Implementation of Occupational Specific Dispensation & 7-day establishment: interaction with Department & labour unions.

Meeting report

Briefing by the Public Servants Association PSA)
Mr Pierre Snyman, PSA Chairperson, said that the underlying aim of agreements between the union and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) had been to achieve better remuneration, and to retain and recruit staff. But the new salary structure had not impressed the DCS. Staff had been used to getting overtime payment before the Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD), and had ended up being paid less when it was implemented.  Staff were struggling to adapt.

The DCS had the highest level of disputes involving temporary incapacity leave in the public service sector. This showed that staff morale was low in the DCS. The DCS had wrongfully implemented the principle of recognition of experience. The majority of staff did not qualify for that. No progress had been made since February with improvement in career paths. There had been agreements about pay progression for educators that had come to nothing.  Posts had not been created.

Mr Snyman noted that the PSA had not wanted to agree about working conditions under the 7-day establishment. The DCS used to work a 40 hour week and it had been increased to 45. The DCS now worked 20 hours a month more than the rest of the public service. It had led to stress and there had not been job creation. South African prisons were not mechanised and were labour intensive. Yet 2 000 posts had been cut. The DCS expected to maintain a 7-day establishment with 10% fewer people. A collective agreement was needed about averaging of working hours. Outstanding overtime had to be paid out.

Mr Snyman urged that prisons again become productive, so that people could go there to work and learn, through agricultural production and industry. The staff establishment had to be broadened. Court matters had to be finalised.

Briefing by POPCRU
Mr Nkosinathi Theledi, POPCRU General Secretary, said that the DCS had implemented the agreement on OSD for correctional officials in such a way that it had led to the creation of “jobs for pals” in the top structure of the Department, disregarding critical needs at shop floor level. The top structure had ballooned, rendering the DCS top heavy.

OSD agreements had to allow officials to migrate to correctional centres. The migration process was proceeding at a snail’s pace, if at all. The Department had failed to determine a lawful shift system. There had initially been consensus about the shift system, but an agreement had not been signed, because there was lack of consensus about promotion policy and the payment of back-dated overtime to members.

Mr Theledi said that there was no policy on the 7-day establishment. Employees were expected to safeguard and render rehabilitation programmes with limited resources. Unilateral implementation of the averaging of working hours had violated working conditions. Staff had ended up working more hours, which caused exhaustion and low morale. The Department was returning millions of Rands to Treasury each year, while facing huge challenges.

The implementation of Phase 2 of the OSD -- the recognition of experience -- had been done wrongfully, so that long-serving officials had been placed on the same footing as newly-appointed ones. POPCRU had declared a dispute on the matter, and arbitration had decided against the DCS.  The DCS had taken the award against them on review to the Labour Court. The DCS was reviewing every award that went against them.
 
Current pay and grade progression did not address the lack of upward mobility for officials. The DCS had unilaterally implemented the averaging of working hours, although it had been informed from the beginning that it was unlawful. The DCS currently owed individual members from R30 000 to R70 000, because of a failure to remunerate overtime.

POPCRU recommended bold and creative employment measures. There had to be negotiations for lawful shift patterns and working hours. They suggested a return to a 5-day establishment until enough personnel had been recruited for a 45 hour week. Vacant posts had to be filled, and the recognition of experience had to be properly implemented.

Briefing by the Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
Mr Teboho Mokoena, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Human Resources, said that the DCS were in need of people who had institutional memory. He said that for the DCS it was a matter of getting the unions they deserved. He admitted that the DCS had failed to move with speed, and to establish a bargaining forum, for which a framework had to be found. There were matters related to the OSD and 7-day establishment sitting before the courts, especially the matter of back payment of overtime.

Mr Mokoena noted that there had initially been a task team, but then the parties had agreed and gone their separate ways. Collective task teams had to be resuscitated.  He admitted that the DCS had gone off on its own. Action steps could not be taken independently. There would be engagement with labour in the form of workshops around relationship by objectives, before the end of the year. There was the challenge of designing a staffing model. The DCS needed a scientific analysis on how many staff would be required in future. There had to be a relationship with Further Education and Training (FET) colleges to recruit artisans. He admitted that non-technical matters could already have been resolved. Funding had to be found for paid professionals. There had to be a return to joint implementation task teams.

Mr Alfred Tsetsane, Regional Commissioner, Limpopo, Mpumalanga and North-West (LMN), added that technical matters would be isolated for re-negotiation. Overtime was the major challenge.  The DCS had researched and accepted the 2 x 12 hour shift system. It would provide a staff presence for longer periods, allow inmates to work, and for NGO’s to engage with them. Other shift systems could not be reconciled with the White Paper on Corrections.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the was trying to understand why certain things had not been done. There were things not disputed that could have been dealt with. He asked why the joint task teams had not been revived. The contingent liability for overtime was 10% of the DCS budget. It was currently R1.3 billion. If the court decided in favour of the staff, he wondered where R1,7 billion was going to come from. He asked why there had been procrastination. No one was saying that they were actually doing what needed to be done. It had been said that there was a high turnover in the DCS leadership, but there was a policy that could be consistently adhered to.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) said that the Committee was not seeing evidence that the OSD was working. The DCS had pilot projects, but did not report on implementation. She asked about time frames, and the results of the pilot project. There was the challenge of getting money to DCS members at centre level, for matters like transport.

Mr Tsetsane responded that the pilot project in Johannesburg had yielded both positive results and challenges. The basis of that report had been that the 2 x 12 hour shift system had been rolled out at centres with a staff complement of 80% or more.  It looked like it could work. The DCS had been on course, but then the issue of staffing arose. The 7-day establishment was complicated by the shift system.

Mr J Selfe (DA) remarked that the was depressed by what he had heard. There had been little change since February/March. The DCS and the unions had reached an initial agreement, but the devil had been in the detail. There had been disputes about implementation. Whenever the DCS did not want to implement something, it went to court. For the 7-day establishment to work, the DCS had to thin down its top management and get people on the ground. It seemed that new Deputy Commissioners and top brass were being appointed all the time.  People were needed at the coalface. The timber had to be grown from the bottom up.  POPCRU was right about that.

Mr Mokoena responded that there had been an internal audit to analyse what people at head office were actually doing. He agreed that rehabilitation could not take place with a bloated head office. He conceded that there had been procrastination. Matters were before court because the DCS had not moved with speed. There had to be a collectively worked out implementation model.  People had signed the initial agreement with the best of intentions, but those had been lost to the devil in the detail --  when each party had gone their separate ways. There were extremely technical agreements. There had to be a joint statement with the unions about a payment date. Artisans had to be paid according to Phase 2 stipulations. The pay progression of 3% was clear.  Incorrect notches had been applied. Money had to be obtained. The Treasury had to be approached, if necessary.

Mr Tsetsane responded that there had been the impact of budget cuts. The Treasury had instructed that  budgets be cut by 1%, and this had affected the compensation budget . There had been a different interpretation of clauses by various stakeholders. There was lack of agreement about averaging of hours.

Mr V Ndlovu (IFP) remarked that the DCS was being run by the courts. The Department would first agree, and then challenge. There had been an agreement, but it had not been fulfilled.  Details had been challenged without consulting the other party. When the DCS did not agree, they became isolated.  Both parties had to address issues jointly, or face a major strike in the future. There were misunderstandings around the shift system.

Mr Mokoena responded that there had to be shop floor union management forums. Members had to be informed about the 7-day establishment. There had to be a road show, or else the unions could be accused of negotiating for themselves.
  
Mr L Max (DA) remarked that Mr Mokoena ought to know the rules and obligations laid down by the Labour Relations Act. He said that the three basic rules were simply consultation, consultation and more consultation. Mr Mokoena had presumably spoken on behalf of the National Commissioner when he had acknowledged the truth of what the unions were saying.  Mr Mokoena had admiited that there had been non-compliance that affected service. The DCS had known that things were going wrong. He asked who had been responsible for illegally walking away from the initial agreements. The DCS only spoke of what was being envisaged. They had known what to do but were unable to say what steps had been taken. Nice promises had been made over the preceding two years, and again in February. The HR Chief Deputy Commissioner had admitted that the DCS had turned its back on its members. Management was only serving its own interests. Had there been real interest in the welfare of members, the DCS would have acted. Five nursing sisters had recently resigned at Kimberley because of working conditions. There was conflict between management and staff. The question was why the DCS had entered into an agreement, knowing that they did not have the money muscle to adhere to it. The beneficiaries of service delivery were suffering as a result.

Mr Mokoena responded that there was a need for the DCS and the unions to assume joint ownership of challenges. There was a statutory relationship between the two parties. The unions had to create management forums to deal with challenges locally. Otherwise there would simply be more disputes. He said that the DCS had indeed walked away from the agreement, and that there was a need for a dispute resolution mechanism. It was unacceptable that the courts were the first port of call. When the DCS lost in court, they asked for a review. Money had been lost.

Mr Tsetsane added that there was a Department-wide communication strategy. The DCS had gone on a road show to Regional and Area Commissioners.  Committees that involved organised labour, had been established to inform members.

Mr Tsetsane replied that a mandate had been given by the mandate committee with regard to funding. During implementation it had emerged that things had not been properly done. There had to be a meeting between the mandate committee, the Department of Public Service and Administration, and the DCS.

Mr M Mnguni (COPE) asked the DCS if they knew just how low the morale of their ground level staff was. If the DCS had known, they would have rectified matters.

Mr Mnguni referred to the fact that the PSA had not signed the initial resolution. He asked if the resolution was binding on the PSA nonetheless. He asked if the PSA had been part of the joint implementation team. If not, they could not be asked to help implement it. He asked about rules regarding what each party had to do, and to whom each party was accountable, when acting on their own, and what such rules prescribed when there was no implementation. It seemed that the DCS senior management were not disturbed by the lack of implementation. The DCS had simply gone ahead on their own.

Mr Tsetsane answered that the PSA were still bound by the agreements, although they had not signed them. They were part of the structures of implementation. Dispute resolution mechanisms had been exhausted. That was why the DCS had gone to court.

Mr Mokoena replied that morale on the shop floor was indeed low, but it had not only been a matter of the DCS walking away from the agreement.  Both parties had failed to stick to their part of the shared responsibilities. The parties had to get together over different interpretations.

Mr Mnguni remarked that the “jobs for pals” in the DCS alluded to by POPCRU, was a serious allegation. He asked why it had not been resolved. There had been a failure to create an environment in which issues could be resolved.

Mr Mnguni told Mr Mokoena that the morale of DCS ground staff was down and out, as he put it, but senior management were not feeling it, hence the snail’s pace adopted.

Ms Ngwenya remarked that the DCS needed help.  It was hard to call a meeting for staff.  It was clear that information about the 7-day establishment had not been made available sufficiently to DCS members. Management were not talking to each other and the ground staff were frustrated.  Morale was low. Unions were talking to management but salaries remained poor. The pay of DCS “foot soldiers” had to be improved.

Ms Ngwenya opined that working together in terms of the OSD, also meant creating a mechanism to attract professionals. The unions could assist with that. There were staff at the centres who apparently had been taught nothing more than how to open the gate. There was a lack of medical professionals, and people serving in the kitchens who had not been trained to cook.

Mr Cele asked if Head Office had assumed full responsibility for the implementation of the agreement, or whether it had been left to the regions. Officials seemed uninformed about it. They were unable to talk about the state of readiness.

The Chairperson returned to the question by Mr Ndlovu about the 7-day establishment and the shift system. He said that Mr Ndlovu could not understand how the DCS could say that the 7-day establishment was a good thing, but that the 2 x 12 hour shift system was not.

Mr Tsetsane responded that there had been challenges with the implementation of the shift system. Yet it remained the ideal system, based on DCS research, because it would guarantee staff presence seven days per week. The 7-day establishment was compatible with any shift system, but the 2 x 12 hour system was preferred by the DCS. There were problems with shortages of staff to implement it, however.

The Chairperson remarked that with regard to staff shortages, the previous quarterly report had indicated 2,4% less spending.  Under-spending had been reported to Treasury. The DCS was not spending what it was currently receiving. There were delays around vacancies, and the implementation of salary increases. The Committee was being told one thing, and the Treasury another. The consequences of mismanagement would have to be paid for. One audience was being told that the DCS could not spend, and the other was being applied to for funding. The problem in South Africa was not lack of money, but a lack of capacity to implement. Under-spent money could be used as funding.  Slow spending was not a result of a lack of money.

The Chairperson asked how the DCS could have agreed to a project that had not been costed.

The Chairperson asked about the functionality of joint committees, and who they accounted to.

The Chairperson told POPCRU and the PSA that in the view of the Portfolio Committee, they were part of government, and as such had to be accountable for the implementation of government policy. They were under a constitutional obligation. He told both unions to fix up their policies.  In the near future, the DCS and the unions would have to report about what had been done since 4 September by the joint committees. More could be done for service delivery. The PSA had said that the DCS and the unions had to stop fighting each other, and both parties could do well to follow that advice.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.