The Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA) has defended spending R222,447 on legal fees in a fight to avoid paying R2,083 to an employee who qualified for a bonus in the 2019/20 financial year.
GPAA spokesperson Mack Lewele said while the costs incurred were significant, it had no choice but to defend public service policies and regulations pertaining to Performance Management and Development Systems (PMDS).
“These include prescribed and mandatory dates for an employee to submit their performance reports, deliberations thereon between employees and employer, moderation and feedback.
“The official failed to comply with some PMDS policies (by failing to avail himself to discuss the final score with his line managers).”
The Public Servants Association (PSA), to which the employee is affiliated, said however that the employee did timeously submit his performance assessment to his supervisor, but was then directed to submit it to his supervisor’s supervisor.
The union has called on GPAA CEO Kedibone Madiehe, who was appointed in November last year, to institute necessary consequence management and ensure managers who took the “illogical and costly decision” are held accountable and personally refund state coffers.
The PSA also said the cost was fruitless expenditure as the agency used attorneys in matters, despite having an in-house labour relations unit.
Lewele said the GPAA disagrees it was fruitless expenditure.
“The events of the case from the beginning to the end provide clear proof that the GPAA legally procured services and such were rendered. That does not constitute fruitless expenditure.
“The GPAA had to follow procedure and defend the PMDS policy and regulations when the official ultimately sought relief at the CCMA. It was at this point that we incurred costs.
It was at this point that we incurred costs. The services procured as the matter progressed were procured legally and used accordingly, not wasted, and therefore do not qualify [as] fruitless expenditure as defined in the PFMA.
— Mack Lewele, GPAA spokesperson
“The services procured as the matter progressed were procured legally and used accordingly, not wasted, and therefore do not qualify [as] fruitless expenditure as defined in the PFMA,” Lewele said.
He added that the agency is not allowed to pay a bonus if an employee fails to comply with PMDS policy and procedures.
“If we were to fixate ourselves on the objective of avoiding the costs of the hearing and thus opt to pay the bonus irrespective of the facts, we would have acted in an irregular manner and such is deemed as misconduct on the part of the employer representatives involved.”
Lewele added that it is standard procedure and policy that every employee’s self-score is looked into by a committee and moderated. The results depend on the quality of evidence and motivation for the employee’s self or own score.
“It is not unusual for the moderation committee to reduce the score if they believe the motivation and/or evidence supplied is not sufficient.”
However, such a decision is shared with the employee and an engagement must take place wherein the employee may agree or disagree with the reduction of the score, Lewele said.
“Subsequent to the moderation committee reducing the score based on evidence before it, this employee was offered this opportunity to discuss and agree or disagree, and hopefully provide more evidence or motivation. However, he did not co-operate or make himself available for this engagement and hence the organisation proceeded on the basis of the moderation committee’s decision. It is on this basis that we argue he failed to comply with the regulations.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.