Written answers

Tuesday, 18 October 2005

Department of Defence

Benchmarking Awards

9:00 pm

Photo of Noel GrealishNoel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 769: To ask the Minister for Defence the cost of implementing benchmarking for maintenance workers in the Defence Forces; the reason money was paid out (details supplied); if he has received a report revealing that maintenance work could have been carried out more cost-effectively had outside contractors been utilised; the absenteeism rate amongst craftworkers, clerks and storekeepers employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29025/05]

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assume the Deputy is referring to the civilian personnel employed in building maintenance work at military installations throughout the country. I should explain that under the Sustaining Progress agreement the application of pay increases arising under the benchmarking process to employees in the State sector requires the approval of the relevant performance verification group, PVG, for that sector.

With regard to the civilian personnel engaged in building maintenance, the PVG decided that the payment of the benchmarking pay increases was warranted in the case of these employees. Progress has been made in a number of areas in recent years, including the introduction of work sheets for employees engaged in building maintenance and the implementation of the performance management and development system, PMDS, for all civilian personnel.

The cost of implementing the benchmarking pay increases for approximately 550 civilian employees involved in building maintenance at military installations is estimated at €5 million for the period from 1 December 2001 to 31 December 2005.

The Deputy also refers to a report regarding maintenance work in his question. I have not received any such report. However, outside contractors have been used to an increasing extent over recent years for building maintenance work and that trend is likely to continue.

The statistics requested by the Deputy on the absenteeism rate for the specified grades are contained in the following tabular statement.

No. of days absence due to sick leave in 2004 No. of available work days Average no. in Grade 2004 Absenteeism Rate*
Grade
Craft Worker 7,345 230 335.5 9.52
Storekeeper 1,906 230 87.5 9.47
Clerks 1,724 230 87.0 8.62
* Absenteeism Rate: Number of days absence due to sick leave in 2004 (divided by number of employees multiplied by the total number of work days available). The result is then multiplied by 100. This is the standard method of calculating absenteeism rates.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.