Resolution 7 Implementation in the South African Police Service

Meeting report

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
18 February 2004
RESOLUTION 7 IMPLEMENTATION IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE

Acting Chairperson: Mr. BJ Mkhaliphi (ANC)

Documents handed out
Implementation of PSCBC Resolution 7/2002 in the SAPS

SUMMARY
The South African Police Service reported on the implementation of Resolution 7 of 2002 of the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC). The process of restructuring had involved the redeployment of officers. A total of 227 disputes had been lodged with the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council (SSBC) around the redeployment issue. The trade union, Solidarity, had launched an interdict against the Department to have a moratorium placed on the implementation of the Resolution. The implementation process involved asking all employees to complete a pro forma skills inventory. The matching and placing of employees in various jobs was based on the skills inventory. Six Senior Management employees had been declared in excess. Five of these had applied and were given severance packages. One senior person remains in excess and the Department was negotiating with that person.

MINUTES
M Nchwe (Divisional Commissioner: SAPS Career Management) conducted the briefing (see document).

Questions
Ms NC Kondlo (ANC) asked if people who had had to relocate during the redeployment process had received any financial assistance. She also asked what had triggered the dispute raised by South African Police Union (SAPU) given the fact that it was represented on the Task Team that was tasked with overseeing the implementation process of the Resolution.

M Nchwe replied that Resolution was specific and prescriptive in terms of the kind of financial obligation that the Department had. Financial packages that the Department could give are also prescribed in the Resolution. With regard to physical relocation costs the Department is allowed to spend a maximum of R25 000 per person.

He continued that the trigger for the dispute was that some employees were dissatisfied with the process. The Resolution allows members to individually pursue their rights and the unions have the obligation to represent their members. The Department respects the decision to represent the employees as taken by the union.

Mr. Mkhaliphi asked if the Department saw the need to address the issue of personal accommodation for officers who were physically relocated from their places of residence.

Dr M Singh (Deputy National Commissioner: HRM and Legal Services) replied that a total of 2015 people were physically relocated. Where possible, such people were assisted with state accommodation. Where not possible, the R25 000 allocated to each person was also used towards accommodation.

Ms Kondlo noted that the Department suspected that there were individuals who had fuelled an intense media campaign against the SAPS. She asked if the Department had taken any steps to ensure that such individuals are dealt with.

Dr M Singh replied that no investigations were launched to deal with the suspected individuals. The Department decided to analyze the information put in the media and conducted its own media campaign to ensure that the correct message was put across rather than dealing with individuals.

Mr. P Maloyi (ANC) asked the Department to clarify the nature of the disputes that were lodged against the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council. He also asked if SAPU was opposed to the retructuring process only because they wanted to maintain the status quo. He furthermore asked if the Department was confident that everybody was placed according to their abilities and if such persons could do what is expected from them.

Dr Singh replied that the disputes involved a whole range of issues. Some people felt that their skills were not correctly matched with the kind of jobs they were placed in whilst others raised personal problems like inability to find accommodation or proper schools for their children. The Department tried to attend to everyone's problems but it was not possible to solve them all.

With regard to SAPU's concern, M Nchwe said that the maintenance of the status quo was the main concern but not the only one. Issues like the inability to speak the local language of the new place of work were also raised.

On the issue of competency to do what is required or expected, M. Nchwe replied that the process of restructuring had placed the Department on track to improve service delivery. The Department acknowledged that there were still some problems but it would continue with the restructuring process. The Department felt that skills have been placed where they are needed.

Ms Kondlo noted that the Department had not raised the issue of accommodation as one of the challenges facing them. She said that in some police station one finds a large number of officers accommodated in one office. She asked if the Department has plans to deal with this.

Dr Singh replied that when some police stations were built, the communities they served at the time were very small. However some communities have now increased in size. It is very important to have enough officers at police stations. The need for office space would be addressed in the Department's building programme.

Mr. P Mathee (NNP) asked if illiteracy is still a problem in the Police Service. This issue was important since it impacts on the quality of statements that are taken and the nature of investigations done by the police.

Dr Singh replied that there are still illiteracy problems within the SAPS. However, one is not dealing with large scale functional illiteracy. The Department has introduced an Adult Basic Learning Programme and offers basic training courses. There are few people who have not successfully completed the basic training. However, the Department has not done an impact analysis to see if the programmes are making any difference.

Mrs. E Lubidla (ANC) asked if any redeployment allowance was given to the redeployed officers. She also asked what the Department did in cases where a person complains that the area to which they have been deployed is adversely affecting their health or that there is no access to proper health care systems. Was there a possibility of redeployment to another area?

Dr Singh replied that a total of R25 000 was allocated per person to cover redeployment costs. With regard to possible redeployment to another area, each case would be decided on based on its own merit. The Department would consider further redeployment if one raised valid concerns.

Mr. Maloyi asked if all officers had returned to their posts after the instruction to return to posts was given.

M Nchwe replied that there were people who did not take up their posts as instructed. The Department has investigated why such person did not comply with the instruction.

Ms Kondlo asked whether the persons who have lodged disputes with the SSSBC have taken their posts in the new place of employment or are still occupying their previous posts.

Nchwe replied that most of the officers have taken up their new posts.

Mr. Mkhaliphi asked if the Department had given any role to play in the process of restructuring to its social partners such as the unions.

M Nchwe replied that the restructuring process was a personnel administration issue which did not require the participation of external organisations. In cases where external agencies made inquiries they were duly responded to.

The meeting was adjourned.