Cabinet approves voluntary redundancy policy

| 04/10/2013

(CNS): Civil Servants with open ended employment agreements who want to leave their public sector job will be given a financial pay-off based on their length of service if they are successful in their application for redundancy. The Voluntary Separation Policy (VSP) developed by the deputy governor and his chief officers has now received Cabinet approval. Core government employees and their bosses will, however  have to make a business case for the exit of any civil servant to make sure the loss of the post is sustainable and that the department or service won’t be undermined. With the sustainability of further job cuts in the CS in question, management will need to justify the loss of any public authority worker.

A business case by the relevant chief officer that shows how an organization expects to achieve improved efficiency through the separation must accompany the applications, Deputy Governor  Franz Manderson explained. 

“To successfully reduce the size of the civil service in a manner that avoids negative impacts for the public, we feel it is very important to plan this process,” he said in a release Thursday evening. “The approach of doing more with less is not something we can sustain without impacting the quality of service we provide.”

Civil servants have until the end of this month, 31 October, to review the policy, which the Portfolio of the Civil Service published internally today (3 October), although it has not yet been made public. If they are interested in the scheme, they should make an application or ask questions before the deadline. Separation from the service is expected to begin as early as January 2014.

Eligibility is limited to core civil service workers who have open-ended employment agreements with the Cayman Islands Government but not those on contract.

Anyone considering the proposal will have access to advice from the Public Service Pension Board as well as Lewis Consulting Services. A voluntary separation committee, made up of the deputy governor, the financial secretary and the chief officer of PoCS, will assess the impact of the proposed scheme on individuals and their organisations.

Compensation for successful applicants will be based on continuous service. They will also have access to limited CINICO coverage ranging from three to six months.

See policy below

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Politics

About the Author ()

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Voluntary redundancies always have a negative result on workforce quality.  The best staff, who can move, take the money and move.  That makes economic sense to those workers.  The worst staff, who can't move, stay, because the cost of taking the money is outweighed by the risks in the labor market.  The braver and better response to overstaffing is to fire the worst staff.  Good business use economic downturns to chuck out the dross.  The civil service should do the same.

  2. WTF says:

    Hey!  I'm useless!! Haven't you noticed??

    You looked just like everyone else.

    Let me prove it. Watch me work.


    You are pretty useless.

    Ok then we agree.

    Now where can I pick up my severance cheque?

    The person who issues them didn't show.



  3. Anonymous says:

    I think the policy of "voluntary redundancy" needs some extra zip to be effective.  Like "involuntary redundancy".

  4. Anonymous says:

    Sorry but this sounds like backwards thinking to me. Shouldn't the managers decide who is.redundant and who is not? It sounds like government is doing anything they can to help them avoid making the tough decisions. Last week it was bringing in outside consultants, now its allowing staff to make themselves redundant. Hold them accountable and make them do their jobs!  

    • Anonymous says:

      Why not enforcing retirement age? most of the government departments are lead by older folks, and some of them are not even qualify to be there but just because of political connections, it is a disgrace when an entire department is "suffering" if I may use that word by the poor leadership there is .


  5. Anonymous says:

    Its high time some of the long standing statutory heads on 14K a month are retired to let the younger blood take over.  There are too many of these heads appointed because of their political allegiance over abilities. In so many cases the authority will function just fine without them as they contribute nothing!

  6. Anonymous says:

    Would this not be contributing to the unemployment rate, cause I can assure you that 75% of the civil servants who opt to take the seperation are unemployable. Not the brightest of ideas I might add. Hold the staff ACCOUNTABLE and take the necessary actions if they fail to perform. Just look at all the BS in the NWDA. THis is nothing less than total incompetence.

    • Anonymous says:

      Most of the people doing the work are not getting compensation for what they are doing.  Some of those high earners at the top are collecting but not producing.

  7. Anonymous says:

    And what's to stop them from returning to government after their buyout?  What a windfall!

    • Anonymous says:

      If a civil servant takes this voluntary separation, he/she cannot return to the civil service for 5 years.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Agree with comment above…in fact there are enough talented and qualififed indivuiduals at private sector organization (the same ones that criticize civil service) that they can voluntarily put together a core group to review the structure of civil service (and yes do it pro bono) to assist the CIG at this time (i.e., Deloitte, Maples, PWC and others have this expertise). You cannot expect the long standing civil servants or the consultants turn civil servants to objectively do this. Come on residents lets stand up and help. And be firm, objective and put neopotism aside for the goodof the country.

  9. Anonymous says:

    When do nominations open to recommend civil servants to voluntarily separate?

  10. Anonymous says:

    Please please please cabinet people bring in an independent (i.e. non-Cayman) third party to manage this process! I am sure the UK government can help.  Otherwise the CS will screw this up, waste millions and line the pockets on those who are in favour.  Then probably hire back the people they made redundant for more money. This process is so ripe for abuse and the CS' core competency is paying lip service to policy while stuffing handfuls of money into their pockets.

    • Anonymous says:

      Its funny you should say that. Every time the Civil Service 'brings in" these experts, they end up staying in the Civil Service themselves. Don't believe me?, do an FOI request. There are a few "experts" that came for a few months to do "reviews" that turned into 25 year stints.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Voluntary redundancy is never good for the company. The only people to accept voluntary redundancy are the talented few who are happy to take the lump sum payment and immediately take their initiative, experience, and good work ethics elsewhere.

    The problem with any organization that is overstaffed is how to get rid of those who are not carrying their weight. They only leave if the ship is about to sink, or when they are the only ones left to do the work.

    Government should issue an  RFP, and I believe there is sufficient expertise locally to take in on, for a structural review of government and for recommendations on reorganizing and streamlining the current government functions. Also included would be recommendations on those functions that could better be contracted out.

    I know the Civil Service has been known to examine their own structure and organization from time to time, but there is no way that an individual can look at their own job and functions objectively. That is why government should issue and RFP for it to be done locally.

    • Anon says:

      Makes sense but if they do this then 1/3 of the civil service would probably be cut and departments consolidated.  Didn't the miller shaw report conclude that govt can cut 1/3 of the staff without impacting quality of service? Or did I misread that report?

      Would govt want to add another 2000 people to the unemployment and social services lists? Would they want to sacrifice those votes next election? Would they want to upset some of their relatives and friends?  I guess we wait and see.

      • Anonymous says:


        And who did Mr Miller consult with on this?

        I definitely believe that you misread the Miller report.