- (a) &(b) The process to monitor and analyse misconduct data to identify and address potential trends in misconduct is supported by external and/or independent analysis of misconduct in as far as it relates to the mandate of the DPSA, which includes tracking the finalisation of cases as per agreed norms and standards.
The DPSA had in the 2022/2023 financial year, with the support of the Strengthening Ethics and Integrity Project (a programme supported by the Canadian Government) conducted an independent study on misconduct cases. The study focussed on the mandate of the DPSA in terms of discipline management, as outlined in Section 15 of the Public Administration Management Act, 2014, which entails the setting of norms and standards around the management of cases, the building of capacity on discipline management and the monitoring of implementation of norms and standards. As the concern of the DPSA is around the finalisation of cases within prescribed timeframes as per norms and standards (including the cost of suspensions), the following trends were identified as key contributory factors to the delays in finalising cases:
-
- Noncompliance with the regulatory and policy framework - Despite comprehensive policy and regulatory measures being in place, it was found that strict compliance with the relevant prescripts, regulations and guidelines were not consistently understood, applied and adhered to. The circumvention of good practice and the haste with which precautionary suspension is invoked often fell short of the procedural and conduct requirements from those in decision making roles.
- Managers abrogate the responsibility for discipline management that relegate these obligations to the Labour Relations units - Issues of abuse of authority and lack of accountability from managers that use discipline for nefarious reasons or without good cause was cited as an important reason for the lengthy delays and costs for precautionary suspensions. It was found that managers often place employees on precautionary suspension without meeting the minimum criteria stipulated in the guidelines for precautionary suspensions that resulted in poor evidence gathering and weak disciplinary process outcomes.
- Over reliance on external service providers that are often used in the discipline management process – It was noted that especially legal practitioners, presiding officers, forensic and health related consultants were perceived to act much slower than the 90-day process allowed for the conclusion of a disciplinary hearing.
- Limited Internal Capacity - In addition to the complication that arises from the use of external service providers, it was noted that there were often limited internal investigation as well as prosecution (initiator) and presiding officer capacity within the public service to effectively keep to the time standards required for a disciplinary process.
- Lengthy delay in the conclusion of internal appeals - This issue was highlighted as a significantly unfair practice that unnecessarily prejudiced the affected employee and state coffers, as this requires administrative attention on paper alone.
- No automated and integrated Case Management System - While the DPSA had issued several templates for how discipline management information is to be recorded, these are not used consistently, and many departments defer to their internal forms and processes. The capturing of all suspensions on PERSAL is not done timeously and much of the information is recorded manually that leaves room for human error in the calculation of time and costs for each case.
- (a) & (b) Misconduct data is not analysed in terms of supervisory status and differences in disciplinary outcomes. The position of the DPSA is that disciplinary cases are administered in line with the Disciplinary Code for Procedures in the Public Service or Chapter 7 of the Senior Management Handbook. The outcomes thereof are guided by the merits of each case informed by the evidence presented before the neutral chairperson. The sanctions are handed down by the chairperson based on the gravity and implications to each department.
- The following appropriate steps have been implemented to address the identified misconduct trends: The Public Administration Ethics, Integrity and Disciplinary Technical Assistance Unit (PAEIDTAU) is a Chief Directorate with the DPSA leading interventions on discipline management. This Unit, based amongst others on the findings of the report referred to in par 1, drafted a Discipline Management Strategy which was approved for implementation to support departments to complete discipline related cases within stipulated timeframes in 2023. As part of the strategy implementation:
- A backlog project on suspensions was launched in December 2023 and is continued with during the current financial year.
- The Minister for Public Service and Administration approved a Directive on Discipline Management in the Public Service that addressed some of the trends noted in par 1; and
- adopted a Guide on Discipline Management (2022) and a Guideline on Utilisation of the Pool of Chairpersons, Initiators and Investigators (2024).
The Directive addresses challenges cited in the Strategy, focusing on updating legislation, addressing capacity and positively influencing culture. It also directly addresses the issue of suspensions by guiding departments to consider precautionary transfers before placing employees on suspension, and to finalise disciplinary hearings within the prescribed period and if failing to do so, to request those employees to return to work.
End
