Secretaries, employer seal deal over career scheme
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Tuesday January 31, 2017 16:17
The CBCP scheme was introduced via a Directive No. 1 of 2015 and implemented through various directives and circulars to map out a clear career progression structure for the Secretarial and Executive Office Management Cadre. The scheme introduced new academic requirements and competencies for progression and elevation from lower to higher offices. At least 377 secretaries across the ministries and departments dragged their employer to court, arguing that the scheme was introduced without consultation and demanding its suspension.
Appearing before Justice Lakvinder Walia last week, the two parties’ attorneys struck a consent settlement agreement for the suspension of the scheme until further consultation.
This was after Walia strongly advised the two parties to settle the matter out of court in the previous court appearance. In the settlement agreement which was made by a court order on Friday, the secretaries and their employer agreed that Directive No. 1 of 2015, which effected the introduction of the scheme, be reviewed and set aside. The settlement also dictates that the scheme be revised within eight months.
The settlement also states that trade unions should be consulted prior to the finalisation of the scheme and that the employer will pay the costs of the application.
In their founding affidavit, lead applicant, Onkgopotse Ntatane and the other 376 applicants argued that they had not been afforded the opportunity to give presentations prior to the implementation of the scheme. They said that since its introduction, the scheme had disadvantaged many workers.
The secretaries said the scheme had altered the terms of progression in the cadre with the new qualifying criteria (rating system), which they found “strange”. “This means for us to qualify for progression/advancement, we will have to satisfy additional competency based requirements that were not originally there. This is a variation of our existing contracts of employment and it was done without consulting us or giving us the opportunity to give representations as the affected parties, as has always been the standing practice,” said Ntatane.
She also maintained that the introduction of the new academic requirement, as well as the proficiency ratings and competences, thwarted the anticipation and advancement previously accepted as valid which revolved around outstanding performance, ability and merit.
The secretaries argued that their toil, loyalty and service were being overlooked and downgraded when the new conditions of service were applied, as academic requirements and competencies ere never the bedrock of government policy or the basis of secretaries’ aspiration for advancement. The applicants further argued that the promotion of certain secretaries through a circular savingram without advertising was improper as it had denied other qualifying staff the opportunity to compete for the posts.
They stated that had the posts been advertised and other qualifying citizens in the cadre given the opportunity to compete for the posts, those who had qualifications would have applied.