About 144 agents have taken the Attorney General on behalf of Directorate of Public Service Management (DPSM) to court for reasons that there has been breach of public service regulations. The agents, who say they work through shifts, contend that they have been denied shift allowance despite a 2000 Directive that was issued confirming their entitlement to shift allowance. In Mohlouoa Matseko's founding affidavit, who is leading the agents before court, he says despite being shift workers, they have been denied shift allowance. “Despite working on shift allowance, we have not been paid shift allowance and that is a breach of the Public Service Regulations,” he said. Matseko has explained that in terms of Regulation 9 (5) of the Public Service Regulations that each shift duty shall attract an inconvenience allowance commonly known as ‘shift allowance’ at a rate agreed by collective agreement. He stated that the applicable rate in government as agreed by collective agreements was 15% of one's basic salary. “Despite all this and working on shifts, we have not been paid shift allowance by the respondent.
Consequently, DPSM is in breach of the aforesaid regulation on shift allowance,” Matseko said. Matseko further pointed out that they work on shifts as follows: That from 2010 until 2021, their shift times were from 6am hours to 2pm then 2pm to 10pm and 10pm to 6am. He also said then the shifts were changed from 2021 to date and that the shift times changed to 6am to 6pm and 6pm hours to 6am. Matsheko further stated after that all the applicants before court were never paid their shift allowance. Subsequently, Matseko said they are seeking orders as per their notice of motion among others an order declaring that the respondent is violating Regulation 9 (5) of the Public Service Regulations by not paying them a shift allowance, an order declaring that they are entitled to a shift allowance as per Regulation 9 (5) of the Public Service Regulations. Furthermore, they seek the court to order and direct that the respondent forthwith pays them shift allowance from the date they respectively worked on shifts at the rate of 15% of their basic salary, costs of suit and alternative relief. Meanwhile, the State on the other hand denies any breach of public service regulations and argues that the agents are not entitled to any shift allowance. According to DIS Director Corporate Services, Tsoebebe Mokhosoa, he found nothing in the agents' claim that suggests they are entitled to a shift allowance. “The applicants’ claim is founded on the provisions of Public Service Management Directive No.14 of 2000, which sought to clear any confusion regarding the provisions of Public Service Management Directive No.10 of 1999 on shift allowance,” he said.
Mokhosoa explained that in terms of the clarification, shift allowance is paid to officers who are in cadres that are not already covered by the 15% or P250 per month overtime allowance dispensation (committed overtime). He emphasised that the allowance is only paid to officers who meet the following requirements and that the officer should be working on shift schedule not less than eight hours per day. “The officer should not be receiving any other form of compensation for the overtime worked and this allowance is paid for the overtime worked and therefore it shall not apply when an officer is away on maternity leave or study leave,” he said.
Mokhosoa said in this case, the agents are paid commuted overtime allowance at the rate of 20% of their basic salary per month and that it was above the standard 15% or P250 dispensations prevailing over the rest of the Public Service. He noted that consequently, the agents are disqualified from claiming shift allowance as per the provisions of the Public Service Management Directive No.14 of 2000. Mokhosoa denied any breach saying there is no collective agreement in this matter between the parties. “Applicants need to provide proof that they are indeed entitled to benefit from the shift allowance as they claim. At the moment, the applicants are not entitled to the reliefs they seek. The respondent is not in breach of public service regulations. I pray that the applicant's application be dismissed with costs,” he said.
