|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Momodou |
Posted - 02 Sep 2018 : 11:15:21
SOCIAL SECURITY SAGA: A TEST CASE OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE
By Dembo Fatty
BACKGROUND
Public Service by its simplest definition is a reference to the Civil Service of the Republic of the Gambia. Simply, the Service of the Government that is civilian in nature. It does not include the uniformed service like the Army.
Powers of appointment 173. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution or any Act of the National Assembly for the establishment of a particular Public service, the power to make appointments to offices in the public service shall vest in the Public Service Commission.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to-
(a) any office in the service of a local government authority;
(b) any office as a member, or in the service, of a Public Enterprise; or
(c) any office as a member of the disciplined forces. ( Source Constitution of the Gambia)
However, this classification is not that simple when we approach it critically. There appears to be two forms of Public Service that can easily be differentiated when we look at budgetary procedures. Those public officers, whose budget come from the Recurrent Budget or known simply as the Estimates, are Civil Servants who come under the purview of the Public Service Commission or as amended, the positions for which power to hire and retain are delegated to Accounting Officers. By an Accounting Officer, I mean Permanent Secretaries who are the only Public Servants with “Powers of the Purse”. They are the only officers who are responsible for financial discipline in their ministries and line directorates. Even the Secretary General cannot sign a cheque.
The other category of public officers are those that come under the purview of Boards of Directors of state institutions that are parastatal in nature. Parastatal because, they appear to have a semblance of the characteristics of state structures but with some freedom to conduct business outside of the dictate of state bureaucracy.
They are sometimes called Public Enterprises because they operate in semi business like environment in generating revenue for the state but sometimes as a way of creating employment. It is this realization that business decisions cannot wait for the state bureaucracy as decisions emanate very slowly due to accountability reasons, and because business environment is volatile and cannot wait too long to act, they are treated as parastatal with their own Board of Directors who could meet more quickly and redress issues as they came up. This category of public officers have their budgets approved by their Boards initially and until recently needed approval at the Executive level. I am made to understand that that is no longer a requirement.
Some of the Public Enterprises are Gambia Civil Aviation Authority, Gambia International Airline, NAWEC, Gambia Ports Authority, Social Security and Finance Corporation, GAMTEL and son on.
We will not discuss in detail the functions of the Public service Commission but will in the case of the Board of Directors of Public Enterprises.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
In the First Republic, there was an institution called the National Investment Board or NIB that was charged with looking at business decisions of the state and how such decisions could be maximized. They provided technical advice and support as an authority staffed by people with business acumen. I believe during the divestiture period in the sale of the Public Enterprises after the disastrous Structural Adjustment period of the 1980s, supervised the sale of some of the poorly performing Public Enterprises or their restructuring.
Fast forward, Boards were to be enhanced by the appointment of sober minded people to help make informed decisions. Overtime, these Board’s compositions changed to include a Staff Representative who is elected by his peers in an election. He or she is the representative of the staff at Board sittings to ensure that employee interests are not being sidelined or disregarded in policy formulation.
After an election, the winner’s name is sent to the Office of the President for approval because the power to appoint the Board is an Executive function. Simply put, the Staff Representative wields the same powers at Board meetings as he managing Director of a Public Enterprise.
Here is why I have a problem with this shift. Every Public Enterprise has a Human Resources Department and they are for the most part headed by a Director whose task is to improve morale, hire and retain a core of critical mass to see the organization achieve its goal in an environment conducive for growth and progress. In short, the HR Department’s goal should not be inimical to the growth of employees but should enhance them. They should be able to institute more modern policies in helping Management establish a good labor relation atmosphere in the enterprise.
My question is why do we maintain a Staff Representative on the Board when each enterprise has a Human Resources Director? Is it because HR Directors are incompetent in institution effective HR policies for employee growth and development or is it because we have a labor relation crisis? The last time I checked, public officers are not unionized and therefore industrial strikes are an uncharted territory and the current case at hand will be a defining moment in managing labor relation in the Public Service as I scratch my head in remembering anything like this as a precedent.
The question will be asked whether Public Officials have a right to form unions, in what format and under what conditions. Currently it does not appear that our laws are ready to accommodate. It is a question that every Human Resource personnel should be asking and be proactive as to how to approach this. Unfortunately though, I am reminded that the Public Service Commission has managed to amend the Act in an attempt to bring all of the Public Enterprises to adopt a uniform Condition of Service even though these outfits operate under different business environments with different work and skill sets. Trying to treat all of them as the same is not in the best interest of recognizing different skill sets and different remuneration standards.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE NOT SELF REGULATING
I feel I need to touch on this issue because what appears to have happened to Camara, the Staff Representative on the Board of Social Security and Housing Finance Corporation (SSHFC), lends itself to the idea that the Board can be self-regulating which is false.
1. CAN THE BOARD LEGALLY SUSPEND MR. CAMARA?
Here lies the problem. When the Board was constituted, it was constituted with Executive approval which means all the members of the Board derive their legitimacy from the Executive. It is the Executive function to supervise the Boards(through the Minister) and which includes Mr. Camara. It will therefore be out of place for the Board to suspend one of its members when they themselves have no supervisory authority or oversight authority over their own actions. Those decisions are exercised outside of the Board.
It therefore follows that the Board stepped beyond its bounds to suspend one of its own, Mr. Camara who has equal powers as anyone of the other Board members. The question may be asked in what capacity did the Board see Mr. Camara? Was it as an employee of SSHFC in which case they have powers to suspend him or was it in Mr. Camara’s capacity as a Board member like anyone of them and in which case they have no powers to suspend one of their own?
It will be out of place to suspend Mr. Camara in his capacity as an employee while he maintains his membership of the Board. The man has two functions here. Technically, it can be argued that Mr Camara, as it stands is still a member of the Board and has every right to attend Board meetings. But then, the other question will be that since his membership of the board is contingent on him maintaing an employee status with SSHFC, then when the Board suspended him as an employee, he ceases to enjoy the privilidge of him being a Board Member. But even in that case, the Board is denying him privileges that were conferred on Mr. Camara by the Executive and not the board. The Board is simply peers of the same powers.
The problem I see here is a sequencing issue. The Executive should have moved first and suspend Mr. Camara as a Board member thereby stripping him off his Board privileges. Only then can the Board suspend him in his only capacity available to him, which is as an employee of SSHFC. As it stands, the Executive (or line Ministry on advice of the Executive) has not suspended Mr. Camara as a Board member which should have been the first action take.
2. The other problem is that since there no Board without a Staff Representative, decision should have been put in place to appoint an interim Staff Representative to sit on the Board until the investigations are complete. A Board is not constituted without the Staff Representative and in my opinion, any decisions arrived at such Board meetings cannot be binding because they are not LEGALLY CONSTITUTED as a member is on suspension and has not been replaced. It would therefore be best to call on the runner up in the Staff Representative elections to sit in while Mr. Camara is on suspension. If it was a no contest election, at least the Director of Human Resources should sit on the Board as Staff Representative until the panel submits their findings and decisions taken.
One of the reasons I was against having a Staff Representative on the Boards is because it is always difficult to supervise someone who has an oversight authority over you at the same time. The Managing Directors have supervisory authority over Staff Representatives in the course of their duties as employees but these same Staff Representatives have equal voting powers while they sit at Board meetings with the their Managing Directors. They have powers to stop the policies of the Managing Director at Board meetings yet as soon as the Board meeting ends, they wear different caps and are subject to the dictates of the Managing Director. This is a blatant conflict in exercising managerial functions and in some cases, staff representatives have used their powers to morph a sort of relationship with their Management to either gain undue privileges they would otherwise not have had if not for the fact that they sit on the Board. Simply, the Staff Representative has become a union boss even though Public Officers are not unionized. I have officiated an election before so I know what am writing about.
3. Secondly, there is very little material if any, that stipulates the criteria for who can seek the office of Staff Representative in terms of level of education, position within the hierarchy etc. and as a result, some Staff Representatives made it to the Board simply because they are believed to be very tough people who would “fight” for the cause of employees. Sadly, SOME of these Staff Representatives find it difficult to understand and appreciate basic financial statements and their implications or participate in policy matters that are beyond their grade. Quite often the Staff Representatives are more concerned about salary increase, bonuses and allowances rather than policy discourses that will leap their organizations to higher heights. The “us” and “them” syndrome has been heightened since the adoption of this policy thanks to some clever public official who wanted to run Public Enterprises as democracies.
4. Another interesting aspect of the Board composition is that no specific number of members is indicated in the Act. It has a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 8. We need to have a uniform number but certainly 8 is too many otherwise it becomes an avenue to reward friends. It is also time to set some criteria for who can sit on Boards, their level of education, pass experiences, any conflict of interests, declarations of business interests and son on.
Sadly, the very reason why they are called Public Enterprises and carved out and away from state bureaucracy has not been fulfilled. In some Boards, at least two Permanent Secretaries are represented in addition to a Director General of another state outfit. In my opinion there should be no more than one Public Officer on any of these Boards and here is my reason.
In the case of SSHFC for example, the Ministry of Finance is represented on the Board. But this is further complicated by the fact that the Minster of Finance can issue directives to the Board in writing with regard to policy and the Board SHALL comply with such directives. My question then is why do we need a Board if the Board dances to the tunes of the Minister even though the Minister did not appoint the Board but the President. Am sure you are following the confused policy with regard to Boards. Since when in public policy, can a minister’s decision override that of the President. The last time I checked, the Minister serves at the pleasure of the President who in our Gambian context can be dismissed by the President with or without a reason.
Sometimes I wonder what our policy designers are thinking when they are drafting policies. Do they check for conflicts and potential implementation issues down the road?
IS THE CONSTITUTED PANEL EVEN NECESSARY? Chapter XI, Part 3 No. 6 of the Constitution
(6) “On the coming into force of this Constitution, the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION shall provide existing Public Enterprises with guidelines on personnel matters and shall provide such guidelines to any Public enterprise established thereafter.”
While I am happy that the panel that has been constituted is headed by a seasoned former public official who happened to be my boss at the PMO, I am of the opinion that the panel should not have been constituted in the first place. By the above section of the Public Enterprise Act, in our Constitution, the Public Service Commission has been already tasked to provide guidelines to these Public Enterprises and all that was needed was for the PSC to activated this clause and take up their role without being asked by the Executive.
Notice that it only stated the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and not anyone else. This Panel consists of people who are not members of the Public Service Commission and I am wondering how to reconcile that decision with the Constitutional provisions above. If in fact, the rest of the panelists were appointed by the Chairman and his members to assist him in his task under the above provisions, then yes these people can be called members of the PSC as provided in the relevant section of the ACT under definitions. If not, then one can assume that the PSC has not yet activated the above provision of the Act.
When PSC was trying to insert this clause, I was dead against it simply because, the PSC has far too many things to do and adding Public Enterprises (PE) to their fold will make no dent in enhancing the management of the PEs. This was floated by the then Chairman Mr. Sulayman Ceesay and years later, my fears have come to pass. I was not popular then for going against the flow of the tide but sometimes it’s best to stand alone even in moments that will portray one as recalcitrant but satisfied that one’s believes are in the interest of the common good. Time is the greatest healer.
Here we are when the PSC is supposed to provide some leadership role and provide some guidelines to the crisis at hand, they appear to not have made the effort. I may be wrong but I have not read anywhere that they did provide some advice and guidelines to SSHFC in addressing the crisis. If they did provide it, then my apologies; but then why the Panel? We cannot buy our way out of this crisis by bypassing the Board and hope that a Panel will be our Moses. If the Board is ineffective, dissolve it and appoint a new Board who are competent and ready to bite the bullet and make the difficult and unpleasant decisions. With all due respect, the Presidency should not be bothered with labor relations issues. At his level, he should be leading and not managing.
When I saw pictures of demonstrating public officials and in addition to locking the gates and doors to a public institution, I cannot but draw a parallel to the 1960s when a labor unionist, Mr. MM Jallow made Banjul ungovernable for a week until reinforcements had to be brought from Sierra Leone. But those were not public employees and were unionized under the laws. We can understand that but not public employees. What was even surprising is seeing the IGP and CDS pleading with demonstrators to the point of begging and reminding demonstrators about Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Liberia as if we have an impending civil war. What we have is a personnel problem which should not have overflowed to the streets if the oversight institutions had acted in time.
The staff’s rights to manifest their displeasure should not encroach on the rights of non-striking staff to go to work. It is a democracy and minority rights needs to protected.
Furthermore, public offices are public properties and unless otherwise under instructions of the IGP in the event of security threat or the courts in the case of an injunction or a national holiday, should be open for business to the public.
I think this is setting a dangerous precedence in labor relations where security chiefs are appointed as negotiators runs against the tide of what I learnt in school and undermines the management structures and grievance handling procedures enshrined in the Service Rules.
I am watching as things unfold but its time to apply the breaks and reload. We just need to follow procedure and allow oversight institutions to function and the rest will be history. |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 05 Sep 2018 : 13:10:23
By Lamin Cham September 3, 2018
Old age pensioners and contributors to the national pension fund Saturday expressed their dissatisfaction and urged government to scrap the investigation panel set up to probe the standoff that is paralysing the corporation.
The gathering at the Tango offices was triggered by widespread indignation among Gambians over what they called the ineptitude of the government in dealing with the protracted dispute between MD Mohammed Manjang and some 200 staff members of the SSHFC who said they do not want him as MD, accusing him of corruption and cronyism among other things.
On the other hand, Manjang’s supporters accused the protesting staff of not being receptive to reforms he introduced to curb the mismanagement of the corporation’s funds.
Matters came to a head last week when the protesting staff locked the gates of the SSHFC offices and demanded that the authorities revoke the suspension of their representative on the board, Momodou Camara. That impasse was temporarily resolved with the intervention of security chiefs.
However that particular incident spawned a debate and widespread criticism of government “inaction” on the matter.
The pensioners meeting at Tango expressed sympathy with the position of MD Manjang and urged government to scrap the investigation panel set up by President Barrow and instead go by the recommendation of the board on the matter.
At the end of the meeting, they adopted the following resolutions: No government interference will be accepted; they stand by the board’s position; there is no need for an independent panel and the board’s resolutions must be respected by all; the board to communicate these points to the government; and another meeting scheduled on Saturday 8 September to hear from the board on the feedback from government.
http://standard.gm/site/2018/09/03/govt-asked-to-scrap-sshfc-panel/ |
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 04 Sep 2018 : 10:32:52
September 3, 2018
Social Security is established to receive contributions from and for workers. Those who manage its affairs are primarily duty bound to protect the resources of the workers, so that they get their entitlements when they are due. This is the crux of the matter.
At the moment, there is conflict between management and staff. This is a dispute which should be handled in a way and manner, that would not affect the ultimate beneficiaries of the services provided by the institution. Hence the establishment of a committee to inquire into the cause of the dispute and make recommendations, should be accompanied by the presumption of innocence of all sides of the dispute, prior to investigation.
Hence the situation should be kept as normal as possible, before investigation so that the investigators would be able to perform their work without fear or ill-will, to the best interest of the beneficiaries. There should be no sanction before investigation. Otherwise, one would be putting the cart before the horse.
http://foroyaa.gm/the-workers-institution-social-security-should-not-be-a-battle-ground-for-individual-interest/ |
| toubab1020 |
Posted - 02 Sep 2018 : 12:54:35
I am quite pleased that I do not have the VERY complicated and large capacity brain of Dembo Fatty who appears to sail through the sea of political fixing that enables SOME members of the Gambian population to gain great monetary rewards from the functions that they perform in the PRESENT Gambian economy.Being a "simple person" I had a problem cutting through the complicated confusion that is evident in this piece in which I could not find any benefit being shown to the average Gambian.
The power of Dembo Fatty,s brain has been applied in fixing the convoluted problems identified above,the last paragraph provides the "simple" solution:
"I am watching as things unfold but its time to apply the breaks and reload. We just need to follow procedure and allow oversight institutions to function and the rest will be history."
Just a couple of RELATED topics:
http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15968
http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16099 |
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
 |
|
|
