1 / 10

Presentation to the Portfolio Committee of Home Affairs on the pending immigration strike

Presentation to the Portfolio Committee of Home Affairs on the pending immigration strike. Presenter: Ronald Oppelt 30 August 2006. Introduction Background Job Evaluation Policy Framework Outcome of the job evaluation process Meeting with unions: 29 August 2006 Implementation Impact.

hbell
Télécharger la présentation

Presentation to the Portfolio Committee of Home Affairs on the pending immigration strike

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation to the Portfolio Committee of Home Affairson the pending immigration strike Presenter: Ronald Oppelt 30 August 2006

  2. Introduction Background Job Evaluation Policy Framework Outcome of the job evaluation process Meeting with unions: 29 August 2006 Implementation Impact PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

  3. To brief the Portfolio Committee of Home Affairs on the status of the dispute declared by the Public Servants Association (PSA) and the processes implemented to resolve the dispute. Introduction

  4. The PSA declared a dispute on 12 June 2006 alleging that the Department failed to implement the outcomes of job evaluations conducted for immigration officers The dispute focused exclusively on the entry level for immigration officers and chief immigration officers The Department held several meetings with the PSA where it was stated that the allegations were incorrect and that the Department were in the process of determining, through job evaluations, the correct levels of posts in the entire organization. It undertook to prioritize the posts of immigration officers. The process however took longer as anticipated, for the following reasons: Job evaluations had to be conduct from salary levels 1 – 12; The outcome of the job evaluations had to be verified by a different structure; The DPSA was consulted to ensure that the Department operated within the legal framework; Serving immigration officers failed to meet the newly requirements for entry level immigration officers. The Minister for Home Affairs, as a result, had to be approached to consider approving the outcomes of the job evaluations and the subsequent implementation thereof. BACKGROUND

  5. The compulsory legal and administrative processes that the Department embarked upon was interpreted by the PSA as a deliberate delay by the Department. The Department regularly throughout the lifespan of the dispute communicated and informed the union of the developments in resolving the dispute. At no stage did the Department’s commitment changed. The Director-General met with the General Manager of the PSA to reemphasize the Department’s bona fides. The union on 25 August 2006 however opted to serve notice to embark on strike action with effect from 01 September 2006. The Minister for Home Affairs on 28 August 2006 approved the outcome of the job evaluation results and also the implementation thereof. BACKGROUND (CONTINUES)

  6. In terms of the Public Service Regulations (PSR) the executing authority of a department has the authority to take decisions on the grading of posts and the awarding of salaries to employees. Departments are to consider, in line with the requirements of the PSR, the financial implications which might emanate from the upgrading of posts. Proper costing, including costing the carry-through effect for future financial years, should be done prior to the upgrading of posts. Where upgrades are unaffordable, alternatives such as the redesign of the job to reduce its weight or the phasing in approach to implementing the outcomes/results of the Job Evaluation could be considered. It is therefore clear that the upgrading of posts falls within the discretion of the executing authority, with due consideration to the cost factor. JOB EVALUATION POLICY FRAMEWORK

  7. The Department conducted a Job Evaluation process to determine the entry levels for Immigration Officer posts. The outcome was as follows: With Standard 10 (matric qualification) the job evaluation outcome is at level 5. With a Degree qualification the job evaluation outcome is at level 6. OUTCOME OF THE JOB EVALUATION PROCESS

  8. The Department met with all unions representing immigration officers to inform them of the job evaluation results and the implementation plan. In view thereof, a bi-lateral meeting was held with the PSA afterwards to discuss the status of the dispute and the intention of its members to embark on strike action. The PSA has indicated that it will advise its members of the Department’s proposal and will communicate its decision by Thursday morning, 31 August 2006. The Department further undertook to finalise the job evaluation process for the remaining levels of immigration officers (levels 7-12). The following is an outline of how immigration officers will be affected through the implementation of the job evaluation results. This will become effective as from 01 September 2006. MEETING WITH UNIONS: 29 AUGUST 2006

  9. IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT

  10. end

More Related