|
WELCOME & OPENING REMARKS
The Chairman, Mr Johannes Makhusha, extended a warm welcome to all present.
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
Present:
Messrs: J. Makhusha, Executive Manager, School of Rail (Chairman)
C. Rademan, School of Rail
H. Lemmer, Corporate Safety Office,TFR
W. Breedt, School of Rail
W. Mkhondo, School of Rail
J. Hugo, Infrastructure, TFR
L. Branford, Corporate Safety Office, TFR
F. Seloane, Container & Automotive Business, TFR
I.B. Nel, FTUR UTATU/SARHWU
I. Tenene, FTSS SATAWU
M. Makhanya. SATAWU
R. Veitch, FTUR UTATU/SARHWU
N. Ngumla, SATAWU
Mmes: J. Hing, School of Rail (Secretary)
A. Seshibe, School of Rail
M. Nortje, TFR, Central Region (Job cover: N. Mdawe)
N. Nxumalo, School of Rail
Apologies:
Messrs: M.J. Modiko, School of Rail
J. van Aardt, Infra Engineering, TFR
F. Crause, FTUR,UTATU/SARHWU
J. Breytenbach, FTSS UTATU/SARHWU
L. Brockett, UTATU/SARHWU
N. Els, UTATU/SARHWU
M.J. Booyens, FTSS, UTATU/SARHWU
Ms: N. Mdawe, Assistant ROE, TFR, Central Region
SAFETY BRIEF
Mr Chris Maphunye informed the meeting of the exit doorways and the evacuation procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency.
COMMENTS FROM LABOUR
Labour stressed that a written memo should be sent to Managers at NTCM and in the regions, informing them to send representatives to attend the future meetings, should they not be able to attend. The meeting concurred that commitment from the relevant stakeholders is necessary.
Messrs Nel and Tenene informed the meeting of the Train Drivers (TD’s) at Capital Park who were relieved from their duties.
Mr Nel reported that he had received telephone calls from Section Managers country wide informing him of the change in their designation to Senior Training Officers. He stated that a disparity in salary exists between the Section Managers in the depots and their counterparts at the various Schools of Rail. A Section Manager, unlike a Senior Training Officer, has to conduct practical training. He urged the Chairman to give this matter prior attention.
In the light of Mr Nel’s urgent request, Mr Mkhondo was requested to report on the progress of Item 6 and 7 on the Action List, and to conduct investigations immediately thereafter.
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved.
MATTERS ARISING FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING
Ms Seshibe discussed the Refresher Task Team Action List with the meeting by means of slide presentations.
Item 1 – Done
Item 2 – Ms Mabija will be invited to attend Refresher Training Meetings.
Action status: Amber – The Chairman undertook to consult with Mr Mtetwa
regarding her required presence at future meetings.
Item 3 – Mr Rademan advised that the information had been sent to the Task Team electronically but nonetheless reiterated on the feedback on the Infra statistics to date. Mr Veitch enquired whether the Container Automotive Business (CAB) personnel in the Terminal Department were included. The Chairman replied in the negative. However, he envisaged that they would be included in the next meeting. A meeting with Themba, which was attended by Mr Seloane, was held recently. Mr Seloane confirmed that he would be representing Terminals at the Refresher Training Meetings.
Mr Veitch posed the following question: “What is happening to Supply-Chain Services and Property? It is our responsibility to have an understanding of those departments as well.”
The Chairman indicated that they had initially decided to attend to TD’s first – now the entire organisation needs to be covered. He emphasised the need to prioritise. Messrs Rademan and Breedt were requested to ensure that a complete picture, especially on the safety critical grades, is furnished.
Item 4 – Mr Rademan reported that the backlog had been drastically reduced to 35. The relevant training plan would be finalised and submitted to Labour by 25 March 2010.
Item 5 – Mr Rademan advised that the Infra training procedure will be shared at the next meeting.
Item 6 – Mr Breedt stated that it will not be difficult to collate all the information from the various regions and capture it on to the system. The Chairman requested Mr Breedt to ensure that it is finalised by end of business day.
Mr Nel reiterated that, due to training backlogs, TD’s were relieved from their duties the previous week. He emphasised the importance of understanding the backlog statistics on all Refresher Training. The Chairman requested Mr Breedt to ensure that additional columns are added onto the existing template, in order to create clarity.
Labour requested a caucus.
After the break, the Chairman requested Mr Breedt to conduct a comprehensive audit on the Refresher backlog and to clear the system of all backlogs. Mr Breedt affirmed that the original backlogs have already been addressed and that the stats are being updated on a daily basis. The Chairman advised Mr Breedt to
discuss any difficult areas with the respective General Managers and to furnish the latest updated information to all the members.
Item 7 – Ms Seshibe indicated that people in the eastern region need to take
ownership and send a representative to attend Refresher Training Meetings. The Chairman proposed that, in future, the meeting would be rescheduled if the key stakeholders are unavailable.
Item 8 – Mr Branford explained that the Task Observation Project is part of the 5-year programme. All the tools have been standardised, developed and rolled out to the operational areas. The relevant standardised processes are available in the 5S’s toolbox, which will be rolled out to the Infra Department. Processes are managed through the Safety Meetings where the dashboards are presented.
Mr Nel expressed his satisfaction with the 5S’s Training. He was concerned that Symposiums are not being conducted in the operational environment and recommended that Mr Herbert Msagala and the Regional Operations Executives (ROE’s) be alerted in this regard. Ms Nortje reported on behalf of the Central Region that OPCO and the ROE’s have been informed. The pre-audits of the 5S’s revealed the non-occurrence of Symposiums. She undertook to continuously raise this issue with OPCO and the relevant stakeholders. Mr Seloane suggested that OPCO and the Central Safety Committee be notified accordingly.
The Chairman affirmed that the effectiveness of Task Observation is scrutinised through the training and development approach. It is important to note whether training is having an impact on the organisation. He had discussions with Mr Bradley Smith in this regard and stressed that investigations are necessary to ensure that Task Observation and Symposiums are conducted correctly. The understanding of the policies, principles and tools are essential, so is the possible implementation of action plans. The Chairman promised to furnish feedback to the meeting - Item 8 should remain a standing item on the Agenda.
Item 9 – Lack of standardised processes and procedures: This item is held in abeyance. Mr Modiko would report on it at the next meeting.
The Chairman stated that a pilot site in Ermelo exists. However, investigations need to be conducted on how the equipment would be integrated and whether ICTM would be able to assist in the installation of the computers for e-learning etc.
Item 10 – OJT challenge: Mr Mkhondo reported on the progress of OJT and the challenges experienced in the Yards environment. He had, moreover, communicated this to the stakeholders via the monthly report in February 2010.
Item 11 – Framework for Own Initiatives: Mr Mkhondo advised that the
framework is currently in draft format. A meeting was held with Mr Padayachee in this regard on 26 February 2010, with further deliberations scheduled for a
forthcoming meeting.
REVIEWED CCD & E AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Chairman reminded the members that a workshop/meeting was held with Labour last year to deliberate upon the CCD & E model. The aim of the workshop/meeting was to examine the gaps and to ascertain the way forward. Ms Seshibe recalled one of the issues raised at the last meeting, i.e. redeployment – which should be deleted. A concern was raised on whether the process is aligned with the Incapacity Policy. (Hard copies of the policy were handed out to the members.)
Ms Seshibe advised that the learner who is found incompetent, would not be removed from the company, but be demoted. Mr Veitch believed that the incompetent individual should be remunerated on the same level. Labour advised that a person who is injured on duty had not done anything amiss – he should therefore not be worse off. His case should be treated as incapacity due to ill health. An applicable policy in this connection should be in place. The above-mentioned process is to deal with incapacity based on poor performance. Mr Lemmer stressed that one should not confuse the Refresher competency process with the injury-on-duty process.
Proposed Buy-In Journey of CCD & E
Ms Seshibe showed the above-mentioned presentation to the meeting by means of slide presentations, illustrating the required buy-in from the HC Management Team, Special NETD Forum, Regional ETD, OPCO and Regional OPCO, RSR via Corporate Safety Office, and the applicable timelines.
Labour proposed that a workshop be held with Supervisors and Line Management to obtain some sort of alignment. The Chairman concurred that approval is necessary at strategic level and questioned whether the above-mentioned structures are the correct bodies to endorse the approval process. Mr Lemmer concurred. The Chairman stated that after approval is received from OPCO, the document would be submitted to the General Managers for final approval. Labour requested that they be kept informed on a continuous basis in respect of the latest developments, i.e. inputs from the General Manager, Human Capital, the HC Management Team, etc. – the meeting should effectively adopt the amendments
made to the model.
The Chairman requested consensus from the meeting on the assumption that:
- if HC Management approves, an email will be sent to everyone informing them that there are no changes; and
- if OPCO has concerns, an emergency meeting will be convened.
Proposed Project Set-up on CCD & E
Ms Seshibe advised that an implementation plan needs to be developed, involving the following teams:
- Communication and Change-Management Team
- Implementation Team
- Monitoring Team
Each Tam would need to present its own roll-out plan which would be consolidated and integrated. The Chairman proposed that each Union be represented by two people and requested Ms Seshibe to invite Mr Piet Botes as well, who is able to provide valuable inputs. Refresher training per discipline would involve the following TFR Departments:
- Resource Management
- Infra – including Security
- Container & Automotive Business (CAB) – including Terminals
- Regional Operations Executives (ROE’s)
- Supply-Chain Services
- School of Rail (SOR)
- Human Capital
- National Command Centre (NCC)
- Corporate Safety
- Risk Management
Each of the above-mentioned departments would have their own delegated representatives - However, Subproject Leaders need to be identified. The Implementation Team would need to examine all the relevant issues. The respective Subproject Leaders would provide feedback to Ms Seshibe, the Project Leader, who would, in turn, report to the Refresher Training Team consisting of Management and Labour. The Chairperson of this meeting would relay all pertinent feedback to OPCO.
Mr Ngumla requested Ms Hing to inform Mr Modiko to conduct research on the
above-mentioned matter.
The following questions were posed for consideration:
- “What do we expect the personnel from all these departments to do and how do we engage them to ensure commitment?”
- “How do we ensure that their respective functions are incorporated into their performance scorecards?”
- “How are they going to relate to this committee?”
- “What is their mandate?”
The Chairman stated that the onus lies with the relevant General Managers and ROE’s to nominate representatives for the respective teams. He proposed that ROE’s should send letters to individuals, informing them of their nominations. The budget for Refresher Training would be borne by the SOR. Monitoring would take place on the following levels:
- Strategic level (OPCO)
- Tactical level (Refresher Team)
- Implementation level
Ms Nortje proposed that Project Charters, together with the financials, be compiled by the Subproject Teams – feedback should be provided on the milestones achieved on a monthly basis. The Chairman concurred to this proposal.
Roles and responsibilities of the Subproject Leaders:
 Ensure that the Project Charter is compiled and executed.
Lead the Project Stream.
Provide feedback to the Project Leader.
Escalate where necessary.
Compile reports.
Manage deviations and the Team.
Criteria of the Project Team:
Must be experts in the various fields – the right stakeholders to be on board.
Mr Padayachee arrived at the meeting at 11:40 due to a pre-arranged meeting with Mr Herbert Msagala. The Chairman explained the discussion to Mr Padayachee. It was proposed that the relevant departments should effectively take ownership once
OPCO had given its approval. Mr Breedt stated that, once this project had been signed off, communication should be transmitted to all employees on ground level before the implementation stage can come into effect.
Mr Seloane posed the following questions: “Do we have the capacity to train the relevant people within the various disciplines? Do we know the number of trainees within each department?” The Chairman requested Ms Seshibe to determine the scope of Refresher Training, as well as the capacity required – an existing scope is, however, already on record. Nevertheless, the meeting should determine the ones
who are inadvertently left behind. Mr Lemmer explained that scoping is about what Refresher Training entails and should not be confused with the developing of processes etc.
Mr Hugo advised that three more people from Infra in the regions should join the Subproject Teams.
Ms Seshibe undertook to send the Draft Implementation Plan, together with all the relevant documents, to the members by Thursday, 1 April 2010.
FEEDBACK ON THE CHANGE OF DESIGNATIONS
Mr Mkhondo reported on his discoveries to the meeting. In response to Mr Nel’s earlier concern about the change in the designation of Section Manager to Senior Trainer Officer. He explained that this is due to the new Transnet project of conversion – the level and the remuneration had not changed. The designation of Private Secretary will be changed to Senior Secretary in future. Since SOR had not been informed of the designation changes, Ms Huma assumed the responsibility of communicating this matter to SOR.
Mr Seloane was of the opinion that the designation change should be held in abeyance. Labour concurred that that it should be discussed at the Bargaining Council.
REFRESHER BACKLOG
The Chairman requested Mr Padayachee to engage with Mr Nel after the meeting to clarify the status of the Refresher backlog so that misunderstandings can be eliminated.
Mr Veitch requested the names of people within Infra and Operations who are
supposed to be refreshed, but are performing other functions instead.
The Chairman welcomed Mr Herbert Msagala, who arrived at the meeting at 12:15.
CLOSURE
The Chairman thanked everyone for his/her attendance and participation.
There being no further matters to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 12:20.
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 21 April 2010. In response to Mr Veitch’s request, the Chairman stated that this meeting would occur, subject to the availability of all invited stakeholders.
Chairman Secretary
_______________________ ______________________
Mr J. Makhusha Ms J. Hing
|
