INTRODUCTION

1. PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICE AND ADMINISTRATION1 June 2005Report on the Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the Public Service 2003.

2. INTRODUCTION • Employees have the right to voice their dissatisfactions in the workplace through dispute resolution mechanisms provided for in the Labour Relations Act, Resolution 5 of 2000 of the Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council (PSCBC) and the prescribed grievance procedure of the PSC (at the time of the investigation, the interim grievance rules applied). • Each provides for a unique accessible procedure to address dissatisfactions of employees. • Theprimary need for the project was to assess and evaluate whether employees refer their grievances to the PSC ito the interim grievance procedure, or whether the dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the Labour Relations Act and Resolution 5 of 2000 were used.

3. BACKGROUND & METHODOLOGY • Scope of the investigation:3 national departments, 3 provincial administrations, PSCBC, General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSBC), Public Health and Welfare Sectoral Bargaining Council (PHWSBC). • Applicable legislation was studied. • Constitutions of relevant sectoral councils were examined. • Information was gathered through questionnaires and interviews.

4. FINDINGS • 70,7% of grievances lodged with departments were finalised – grievances are well managed by departments. • PSC’s Grievance procedure works for departments as evidenced by higher rate of finalised cases; • Above 55% of grievances referred by Depts. to PSC finalised • 62,7% of grievances referred to Sectoral Councils resolved • Interim grievance rules took 6 – 15 mths. to finalise a grievance. • Most cases at Sectoral Councils were concluded within 0 – 6 mths.

5. FINDINGSContinued... • Complicated cases contributed to lengthy investigation before finalisation. • Interim Grievance Procedure regarded as lengthy with unrealistic timeframes. • Some Investigating officers not committed/ others not trained in grievance procedure. • Investigation of grievances not prioritised. • DGs inundated with work as there is no provision for delegation on grievance procedure.

6. FINDINGS cont. Preference to PSC (interim grievance rules) • Grievance procedure obliges the depts. to attend to grievances internally. • Managers take responsibility to get grievances resolved at lowest level closest to aggrieved. • Parties are fully involved in resolving grievance which tends to build relationships. • The process is clear to most employees. • Grievances are resolved by an experienced third party (PSC)

7. FINDINGS cont. Preference to Resolution 5 of 2000 • Procedure less prescriptive and quicker. Management’s lack of adherence to grievance procedure at times frustrates employees to opt for arbitration. • A neutral outsider is preferred than a colleague investigating employee. • Discussion at conciliation likely to lead to amicable resolution failing which - • Arbitration award is final and binding to all.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS • Changes to PERSAL to enhance record keeping in that depts should capture data on grievances. Regular data update to be encouraged. (Depts report to PSC on quarterly basis) • PSC should consider methods to promote the grievance procedure. (New Grievance Rules implemented – workshops with depts held) • Introduction of measures to encourage managers to handle grievances according to rules, aggrieved will then invariably have resolution at lowest level possible as opposed to Councils. • Appointment of trained designated employees whose primary role will be ensuring that grievances are timeously investigated. • Methods to enhance adherence to timeframes by Departs. should be explored.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS(continued) • Realistic time limits should be set for cases that are referred to the PSC (30 days i.t.o. new Grievance Rules). • Greater co-operation of all departs. including their regional offices in referral necessary to enable PSC to speedily and timeously consider grievances. • Possible long term solution - amendment of the Constitution to accord PSC authority to direct as opposed to recommend.

10. CONCLUSION ● A clear demonstration was made of aggrieved employees’ preferences in Public Sector in Dispute Resolution – arbitration, as opposed to PSC. ● Also the large number of grievances that related to the Human Resources Practice was an indicator that Public Sector had to be jerked up in this area, though this was not main purpose of study. • Even though the aggrieved employees opted for the Sectoral Councils for the finalisation of their grievances they still regard the Grievance Procedure as a necessary and legitimate process that has to precede the consideration of the grievance by the Sectoral Councils.