Updated 3.40pm with principal permanent secretary's replies

The FORUM group of trade unions has slammed the new Public Administration Bill saying it could not understand how legislation, which would change the working conditions of thousands of workers, was presented to parliament without consultation.

The Bill has been presented for first reading and the debate has not started yet. 

The FORUM said some of the clauses of the Bill were unacceptable, not least because they would enable the government to make drastic changes to conditions of work and the organisation of the public service through a simple notice in the Government Gazette.

Listing some of its objections, the FORUM said that in the section on the Values of the Public Sector, provisions against discrimination and impartiality were being weakened.

The Bill also provided that personnel who worked in inspectorates and government regulatory authorities could not work in private companies for two years after leaving the public sector, a situation, the FORUM said, which would hinder job mobility and career progression.

Yet, no compensation was being offered, as was the case when persons of trust stopped working for their ministers but were still given six months pay.

The Bill also introduced a code of ethics without consultation, despite the impact that this would have on working conditions. 

In terms of the Bill, the unions said, the prime minister would have the authority to offer different working conditions to workers in the same grade or with the same or a similar job title. He would also be able to remove or change grades and structures of the public administration without consultation.

"This is unacceptable as collective and sectoral agreements will end up being secondary to unilateral decisions," the unions said.  

They observed that the Bill mentioned 'high-risk positions' without actually defining them. A confusing list of positions was given, and the posts of permanent secretary and persons of trust were not among them.

The Bill also provided that workers could be transferred from one entity or agency to another even when they had different collective agreements.

The unions said they were concerned about a provision that public officers were being bound to also obey directives issued verbally. This, the union said, was risky to the workers involved, offering no accountability to those issuing such directives.  

The FORUM said it is seeking an urgent meeting with the head of the civil service. 

Chief permanent secretary replies

In a statement, the principal permanent secretary said that certain inaccuracies which did not result from the Bill were being quoted.

He said that although an official request for an urgent meeting had not been received, he looked forward to clarifying the points of concern that were raised by FORUM and discuss the Bill in detail during a meeting, which, at his own request, is being held on Monday.