Just 30 civil servants fail assessment for pay rise

THIRTY MEMBERS of staff in the Civil Service were denied an incremental pay increase last year on performance grounds.

Official figures released last night show that only 0.1 per cent of staff in the Civil Service - which has about 30,000 personnel - were awarded a rating of one in their performance evaluation.

A total of 64 per cent of staff in the Civil Service were awarded ratings of four or five in the five- point scale.

Under Civil Service employment rules staff must receive a rating of two or more to qualify for an incremental pay increase.

The details of the ratings awarded to Civil Service staff under the performance, management and development system (PMDS) for 2011 were released last night by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Brendan Howlin. This was in response to a parliamentary question tabled by Fine Gael deputy Eoghan Murphy.

Mr Howlin said 8 per cent of staff had been awarded ratings of five.

He said 56 per cent had received a rating of four while 35 per cent had obtained a rating of three.

Mr Howlin said that 0.9 per cent of personnel had received a rating of two while 0.1 per cent had received a rating of one.

He said 77 per cent of staff in the Civil Service had completed performance assessments under the PMDS system last year.

The PMDS system has been strongly criticised for giving too many high ratings and too few low ratings.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform recently proposed significant changes to the scheme in talks with public service trade unions.

The Department proposed that in future staff would have to obtain a PMDS rating of three to qualify for an increment.

Under the current system, a rating of five is considered "exceptional", four is deemed to be of a "very high standard", three represents a "good standard" while two means "needs improvement" and one is classified as "unsatisfactory".

"It is impossible to justify that less than fully acceptable performance, ie less than a rating of three, can still attract an increase in pay," the Department said in a confidential discussion document.

"Also, there is a disconnect between the measures that have been introduced to deal with underperformance - that a rating of two denotes - and the payment of increments in that context."

The original expectation in the PMDS system was that up to 10 per cent of staff would receive a rating of one, that between 10 and 20 per cent would receive a rating of two, that between 40 per cent and 60 per cent would receive a rating of three, that between 20 and 30 per cent would receive a rating of four, and up to 10 per cent of staff would receive a rating of five.

The Department said such a system of forced distribution would create and sustain a high performance culture and would identify those who were top performers and those who were under-performers.

However, it warned that it could lead to satisfactory employees being wrongly identified as poor performers.

It said "this could arise where a section or unit consists of staff who are essentially similar in performance".

Meanwhile Minister for Health James Reilly signalled that he wanted to reduce the €800 million bill for overtime and premium payments in the health service without cutting pay.

Speaking yesterday he said he was examining how the bill could be scaled back by changing rostering arrangements and curbing an over-reliance on the use of personnel supplied by agencies rather than by reducing actual pay rates. He also said absenteeism was costing €280 million.

He said he was not prepared to cut services further until all other avenues were exhausted.

Earlier this week the Minister raised the prospect of cutting overtime and premium pay rates in a bid to tackle a €200 million financial deficit in the HSE

The Minister insisted yesterday there was consensus in the cabinet.

He said the Taoiseach and Tánaiste had made it clear they would be adhering to the Programme for Government.

However, he said that any minister was entitled to express a personal view.

Q&A:

What is an increment?

Most staff in the public service – Civil Service, health, local authorities, Garda Síochána, education etc – are appointed to particular grades.

The pay for each grade – with the exception of the very highest such as secretaries general in the Civil Service – is not a single amount but rather a scale, along which the employee moves over a number of years.

Increments are the pay rises awarded, mainly annually, to staff as they progress along these pay scales.

Why are increments paid?

Many members of the public service such as gardaí and teachers, work on the basis of flat promotion structures. Only a relatively small number of teachers will become school principals for example.

The theory behind incremental pay increases is that without them a teacher who now starts on a salary of €27,814, could be left on this salary for years. The incremental pay scale allows staff in the public service to receive additional remuneration as they gain experience in their posts.

The longest pay scales tend to be for the lowest paid employees, or for those with flat promotional structures. For example the pay of a clerical officer starts at just over €20,000 and increases in increments over 17 years to a maximum of €37,341.

Do only low-paid staff receive increments?

No. Virtually all grades up to assistant secretary level in the Civil Service receive increments. However incremental scales at the top tend to be shorter.

The Dáil Public Accounts Committee was told recently that about 3,000 staff earning more than €70,000 received increments last year. These would have included some long service increments which are paid to staff after a specific period of service and are separate to the annual increments.

The Department of Public Expenditure is expected to publish figures on the level of increments paid to the different levels in the public service next week.

Are increments part of pay?

The Government has defined an increment as an increase in pay

for which provision is made under the official pay scale for each grade. Unions have also strongly argued that increments form part of pay.

Could the Government not just freeze the payment of increments?

The Labour Court has found that unilateral non-payment of increments is not allowed under the Payment of Wages Act.

Unions have also argued that the Croke Park agreement protects pay rates and does not differentiate between core pay and other elements that make up total pay such as increments, overtime or allowances.

In addition to this, the Government doubts the financial emergency legislation – under which pay cuts were introduced in parts of the public service – would be robust enough to support a freeze in increments, given that not everyone would be affected – those already at the top of their pay scales would be immune.

MARTIN WALL