Icasa Council’s bonus ban sparks staff backlash
Icasa staff strongly expressed dissatisfaction with the decision made by the Icasa Council to withhold performance bonuses for the 2023/24 financial year.
Image: Supplied
IN A recent development at the Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa), the organisation’s staff strongly expressed dissatisfaction with the decision made by the Icasa Council to withhold performance bonuses for the 2023/24 financial year.
Staff highlighted that the council, which serves as the governing body responsible for overseeing Icasa’s activities and strategic policies, decided not to approve the bonuses on the grounds that the organisational performance target for the year was not achieved.
In a declaration this week, staff launched a scathing critique of what it described as an “irrational”, “unfair”, and “procedure-flouting” move that would risk demotivating staff and undermining organisational effectiveness.
On November 11, the Council announced it would not approve performance rewards, citing the organisation’s failure to achieve its annual performance target of 91%. However, staff contend this decision overlooks Icasa’s strong performance record. According to the Authority’s own data, staff have achieved an average of 88.5% over the past four years, with many divisions, departments, and units reaching 100% of their set targets and objectives.
Staff argued that this performance was remarkable given the external challenges the organisation faced, including organisational capacity issues and procurement delays. Staff have demonstrated “commitment and dedication” that led to numerous achievements despite these obstacles.
When reached, the Icasa Council said: “Icasa’s performance adjudication is governed by the Performance Management Policy 2021 and the broader legislative framework applicable to public entities.
“For 2023/24, the performance cycle was completed, evaluated and tabled before the Authority’s governance structures, including the HR & Remco Governance Committee, for a recommendation to Council. Council, acting within the prescripts of the Policy, resolved not to approve the performance rewards, as the Authority fell short of achieving its set performance target for the 2023/24FY.
“For 2024/25, the performance cycle is at the conclusion stage. Moderation processes have been finalised for all employees. Subsequent to the finalisation of moderation processes, the verification process has commenced, and the performance cycle will be concluded in line with the prescribed processes outlined in the policy.
Notably, the Remuneration Committee (Remco) has previously flagged the 91% target as “excessive compared to other state-owned entities (SOEs) and Chapter 9 Institutions”, acknowledging that even this elevated benchmark may be unrealistic for regulatory organisations.
Staff emphasised that: “The Authority has been unable to meet its excessive annual performance target of 91%,” yet “the staff, through collaboration and the desire for the Authority to be an effective regulator and an employer of choice, have consistently ensured that Icasa’s performance exceeds 86%.” They contended that the Council’s decision “nullified” the efforts of high-performing employees and overlooked the broader context of their achievements.
Staff’s primary grievance centred on alleged breaches of the Public Access to Justice Act (Paja). They asserted that the Council’s decision failed to comply with established policies and legal procedures, specifically citing violations of Paja’s provisions. Staff states that the Council failed to comply with Section 3(2) of Paja, which outlined procedures for fair administrative action.
Staff emphasised that Section 3(1) of Paja required that “administrative action which materially and adversely affects the rights or legitimate expectations of any person must be procedurally fair”. The bonus decision materially affects staff rights and legitimate expectations to performance rewards, yet staff contend the Council disregarded critical considerations, including the impact of the excessive organisational target and the Authority’s capacity challenges.
They further note that the Council “blatantly ignored the recommendations by Remco and the CEO”, rendering the decision both illegal and procedurally flawed. Staff argue that substantive reasons must be provided for such decisions on terms that are “fair and reasonable”, and that the Council’s failure to do so is “unfair and inconsistent.” The governance controversy underscores tensions within Icasa, where the Council’s role as the top decision-making authority is being scrutinised amid debates over performance assessment and reward systems.
Staff warned that the bonus decision will have severe consequences for the organisation. Withholding these rewards will “diminish staff morale”, “discourage employees from putting extra effort”, foster a “lack of loyalty”, and increase staff turnover. Such outcomes threaten to “destroy a conducive working environment” and undermine organisational effectiveness.
Staff emphasised that: “Payment of bonuses and related merit increases for achievement contributes directly to raising staff morale and incentivises staff to stay on track towards achievement of future organisational targets.” The decision was particularly problematic given that divisions, departments, and units that achieved 100% of their targets would be denied rewards despite exceptional performance. This was likely to be profoundly demotivating, as it would send the message that exceptional effort went unrecognised.
The decision risked not only immediate demoralisation but also longer-term damage to Icasa’s ability to attract and retain talent, potentially triggering a decline in overall organisational performance and undermining the Authority's position as an “employer of choice”.
In response to the Council’s decision, staff announced it “will fully support the Union in its endeavours to have the decision of the Council reviewed and set aside”, signalling potential legal challenges. This represents a direct escalation of the dispute and a serious breakdown in governance relations.
Staff members also revealed plans to become union members and withdraw from the Management Forum, citing: “The lack of proper representation in management, the lack of communication, and consultation of these critical issues.” This escalation marks a severe rupture between staff and the Council, suggesting deep mistrust and frustration over how critical decisions are being made.