified, rewarded and then showcased in the multi-media Innovation Centre. These innovations would be presented to decision makers and implementers at the annual CPSI conference. They were also profiled in the Public Sector Innovation Journal, and this was replicated nationally and across sectors, where possible. The Multi-Media Innovational Centre (MMIC) had become a hub for decision makers and implementers to interrogate challenges, as well as being an incubator of new innovations. CPSI had established a network of past innovators as champions and mentors, and aimed to bring together innovators around a specific challenge. New innovations were initiated through research and development, by testing and piloting (as with a recent project for SAPS), and through transfer of ownership. International innovations and best practices were shared through knowledge portals catering for intellectual property practitioners.

Ms Radebe outlined the current organisational structure, and noted that there were a number of staff members who were presently fulfilling dual roles, with no back up support, and, in addition, further support was needed to enable CPSI to focus its mandate on government priorities such as building an efficient, effective and development oriented public service. Enlarging the structure would also enable broad based replication and leveraging of mobile services, and would ensure capacity to respond to demands from line departments and local government and a number of other sectors. This would further ensure compliance with governance and statutory requirements.

The DPSA had taken some steps to build a new functional structure, by soliciting National Treasury funding for the short term capacity needs of the CPSI. However, DPSA had additionally reviewed and now suggested an ideal structure, which would be aligned to the mandate and business processes. The current gaps to be addressed included the two and three-year contracts that had to be converted to permanent positions to ensure stability and consistence. Corporate governance had to be strengthened, as there was currently one person overseeing all corporate management and technical support capacities. Stakeholder management had to be supported, to ensure stronger private sector and NGO involvement, soliciting of sponsorships and in-kind support, and there also had to be assurance of sustainable replication and transfer of ownership and the management of intellectual property, service level agreements, and memoranda of understanding. Ms Radebe highlighted that the restructuring at DPSA, and a moratorium on the filling of posts, had put further constraints on CPSI. Finally, she noted the need to open a trading account, as they were mistrustful of depositing money into a government account.

Discussion
Mr Williams asked what percentage of the budget of R6.1 million was to be spent on goods and services, and what percentage was being spent on consultancy, aside the three year contractors.

Ms Radebe explained that about 10% of the budget was put to content development for the innovations and the final editing of the journal. Because the CPSI’s budget was so limited, there was not sufficient to hire consultants. There were in-kind contributions from organisations such as MTN. In relation to consultancy, around 10% of budget towards content development for the innovations, and the final editing of the journal.

Ms Mohale and Mr Manama (ANC) asked if there were overlaps with State Information Technology Agency, and the Ministry or Department of Science and Technology.

Ms Manama also asked how the CPSI would look for innovation and when “innovation” was deemed to end.

The National System of Innovation, and National Advisory Council (who advised the Minister) were in partnership with CPSI. The Ministry of Science and Technology focused on science innovation only, but it had asked CPSI to help on the service delivery component, and there was collaboration. CPSI and SITA both reported to the same Minister and they shared R&D data. Collaboration took place across the sectors, and each innovation tended to get collaboration from a particular relevant partner. The Minister had set-up a schedule of meetings of various departments to share and constantly apprise each other of developments to ensure better collaboration.

Ms Radebe noted, in relation to searches for innovation, that the Innovation Awards were used to solicit entries and capture innovative projects. Sometimes, individuals would approach CPSI directly with their proposed solutions to problems. CPSI was working on a pilot project for a gadget to assist visually-challenged teachers, had received feedback from this, and would officially hand over at some stage, so that policy could be written around it. However she stressed that funding remained a problem. She further stressed that internal research was vital to reach stages in development.

Closing remarks
Ms Moira Marais-Martin, Commissioner, Public Service Commission, noted that the PSCBC had said noting about the inherent contradictions in bargaining councils that arose from employers and labour sitting together. She asked who, overall, took responsibility for the wellbeing of the structures.

Ms Marais-Martin noted the tremendous effort that CPSI was making, as evidenced by the awards made, including a recent winning of an award by the Independent Electoral Commission, with assistance from CPSI, in Malawi. There was still much that could be done in the public service around innovation.

Ms Mmathari Mashao, Chief Director, Office of the Public Service Commission stated that the information would assist the PSC, and that there would be engagement on other issues.

The Chairperson thanked all those who had made input. She reminded Members that they could make input into the sittings of the Multi Party Women’s Caucus.

The meeting was adjourned.