Correctional Services Revised Salary Structures

Meeting report

Correctional Services HIV/AIDS Survey
The Chairperson told Correctional Services that the Committee was not satisfied with the document submitted and they had decided that they should return with a revised version with more information in it.

Correctional Services Occupational Specific Dispensation
The Chairperson mentioned that this was an emotional issue within the Department. All the correctional officers complained about their salary package. The Committee understood their concern and complaints. These officers dealt with dangerous criminals on a daily basis and deserved to be compensated accordingly. The Committee emphasised that it was unacceptable that their ordinary officials were underpaid. The Chairperson wanted more details when it came to the vast gap between the earnings of those at head office and the officials on the ground.

Occupational Specific Dispensation presentation
Mr Alfred Tsetsane (Chief Deputy Commissioner: Department of Correctional Services) said that the purpose of the presentation was to provide a progress report on the development of the Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD) for correctional officers and the participation in the development and implementation of the OSD for other occupational categories in the DCS. The background to the OSD programme was explained. The general principles of OSD were listed and the specific dispensation for correctional officers was outlined. An organogram explaining the career pathing for the three streams of security, corrections and community corrections was explained. The aims of the OSD for correctional officers were highlighted which included the incorporation of discipline, a reduction of the number of notches in the salary levels, rapid development of “para-professionals”, introduction of a team approach and management structures. The development of the framework included appointment requirements, remuneration structure and the frequency of pay progression.

The OSD plans for nurses, social workers, legal professions, educators, medical practitioners and pharmacists were discussed as well. The financial implications of the OSDs were highlighted. The challenges included budget shortfalls for implementation, tight timeframes for completion and rollout and they envisaged a long drawn out negotiation period. In conclusion it was predicted that the implementation of the OSD would standardise compensation in the public service as well as provide an opportunity to attract and retain scarce skills.

Discussion
The Chairperson was disappointed that the process was taking so long. He understood the frustration of the DCS employees as they were making them anxious. He was becoming impatient about indecisiveness over the salaries. He wanted exact figures of what the officials were earning per month.

Mr Tsetsane acknowledged the Chairperson’s concerns. They hoped that the processes that government put in place would provide assistance in ensuring that officials attain a decent salary.

The Chairperson offered their assistance and asked what was the problem.

Mr H Cupido (ACDP) noticed that there was quite a lot concern about the salaries of the officials. He asked when would the Committee receive the figures. He knew that the implementation date was 1 July, but wanted exact figures were before the implementation date.

Mr Tsetsane replied that it was a negotiated and a technical process. They were not certain how long it would be. They might not be in a position to give such figures before the implementation date. The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) led them as they were the chief negotiators for government. DCS was subject to every step in the technical process before it even got to the negotiation.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC) wanted clarification on the seven-day establishment and overtime for public holidays and Sundays and how it would be in the OSD.

Mr M Cele (ANC) asked about overtime and whether there was a budget in place for the payment of overtime and if it was spent monthly.

Ms C Chukunga (ANC) wanted to know if the OSD programme had forced the DSC to begin paying overtime.

Ms Ngwenya asked if the budget for the OSD programme has been allocated. Furthermore she asked if it was true that the OSD had huge finance costs.

Mr Tsetsane replied that prior to the signing of Resolution 1 in 2007, there was another resolution that was signed by the Departmental Bargaining Council with Labour that that was intended to create more jobs. They, along with Labour, agreed to remunerate any overtime work done through time-off whilst maintaining the double time that they pay for Sundays. Resolution 1 of 2007, clause 9, clearly indicated no overtime would be remunerated through time off. This immediately reversed the first resolution as it was signed in the bargaining council and was superseded by Resolution 1 that was signed. It also eroded the amount of savings that the DCS had made for overtime on Saturdays and public holidays through time-off. They had made a saving of approximately R600 million. They created more positions and employed 8 311 people that were targeted and beyond that, by utilisation of the money saved. It was costing the DCS R103 million per month. When they did their assessment and through discussions with National Treasury, they realised that it would cost R1.2 billion for twelve months. It was not the OSD that reversed it but rather the signing of the Resolution.

Ms Ngwenya noted that it looked as if nothing has happened since 1994 in terms of the correctional officials.

Mr Tstesane replied that he thought that there was a lot of improvement in the working environment and salaries. He hoped that the officials would receive what they deserved.

Ms Ngwenya asked if the necessary infrastructure was in place to make community corrections successful. Had the DCS envisioned further resources for community corrections and the social integration of inmates?

Ms S Rajbally (MF) asked what the DCS had done for the safety of the officials within prisons.

Mr Tstesane replied that all the systems put in place for the safety of the offenders served the purpose of protecting the officials as well. This was why there were scanners and metal detectors. Their mission was to secure offenders, service providers, staff, stakeholders and anyone else that was in the environment.

Ms Chikunga asked what impact would the information gathering have on the payments for the OSD. She knew that some of the ordinary DCS officials had other qualifications that might not be related to the correctional services.

Mr Tstesane replied that when they translated information such as years of relative experience and qualifications it would be used as tools. They learnt from other government departments on utilisation. Rather than waiting for implementation they were gathering the information already so as not to further delay the process.

Ms Chikunga asked whether their curriculum would enable the officials to qualify as case officers. She asked if it was based on their training or assessment or the upgrading of the curriculum.

Mr Tstesane replied that it was not their intention to do the training. They built it into the streams. Nurses or social workers would be able to follow their own career path. The assessment would be competency and aptitude based. When a trainee entered the organisation they would not know immediately which would be the better position for them, however two or three years later they would be better informed.

Ms Chikunga mentioned that the presenter gave the impression that the DCS could train or develop assistant nurses. She wanted clarification since she knew that assistant nurses were trained in specific institutions.

The Chairperson noted that once training had occurred, the salaries were all on the same par.

Mr Tsetane replied that it was not the intention that they would be trained by them but they could train through the relevant structures. The structure would be based to allow people to move up in the organisation as well as attain the better qualifications.

Ms Chikunga noted that the presenter had stated that the salaries of those that were teachers in the DCS could possibly equal that of senior management. She felt that it was quite progressive and could help to retain staff in positions that afford better performance in DCS, however she knew that it also presented various challenges.

Mr Tsesane replied that he meant the parity in salaries between social workers, for example, working in Social Development as opposed to those working in DCS. He did not mean as opposed to professionals because their salaries would be different. If a nurse was working in the Department of Health and had the same profile as that of a nurse working in DCS, they should receive the same salary.

Ms Chikunga highlighted the accelerated progression for those that perform better. She asked what was meant by the term ‘better’. Furthermore how would be ensured as there were challenges such as nepotism.

Mr Tstesane replied that it was part of a performance management system. All performance management systems across the world had some element of subjectivity but it should be packaged in a way that that element was eliminated. The selection of who performed better would be through the performance management systems. They would be those who excel in how they do their work and those who did not. Those that worked hard should be recognised.

The Chairperson wanted to know what was the salary of an ordinary prison official and after the increase how would it better the lives of these officials.

Mr Tstesane replied that he did not have the figures on him and offered to supply the information in a user-friendly manner. They did not expect that they would have to give figures at this meeting as that has not been touched on it yet.

Mr Cele felt that the officials were being kept in suspense and this was frustrating. The process was approved by government on 1 April 2007 and it was now May 2008 and there was no implementation. They needed to institute some time frames.

Mr Tstesane noted that they required time frames. They would try and ensure that they concluded the process faster.

Mr N Fihla (ANC) felt that attracting tertiary graduates to DCS was critical and that there had to be a way to retain such staff. He felt that they should find a way to retain skilled people in the form of a contract that bound them for a period of time.

Mr Tstesane noted the suggestion and would take it into account.

Mr Fihla asked if there was proper implementation of parole boards throughout the country and if not what was the problem.

Mr Tsetance replied that the vacancies was being addressed. Problems had arisen as they were unable to retain people on the parole board. There were some disparities in salaries.

Ms Chikunga asked if the updating of qualifications would create confusion in that people might assume that it would have an influence on their salary notch.

Mr Tstesane replied that it was not for the purpose of increasing salaries but for the database. It was used to identify who had relevant qualifications that could be channelled for rehabilitation. There would be a development programme for them. There was a broader reason why that type of information was required. They would look at their communication to ensure that the message was clear.

Ms Chikunga asked about the OSD for nurses and whether the nurses they employed after the 30 June 2007 were regarded as primary health caregivers as those that were working in clinics.

Mr Tstesane replied that their environment was approved as primary health care and the approval was from the Department of Health (DoH). Also those nurses would be employed in terms of the requirements as provided in advertisements or as the OSD stipulated.

Ms Chikunga noted that the Department of Health also used the seven-day programme and nurses were not paid overtime for public holidays and weekends. She did not understand why the DCS were having a difficulty.

Mr Tstesane replied that since 1978 the DCS had been operating on a five-day work-week. In 2005 the resolution came to migrate to a seven-day work-week. Weekends and public holidays would be regarded as overtime and would be remunerated as such. The basic conditions of the Employment Act were that they were not expected to work more than 45 hours per week. However, a seven-day work-week meant that one could work any day and it would be regarded as a normal day. The issue of double time was statutory and must be complied with.

Ms Ngwenya thought perhaps they should look at the outline of salaries. The DCS was not the same as other departments. She suggested that perhaps the reason for overtime was because they were earning so little. If their salaries were to improve then perhaps overtime would not be such a problem. The officials that work in the DCS had a difficult job.

Mr Tstesane replied that they had been attempting to improve the assumptions made of the DCS.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would place time frames on the issue. The DoH had implemented the OSD and they had more staff before DCS.

Mr Tstesane explained that the other OSD was signed on 1 July 2007, however it was not implemented then. Rather from whatever date it was signed, it would be paid retrospectively to that 1 July 2007 date. Nurses were only implemented in December. At whatever point they agreed and signed they would then get their pay retrospectively from implemented. They were all led by DPSA but DCS provided a lot of technical assistance.

The Chairperson asked if they had clarified the process to the staff.

Mr Tstesane conceded that perhaps they had missed the tensions that were building and would improve their communication.

Mr Ngwenya asked if the Committee could get the figures as soon as possible as the OSD programme concerned her.

Ms Chikunga asked if they could get information for those that had been finalised.

The Chairperson noted that a follow-up meeting with DCS before the rising of Parliament on 27 June.

Mr Cele suggested that there was a day be set aside for Retention and Recruitment in DCS and suggested that the information be packaged together.

The Chairperson replied that they would look at that suggestion. He added that the DCS must come prepared as the Committee would not accept problems.

Mr Tstesane concluded that they realised that it was an important process. The payment of overtime was draining their budget and perhaps they could attain an additional budget. They would count on the support of the Committee.

The Chairperson responded that they were there to assist the DCS and the Committee had an oversight responsibility.

Consideration and Adoption of Reports and Minutes
The Chairperson mentioned that he did not understand the need to table Committee minutes if the Committee also tabled Committee reports, however he would find out what could be done.

The Committee consider and the Judicial Inspectorate Annual Report 2006/07, the Committee’s report on the Department of Correctional Services Budget and Strategic Plan 2008/09 and the 6, 13, 18, 19 May Committee minutes.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.