Lower-ranking civil servants yesterday angrily criticised a new performance evaluation system and condemned their union's leadership for signing up to it.
Delegates to the annual conference of the Civil, Public and Services Union voted to put the new system to a ballot of all affected members, in spite of a warning that this could result in pay increases being jeopardised.
The row over the Performance Management and Development System (PMDS) was one of several between delegates and leaders of the union that made for a fractious opening to the two-day conference. Delegates voted not to adopt the annual report circulated at the conference, with several speakers claiming it was too "pro-partnership" and did not give a fair account of the PMDS issue.
They also clashed with the union's leadership over the stance to be taken on any new national pay deal.
It was the PMDS issue, however, that had delegates most fired up. Public service unions are already committed to the system and agreed to its extension as part of the Civil Service modernisation programme included in Sustaining Progress.
Negotiations last year resulted in a system under which a civil servant's performance can be given a rating of between "one" and "five" by management. A minimum score of "two" is necessary to qualify for increments, and "three" to be eligible for promotion.
CPSU general secretary Blair Horan said he understood members' concerns, but there were built-in protections to prevent managers from abusing the system. The union could have allowed the matter to go to arbitration, but there was no likelihood of a better outcome, he said.
National executive member Terry Kelleher, an employee of An Post, said the system would "push down" increments and result in the clawing back of payments awarded under benchmarking. Many other speakers backed this view.
Delegates voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion condemning the union's national executive for agreeing to the system and instructing it to ballot members on any future, centrally negotiated changes to their pay and promotional prospects.
A second motion calling for all affected members to be balloted on the new system was also passed, in spite of a warning by Mr Horan that a "no" vote in any such ballot would result in members disqualifying themselves from pay increases. Mr Kelleher said Mr Horan's comments represented "the limit of his strategic talents" and members should reject the new PMDS system and "take it from there".
Delegates also rejected the advice of Mr Horan and backed a motion calling on the union's executive to recommend a "no" vote on any national wage agreement that allows companies such as An Post to plead "inability to pay".
The motion referred to "publicly owned companies who are obliged to provide a public service", and arose from An Post's refusal until late last year to pay the terms of Sustaining Progress.
