Date: 26/03/2007

Source: Department of Public Service and Administration

Title: Fraser-Moleketi: Labour Relations conference

Keynote address by G Fraser-Moleketi Minister for the Public Service and Administration at the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC) and Office of the Public Service Commission (OPSC) Labour Relations conference for the Public Service, Emperor's Palace, Gauteng

"Knowledge through dialogue: harmonising labour relations in the public service"

Vice Chairperson
Colleagues
Esteemed international and local guests
Comrades and friends

It is not often that two organisations that one has an intimate knowledge and involvement with, co-hosts a conference. I am therefore honoured to be invited to deliver the keynote address at this special occasion.

I wish to congratulate both the PSCBC and the Office of the Public Service Commission for arranging the conference. Because this once again proves that institutions from different sectors can effectively work together when there is a common goal.

The PSCBC not only serves as an invaluable conduit for the orderly interaction between the Public Service as collective employer and organised labour, but also plays an equally invaluable role in dispute settlement, which is a key component of labour relations in general and in the Public Sector in particular. The insights they gain from their activities stand them in good stead to co-host a conference of this nature, and I express appreciation for their presence.

The Public Service Commission (PSC), as constitutional oversight body, according to Chapter 10 of the constitution, is responsible for guarding over compliance with the constitutional principles governing public administration in the Public Service through the processes of monitoring, evaluation and investigation. However, the PSC also has a clear promotional responsibility in respect of these constitutional principles. Being the initiator and co-organiser of this conference fit firmly into this responsibility. Like the PSCBC, the PSC is, as a result of its involvement in Public Service employees' grievances and its oversight related monitoring and investigative capacities, excellently equipped to arrange a conference of this nature. So we clearly see why the two sides came together for the conference.

Two years ago I addressed the celebratory conference of the PSCBC. The theme of the conference was "Celebrating a decade of social dialogue in the public service." The conference allowed us a moment to reflect on the past, to congratulate ourselves on making a successful transition from an era where basic human and labour rights were absent to a democratic order where these rights became constitutionalised, and to celebrate the achievement of the transformation and restructuring of the public service. I am therefore pleased to see that the theme of this conference is "Knowledge through dialogue: Harmonising labour relations in the public service," because I believe it perfectly compliments the earlier conference. Whereas the celebratory conference focused on what had been achieved at that stage, this conference looks at what needs to be done going into the future, be it the introduction of new policies and practices, the enhancement of current policies and practices or positional or attitudinal changes.

It is gratifying to see that the organisation of the conference has not been done in isolation from academia and experts in the private sector. We need the insights, resourcefulness and creativeness of all our experts to address our uniquely South African challenges. Going through the list of guest speakers one is struck by the diversity of expertise assembled for this conference. I am also particularly encouraged to see a prominent labour input to this conference.

Historically, the labour movement in South Africa has played an important role in bringing about change in the country. They still do. In a sense, they are the people's guardians, guarding jealously over the interests of their members. So one would say the labour movement guards though in a different manner to the Public Service Commission. Although government must in equal measure guard over the interests of the country and its resources as a whole, labour's input is invaluable to the State as employer. It ensures that attention, effort and resources are steered towards relevant areas of people management in the public service. It needs to be said that labour will always be a valued and indispensable partner in people management in the public service.

The conference theme is "Knowledge through dialogue." Dialogue is the cornerstone of the labour relations environment, let alone a democratic society. Social dialogue is defined by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to include all types of negotiation, consultation and the exchange of information between representatives of government, employers and workers. Industrial peace and economic progress are dependent on the successful operation of structures and processes of dialogue. Not least amongst them are the collective bargaining structures where labour and employer consult and negotiate. In this regard the South African public service must surely rate amongst the top exponents of successful collective bargaining through its national, sectoral and departmental structures. To date parties have been able to successfully deal with difficult and contentious issues such as transformation and restructuring, pension and medical aid restructuring and multi-term salary agreements.

Our colleagues who are here today, who are currently intensely involved in the salary negotiations for the public service will no doubt attest to the importance of dialogue in the negotiation process. And we are at a point in negotiations where dialogue is indeed critical. Understanding the position of the other party is impossible if it is not conveyed through a process of clear and unambiguous dialogue. In the setting of a bargaining council where tension sometimes rises and emotions become frayed, effective dialogue can suffer. I am therefore encouraged to see the maturity in parties to the negotiations by stepping back from time to time to engage in bilateral talks where the atmosphere is hopefully more relaxed and where parties on a one on one basis are able to explain and clarify their positions to one another.

Programme director and deputy chairperson, I do not know whether the timing of this conference was meticulously planned to coincide with the salary negotiations or whether the date was randomly selected. I do believe, however, that it has come as a welcome respite to the negotiators of labour and the employer who have been involved in a number of salary negotiation sessions this year. As a matter of fact, I have been reminded that there have been five rounds already. This conference gives them an opportunity, together with other labour relations and human resource practitioners, to focus on other, equally important, aspects of public service labour relations.

Harmonisation of labour relations in the public service is crucial. Our quest to advance and improve service delivery to our people through a unified system of public administration and management will be seriously compromised if harmonisation of labour relations practices and policies cannot even be achieved in the public service as currently defined. Bringing other organs of State into the fold of an enhanced public service will bring with it dynamics that would need to be moulded and governed into a harmonised future approach. Chairperson, allow me to pause here for a moment to focus on the concept of the single public service that seems to be eliciting much emotion.

Building an effective developmental state that is pro-poor is a central objective of the government. The concept of a developmental state is not new. It is enshrined in the Constitution and established and affirmed by the social contract.

The overarching goal of a single system of public administration and management that covers the three spheres of government is to give effect to developmental goals by establishing seamless, integrated service delivery through integration of service delivery institutions of government. It intends facilitating this goal by ensuring that the single public service is and functions as one by determining national norms and standards through appropriate legislative and regulatory environment.

A number of imperatives dictate the need for a single public service. Research has shown that many people have difficulty accessing government services, often because of prohibitive transport costs. Initiatives aimed at bringing government services closer to the people are already underway. These include the Community Development Worker (CDW) Programme, Multi-Purpose Community centres or Thusong Centres and the Batho Pele Gateway Project. These initiatives go a long way in addressing the need for co-operative institutional arrangements but they need to function well. The Thusong centres need to be appropriately staffed (by multi-disciplinary teams) in order to ensure that it is indeed a one-stop service centre.

One of the strongest arguments for a Single Public Service (SPS) is the facilitation of mobility between institutions and spheres of government. Numerous complications have arisen in the transfer of personnel especially as regards conditions of service and related matters. The harmonisation of conditions of service requires some form of rationalisation. The challenge is to create a more cohesive workforce consisting of all spheres of government and most importantly, a multi-skilled and mobile cadre of public servants to deliver integrated services where the need exists.

Integrated service delivery is difficult due to the difference in the service delivery models adopted by departments. In most instances, these are not aligned to local government service boundaries nor are they aligned within or between sectors. The introduction of an overarching legislative framework will ensure that public service reform, the budgetary framework and planning is aligned across the entire sector which will in turn ensure good governance and accountability.

Supply and demand in the labour market increasingly presents a challenge to the public service not only job creation, but also in the filling of vacancies. As regards the skill deficiency and the mismatch between skills and vacancy requirements, those with the critical skills needed by government do not necessarily enter the public service. As government we are finding it difficult to compete with the private sector to attract requisite skills and more particularly, to stem the flight of skills to developed countries. And I do want to state the skills challenge is one confronting the labour market at large, furthermore, it is not restricted to the South African labour market.

One of the purposes of the Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition (JIPSA) is to align education and training with the actual needs identified for the developmental state. A single public service will allow scarce skills to be utilised where they are most needed.

Management and leadership are key in making service delivery happen. What is of great concern is the fact that the majority of senior managers are concentrated in head offices, thus removed from the 'service delivery coal face.' In order for provinces to achieve their service delivery targets, the redeployment of staff to these areas must be considered.

The public service has established the Senior Management Services (SMS) to recognise and enhance the role of managers and professionals in the execution of public functions at national and provincial levels. Against this background, it is therefore of critical importance that a distinct management dispensation for all managers, including professionals, be developed for clear career-pathing.

The overall objective of the establishment of a distinct management cadre for the Single Public Service is to promote a notion whereby members will not simply be attached to fixed posts within a specific institution of government but rather recognised as members of an overarching body of competent senior managers available to the State for optimal utilisation.

Chairperson, with these few comments, I will leave the issue of the single public service, but to note that time is running out for us to put our own house in order.

In his State of the Nation Address on 9 February President Mbeki said "Compliance levels within departments, have been somewhat mixed. Obviously this cannot be allowed to continue�" - I wish we all support the President's sentiments. Non-compliance with national policies and collective agreements is not an option. To enforce compliance through dispute resolution mechanisms or even designated agents appointed by bargaining councils is an indictment on the public service.

I am not intimating that all non-compliance cases lodged are legitimate cases. Many awards on these matters have gone in favour of the employer. As part of harmonising labour relations in the public service both employer and trade unions have a responsibility. Submitting frivolous and vexatious cases does not assist matters. On the other hand, the lack of proper implementation of modalities can lead to poor understanding of employees' rights, which in turn can lead to unnecessary disputes.

As part of the amendments to the Public Service Act a provision similar to the one of financial misconduct found in the Public Finance Management Act is being proposed. This will undoubtedly strengthen compliance in the public service. The provision calls for compulsory disciplinary action to be taken against an employee who fails to comply with the Act or a regulation, determination or directive made in terms of the Act. All collective agreements will in future be deemed to be determinations made under the Act.

Programme director, many interesting and important labour relations and human resource matters will be addressed during the course of this conference. Without pre-empting discussions, any further than I may have, allow me to make a few cursory remarks regarding some of the areas.

In a workplace of over one million employees, where discipline is dealt with on a decentralised basis, one can expect consistency to suffer to some extent. It, however appears as if there is still sometimes uncertainty as to what constitutes serious and dismissible offences. The Labour Relations Policy for the public service is unambiguous in stating, as a policy directive, that the public service has a zero tolerance approach towards transgressions such as fraud, corruption and sexual harassment. The Labour Relations Act in Schedule 8 "Code of Good Practice: Dismissals" also gives guidance on areas that constitutes serious misconduct. These include gross dishonesty, wilful damage to property of the employer, wilful endangering of the safety of others, physical assault and gross insubordination.

Yes, I am aware that the mere allegation of a serious transgression does not constitute automatic dismissal, but once such a transgression has been proved, one would expect consistency in sanctions unless of course mitigating circumstances are of such a nature that it outweighs the aggravating circumstances and the seriousness of the transgression.

More and improved targeted training of chairpersons of disciplinary hearings appear to be needed. Departments must invest in the training of employees who are identified as chairpersons of disciplinary hearings. If not, service delivery will suffer.

I expect the South African Management Development Institute (SAMDI) to play a leading role in equipping chairpersons of disciplinary hearings to perform their functions effectively and fearlessly.

I note that the conference will be addressing the area of grievances as well. The grievance rules for the public service where simplified and streamlined in 2002 through the adoption of PSCBC Resolution 14/2002 and the gazetting of the rules by the Public Service Commission. The rules removed the former highly bureaucratic procedure that started with a step 1 "submit your grievance to your immediate supervisor" and ended with step 5 or 10 (whatever it was).

The procedure is now much more flexible yet the disputes about the interpretation and application of the resolution abound. What are the disputes about, the failure to adhere to the prescribed timeframes?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is unacceptable. How can we hope to achieve an effective labour relations environment in the public service when this basic condition is not complied with?

Let me dwell on the area of dispute resolution for a moment. I am astounded, even baffled, at the diverse awards coming out of bargaining councils on the same topic. One arbitrator orders the promotion of an employee and the next one, on the same set of facts, rules that he or she cannot second guess the employer. One arbitrator finds that he or she cannot interfere with the sanction imposed by the employer. Another arbitrator boldly declares that a sanction is too harsh. I note that panellists of the councils have been invited to the conference and I hope some of them are here.

I am sure that you will agree that through dialogue between panellists and dispute resolution sections of the councils these divergent approaches to cases can be addressed, narrowed and eventually harmonised.

Programme director, the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and the constitutions of the various bargaining councils determines the rules within which parties have to conduct themselves in the field of labour relations. Playing outside the rules destabilises the labour relations environment and leads to adversarial relations. Unprotected strike action, especially in the essential services, should therefore not occur in the public service. Through effective dialogue this type of action can be avoided.

I am encouraged by the fact that the conference is to focus on the positioning of human resources to support the promotion of sound labour relations. Harmonising the work of these two areas is key to the success of the implementation of policies and agreements. Especially with regard to collective agreements it is imperative that the details of such agreements be clearly conveyed and explained to human resource practitioners who are ultimately responsible for the implementation of the agreements. I believe that more effort should be put into this area. Human resource practitioners on the other hand should be extremely meticulous when implementing collective agreements, so as to limit any disputes. Correct implementation is, however, not the only requirement. Equally important is the pace with which agreements are implemented. Agreements must be implemented as soon as possible after signing of an agreement. Waiting for months or even years to implement agreements destabilises the labour relations environment and normally leads to financial and budgetary problems. Close co-operation between the human resource and labour relations sections of a department is absolutely essential. Monitoring the implementation of collective agreements should also be one of the key duties of the labour relations officer.

On the topic of the labour relations officers, I find it strange that the role of these functionaries in the public service has lately been the subject of so much debate. I see that it will again be addressed in this conference. I am aware of the Public Service Commission's report on this matter. My view is that persons in this field of activity are employed by the employer and paid by the employer to assist and advise the employer. Employees are assisted in labour relations matters by shop stewards and the employer has in most, if not all sectors, agreed to allow full-time shop stewards paid for by the employer to assist employees.

For labour relations officers to attempt to play both sides of the fence can only lead to difficulties. To advise an employee against the employer just to be told by the employer to act on its behalf against the very employee, clearly leaves the officer in no-man's land. There will be distrust in such an officer from both sides. Obviously this does not mean that a labour relations officer cannot advise an employee on procedural issues. If the title "Labour Relations Officer" in the labour relations environment equates to neutral and "independent" the title is obviously not appropriate for public service circumstances.

I believe that this matter should be settled as soon as possible so that there is no uncertainty amongst these functionaries as to what their role should be.

Programme director, it is laudable that labour relations also sees itself playing a role in halving poverty and unemployment by 2014. I believe that this conference should take note of the President's State of the Nation Address as well as the Minister of Finance's budget speech. Both placed emphasis on sectors identified for growth, inter alia the South African Police Service, Education and the Health Services.

Let me conclude with the words of the President "� the message that our collective experience communicates to all of us is that, working together, we can and shall succeed in meeting the common objective we have set ourselves as a nation, to build a better life for all �"

Colleagues let us not lose focus and let us not waiver in giving effect to our Batho Pele principles, 'we belong, we care, we serve.'

Ladies and gentlemen, use this opportunity to learn through participation and debate. This conference should be a legacy to the future let us make it an annual event!

Issued by: Department of Public Service and Administration
26 March 2007