CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL GRADES AND
LIAISON WITH MAJOR CIVIL SERVICE STAFF ASSOCIATIONS

2.1        During the year, we were invited by the Administration to advise on a number of proposals dealing with individual grades and conditions of service. Our views and recommendations are summarised in the following paragraphs.

Traffic Assistant and Transport Inspector Grades

2.2        The Traffic Assistant (TA) and Transport Inspector (TI) grades are two separate grades in the Transport Department. While TI belongs to Group II of the School Certificate grades, TA falls into the category of grades not requiring a full School Certificate. The possibility of merging these two grades has been the subject of review by the Administration since 1989.

2.3        In February 1994 the Administration concluded that there was no case for a merger. Subsequent representations by the Government Traffic Assistants Union (TA Union) were reviewed and rejected by the Transport Department and the Civil Service Branch (now Civil Service Bureau).

2.4        The TA Union wrote to the Commission on 26 January 1996 expressing dissatisfaction with the Administration's rejection of the merger proposal. At our meeting on 1 February 1996, we asked the Administration to look into the TA Union's representations and to consider the feasibility of providing an avenue for outstanding TAs to advance to the TI grade through retraining or other means and to provide details of the duties of the TA and TI grades to facilitate the Commission's examination of the merger proposal.

2.5        In November 1997, the Administration reverted to us with its detailed examination of the duties and responsibilities of the TA and TI grades. On account of the clear functional demarcation between the two grades, the Administration reaffirmed its decision not to proceed with the merger proposal. The Administration accepted our recommendation on alternative advancement avenues for the TAs and considered that this could be done through in-service appointment of outstanding STAs/TAs to the TI grade. The Administration's proposal, however, was rejected by both grades. In the circumstances, the Administration considered that it would serve no useful purpose to pursue the proposed in-service appointment avenue any further.

2.6        At the Commission's meeting on 15 January 1998, we endorsed the Administration's view that the merger of the TA and the TI grades should not be pursued. Upon our recommendation, however, the Administration undertook to carry out an overall review of the TA grade and to report its findings to the Commission in due course.

Common Terms of Appointment and Conditions of Service

2.7        The Common Terms of Appointment and Conditions of Service (Common Terms) were first proposed by the Administration in October 1993 for the purpose of removing the existing differentiation between "overseas" and "local" terms and conditions of employment. When the Commission was consulted in September 1994, we gave full support to the Common Terms proposal.

2.8        In March 1998, the Commission was approached again by the Administration for advice on its proposal to implement the Common Terms in 1998 with modifications to the scope of application originally proposed. Instead of giving serving officers on Permanent and Pensionable terms an option to opt for the new Common Terms, the Administration proposed that they should not be given this option. With regard to serving Agreement officers, the Administration proposed that instead of applying the Common Terms to these officers upon renewal of agreement, they could continue to seek further employment under the present arrangements and would not be obliged to continue their further employment on Common Terms.

2.9        In the Administration's view, the transfer to Common Terms for serving officers would entail considerable administrative arrangements which could be avoided, if the scope of application could be modified as proposed. At the Commission's meeting on 5 March 1998, we considered the Administration's proposal and agreed that, on condition that it was acceptable to the staff concerned, we were prepared to give it support in principle.

2.10      On the basis of our advice, the Administration proceeded to consult the Staff Sides of the four central consultative councils on 17 June 1998. At the Commission's meeting on 3 September 1998, we were informed that notwithstanding comments made by some staff associations, there was no evidence of staff opposition to the revised Common Terms as proposed by the Administration. On account of this, we supported the Administration's proposal that it should proceed to seek the Executive Council's advice to implement the Common Terms with the modified scope of application involving serving officers as in paragraph 2.8 above. With this modification, the terms and conditions of employment originally proposed by the Administration under the Common Terms would apply to all future recruits.

2.11    We were informed by the Administration on 29 September 1998 that the Common Terms proposals were endorsed by the Executive Council and, subject to funding approval by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, the Common Terms would be implemented with effect from 1 January 1999 for new appointments to the civil service.

Proposal to Standardise the Rate of Compensating Stand-by Duty by Time Off In Lieu

2.12    At present civil servants who are required, for operational reasons, to perform overtime and/or stand-by duty, are normally compensated by time off in lieu (TOIL) or, where this is not practicable, by an allowance. The rate of TOIL for overtime is 1:1 (i.e. 1 hour of overtime compensated by 1 hour of TOIL). For stand-by, however, the rates vary from 1:1 in some departments to 2:1 in others.

2.13    To rectify this disparity, the Administration proposed to standardise the rate of TOIL for stand-by duty at the ratio of 3:2 (i.e. 3 hours of stand-by duty to be compensated by 2 hours of TOIL) because stand-by duty, when compensated in the form of an allowance, is set at 2/3 the rate of overtime work.

2.14    At the Commission's meeting on 3 September 1998, we considered and supported the Administration's proposal. We agreed with the Administration that the lack of a standard practice had led to disparity of treatment which, for staff relations reasons, should be rectified.

2.15    We also took the opportunity to invite the Administration to comment on a suggestion put to us by the Staff Side of the Model Scale 1 Staff Consultative Council that the TOIL ratio for overtime work should be changed from 1:1 to 1:1.5, for the reason that the hourly rate of compensation for overtime work by an allowance for civilian staff was 1/140 of an officer's monthly salary, which worked out to be roughly equivalent to 1¹/₂ times hourly salary.

2.16    The Administration's view was that the current TOIL ratio for overtime work was appropriate. Unlike overtime allowance, TOIL might be taken flexibly, at a time convenient to the officer concerned and that during time off, the officer earned leave and pension in addition to salary. In the Administration's view, TOIL was more valuable than an allowance. Furthermore, if the rate of TOIL compensation were higher than 1:1, this would mean that the aggregate of the hours of work in the week when overtime work was performed and in the week when compensatory time off was given, would be less than the conditioned hours the officer should have worked in the two weeks. For these reasons, the Administration did not see any strong justifications to change the current TOIL ratio for overtime work.

2.17    We were persuaded by the Administration's arguments, although whether the extra value inherent in one day of time-off was equivalent to the value of half a day's salary was not quantified by the Administration. While this might not be totally satisfactory to the MOD 1 staff, we considered that the issue raised by the MOD 1 representatives should not have any bearing on the Administration's proposal which was concerned primarily with TOIL for stand-by duty.

2.18    Our views and recommendations were conveyed to the Chief Executive in a letter dated 21 September 1998 (Appendix D). We understand that the Administration's proposal was implemented with effect from 12 December 1998.

Proposed Creation of a New Rank of Chief Court Prosecutor in the Court Prosecutor Grade in the Department of Justice

2.19    The Court Prosecutor (CP) grade was created in 1977 as a one rank grade. A Senior Court Prosecutor (SCP) rank was created in 1983 and a new higher rank of Senior Court Prosecutor I (SCP I) in 1991 to improve the structure of the grade.

2.20    The CP grade experienced significant staff wastage of 27.1% and 20.7% in 1992/93 and 1993/94 respectively. A working group set up in the then Legal Department recommended, amongst other things, the creation of a new Chief Court Prosecutor (CCP) rank and an increase of staff for the CP grade. As a result, 23 additional posts were created. The proposal for a new CCP rank was, however, rejected by the Administration on grounds of insufficient functional justifications.

2.21    The matter was reviewed recently by the Department of Justice (D of J) which considered that, on account of developments since 1995, sufficient functional grounds had emerged to justify the creation of the CCP rank. These include first, the growing responsibilities of the Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (SADPP), as a result of which there is a need to relieve the SADPP of his management responsibilities for the CP grade so as to enable him to focus more on other duties requiring his professional knowledge and, secondly, the rapid expansion in the establishment of the CP grade, necessitating the creation of a new highest rank in the interest of better grade management.

2.22    On account of these functional changes, the Administration proposed that a new rank of CCP be created, offset by the deletion of one SCP I post, to assist the SADPP in managing the CP grade. In line with the pay scale for comparable ranks in other grades within the Matriculation group, the pay scale of the CCP rank would be set at MPS Points 40 - 44.

2.23    The Administration's proposal was presented to us for consideration at the Commission's meetings on 5 March and 8 October 1998 respectively.

2.24    We noted that from the staff management point of view, the current practice of deploying one out of the nine SCP Is to assist the SADPP in managing the CP grade was not entirely satisfactory. To remedy the situation, the responsibility for grade management should be assumed either wholly by the SADPP, or if this was not possible, the SADPP should be underpinned by an officer from the CP grade at a more senior rank than SCP I. The case was further strengthened by the devolvement of management responsibilities from the SADPP to a member of the CP grade to enable the SADPP to concentrate more on duties requiring professional knowledge. The devolved duties embraced a broader range of activities which were more complex and demanding than those currently performed by the SCP I.

2.25    On account of these changes, we were satisfied that there were sufficient justifications for the creation of a CCP rank in the CP grade. Setting the pay scale of the new rank at MPS Points 40 - 44 was also in line with the established arrangements for other Matriculation grades with a rank at comparable level. We therefore supported the ranking and pay scale of the new CCP post.

2.26    We also examined the question of possible implications on other grades performing para-legal duties. We were satisfied that there would be no adverse implications on the Judicial Clerk or the Court Liaison Officer grades. However, by increasing the maximum salary of the CP grade to MPS Point 44, there could be implications on the Law Clerk grade. We were assured, however, by the Administration that this should not have any direct impact on the Law Clerk grade whose functions and responsibilities were different from the CP grade. The Administration undertook, nevertheless, to consider any proposals for the creation of new ranks from the Law Clerk grade or any other grades on their individual merits.

2.27    Our views and recommendations were conveyed to the Chief Executive in a letter dated 19 October 1998 (Appendix E). We understand that, subject to funding approval by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, the new CCP post will be created in January 1999.


Liaison with Major Civil Service Staff Associations

2.28    Since 1992, the Commission has held informal meetings with the Staff Sides of the Model Scale 1 Staff Consultative Council and the Senior Civil Service Council (SCSC), two central consultative councils constituted by the Government. The Staff Side of the SCSC is made up of the Senior Non-Expatriate Officers Association, the Association of Expatriate Civil Servants of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Chinese Civil Servants' Association. The meetings were expanded in 1996 to include the Hong Kong Civil Servants General Union, the Government Employees Association and the Federation of Civil Service Unions, three major confederation type of unions not represented on the SCSC. Together they represent well over 70% of the civil service.

2.29    The meetings provided an opportunity for the Commission to meet key office-bearers of major civil service unions in person, and through views and comments expressed by them, the Commission was able to gain an insight into the prevailing moods and concerns of a wide cross section of civil servants.

2.30    The meetings in 1998 were held in May and June. One issue of key concern to most of them is the Administration's proposal to undertake a review of starting salaries in the civil service. While they did not object in principle to the review, their main concern was that given the effect of the financial turmoil and its adverse impact on wage and employment, the Administration should not choose to launch the review at this point in time. They argued that any review carried out in an unstable economic situation would result in distorted findings. Comparisons based on such findings would not be fair to the civil service. In the event that the Administration should decide to go ahead with the review, they requested that the Administration should keep the Staff Sides fully briefed on the principles and methodology to be adopted for the pay comparison survey, since the review would be highly complicated and its findings might not be acceptable to staff.

2.31    In response to their concerns, we made it clear to the Staff Sides that the Commission had not yet been formally invited by the Administration to undertake any review at that juncture. (An account of subsequent developments is set out in Chapter 4.) However, considering that the last two reviews were conducted in 1979 and 1989 respectively, we saw no objection to the Administration's decision to launch a review in 1999 to take stock of changes in the intervening years. We assured them that should the Government decide to ask the Commission to undertake the survey, we would keep them closely informed about the methodology to be adopted. We pointed out that it was wrong for the Staff Sides to argue that the review should only take place in boom years. Had there been more regular reviews throughout the ten year period, there would be no cause for the Staff Sides to feel unduly concerned, since the good and the bad effects of economic changes would then be neutralised. This would be a useful point for future reference. The Staff Sides indicated to us that they would continue to press their concerns with the SCS at the regular SCSC meetings.

2.32    In addition, we exchanged views on a broad range of issues of concern to the Staff Sides. In the main, the Staff Sides would like to see improvements to their benefits, especially in housing and medical treatment, and enhancement of the consultation procedures to ensure that they would be consulted by the Administration on all major policy changes affecting their interests. Where the issues raised by them were known to us, we were able to state our position at the meeting. Where the issues were new to us, we listened carefully to their representations, sought clarifications where appropriate, and conveyed their requests to the Administration for consideration. We are grateful to the Administration for the prompt and detailed attention it accorded to the list of issues forwarded by the Commission Secretariat, following our informal meetings with the Staff Sides. In addition to setting out the Administration's position fully to us, the Administration has, we understand, followed up on these issues with the relevant councils/unions either at the consultative forum or at the departmental level, as appropriate.

2.33    In the course of the year, contact with major interested private sector organisations was maintained through the Secretary General to keep track of developments in the private sector and, where appropriate, to make use of the opportunity to clarify misconceptions or explain matters related to civil service pay, conditions of service and the pay trend surveys.