1
RESTRICTED
GRIEVANCE REGARDING OSD TRANSLATION: 71453328CA MR L. VAN RENSBURG
(GITS NUMBER:2680)
In short my grievance is as follows:
My grievance is about the interpretation and application of a collective agreement in terms of section 24 of the Labour Relations Act. The incorrect interpretation of the OSD’s or the lack thereof for the Chief Work Inspectors in the SA Navy.
My two supervisors, Control Works Inspectors, Mr R.A.Kruyt Force No: 64156342CA and Mr W. Netshitutune Force No: 81013757CA, were translated to Chief Artisan Grade B and received OSDs with full back pay to the year of 2009. (Please note that Grade B is higher than Grade A). Subsequently Mr R.A.Kruyt retired and Mr W. Netshitutune resigned. When my OIC applied for me for acting allowance in Mr R.A.Kruyt post the reply in writing was that I do not qualified to act in a OSD post as I was in a none OSD post. Why can the Control Works Inspectors be translated to OSD’s but not the Chief Works Inspectors. Surely the same process should have been followed.
After various complains/grievances Naval Management Services was task to include the Works Inspectors, Works Planners and Quality Controllers into the OSD stream. Unfortunately without consulting and misunderstanding of the complex OSD documentation, the translation was done incorrectly and was never implemented. It was cancelled by the
SA Navy in a SAN Information Bulletin 08/15 dated 09 June 2015 without instructions for corrective action.
In the Naval Management Servicestranslation report theChief Work Inspectors, level 8, were translated to OSDs post of Artisan Foreman Grade A/B but was not implemented. I also feel that this is incorrect as it is a demotion to the same rank than the production artisan (Rank of Artisan Foreman), while the production foremen (Rank of Artisan Superintendent), level 8, were translated to Chief Artisan Grade A. The job descriptions of the Artisan Superintendent (New rank of Chief Artisan Grade A) and the Chief Work Inspectors are almost the same.
The SAN Information Bulletin 08/15 dated 09 June 2015 wording was incorrect by stating that Work Inspectors were translated to Specialist Artisans posts as the Works Inspectors was translated to Artisan Foreman post by Naval Management Services.
All the replies from the grievance boards refer to us as Specialist Artisans which are not correct. If we were translated to Specialist Artisans, I can understand the problems surrounding it, but it was not the case. (Creation of new post, etc.)
I noticed that on Naval Management Services Web Site the Chief Works Inspectors are listed under the ORGANISING FRAMEWORK OF OCCUPATIONS (OFO) code as 312301 and OFO specialization Name as Clerk of Works and OFO Occupation Name as Building Associate.
DPSA CIRCULAR 5 of 2009: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SPECIFIC DISPENSATIONs (OSDs) FOR ENGINEERS AND RELATED PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS.
It states the following:
Point 2(a)(i)All categories of Artisans.
Point 2(b)The OSD for Engineers and related professions is only applicable to posts where it is an inherent requirement of the post that the incumbent of the post must possess a prescribed qualification and/or meet statutory requirements as determined by the relevant trade.(i.e. trade test certificate)
Ifully complywith the requirements set out in Circular 5 of 2009 and I was appointed under the CORE with a minimum qualification of a Technical N3 certificate and a Artisan trade test certificate. (An inherent requirement as per OSD) No mention is made in any OSD documentation to exclude certain rank groups or posts. I am in a technical post doing technical work.
Conclusion: I should be translated to the OSD’s post ofChief Artisan Grade A (Fist line supervisory level) as my previous supervisor’s post was translated to Chief Artisan Grade B with full back pay to the year of 2009.
(L.VAN RENSBURG)
NAVAL BASE FACILITIES DIVISION: CHIEF WORKS INSPECTOR
RESTRICTED