43
One
and that more realistic increments should be provided. unsatisfactory aspect of the existing scale is the arrangement whereby employees on the bottom segment of the scale only receive increments once every five years. Our proposals provide for annual increments for these employees.
6.7
We therefore recommend that the existing Model Scale 1 be replaced by a completely new scale of 20 pay points. Our proposed scale is set out in Table E at the end of this Chapter. The benefit of the new scale is in the size of increments and for most ranks it will reduce the number of steps necessary to reach the maximum pay point.
6.8
As our proposed new scale involves a major restructuring of Model Scale 1 and has fewer pay points than the existing scale, special conversion arrangements will be necessary. Details should be provided by the Administration but Table E sets out the basic conversion we consider appropriate. We have used the prefix MOD in referring to points in the new scale. If accepted, our proposed scale should be introduced from a current date.
Other Issues affecting Model Scale 1 Employees
6.9
We have dealt with the other issues listed in paragraph 6.1 in the context of our review of individual Model Scale 1 grades. In referring to criteria for ranking our concern was that in some cases employees doing the same work in different departments were receiving different levels of pay. In our proposals for individual grades we have rectified this situation wherever practicable. We have also with a few exceptions abolished sub-segments by broadbanding ranks within four groups. This principle is outlined in paragraphs 6.15 and 6.16 below. The exceptions relate to certain cases where we have undertaken to conduct a further review. We have also amalgamated a number of Model Scale 1 ranks where we consider it appropriate to do so, and we have reduced the number of supervisory ranks from five to three.
Representations
6.10
We have given due weight to the representations received from staff and management in our consideration of individual Model Scale 1 grades. We have, however, found it impracticable to refer to these recommendations on an individual basis since the nature of Model Scale 1 is such that representations have been received from a number of groups of staff or associations representing employees in the same Model Scale 1 grade. These may come from groups within different departments or from different unions whose membership includes Model Scale 1 employees in the same grade. Since the representations sometimes contain divergent views our approach has been to take all points made into consideration in arriving at our recommendation for each individual grade.