The Croatian Parliament adopted at first reading two draft laws that form part of the public administration reform – the Civil Servants Act and the Act on Salaries in the Civil Service and Public Services. These laws are of significant importance as they have a direct impact and long-term consequences for a wide range of citizens and their rights.

In order to contribute to the quality of these laws, we submitted a number of comments during the public consultation process. Our opinion on the Draft Civil Servants Act was also submitted to the Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, Standing Orders and Political System, while our opinion on both draft laws was submitted to the Committee on Labour and Social Partnership. In that context, Ombudswoman Tena Šimonović Einwalter and Deputy Ombudswoman Dijana Kesonja participated in the committees’ discussions held on 3 July 2023 and presented the submitted comments.

This text outlines comments on the Draft Act on Salaries in the Civil Service and Public Services, while those related to the Draft Civil Servants Act can be found [here]. We welcome the fact that approximately half of our comments were accepted during public consultation and incorporated into the draft laws, but there is still room for improvement, which we elaborate on below (regarding the Draft Act on Salaries in the Civil Service and Public Services) and [here] (for the Draft Civil Servants Act).

Refine the method and criteria for determining coefficients

The issue of coefficients for calculating job-related salaries and their classification into pay grades is one of the key aspects of this Draft Act. It foresees that the basic criteria for determining coefficients will be fully regulated through government decrees, but these criteria should be defined in the Act itself.

Therefore, further clarification is needed regarding the method and criteria on the basis of which coefficients will be determined within the range of a particular pay grade.

Abandon the “quota” for top performance ratings

The Draft Act prescribes a maximum percentage of civil servants and employees who may receive a rating of “excellent” (5%) or “particularly successful” (15%) within a calendar year. While the aim to end the practice of awarding top ratings to the majority is positive, the percentage is extremely low, and the very concept of “quotas” for top ratings is problematic for several reasons:

  • It applies to very different government bodies and public services, varying significantly in size, structure, and the nature of their work.
  • The number of top-performing civil servants and employees would not reflect the actual situation but would be limited to the prescribed percentages, regardless of performance. This means not all who deserve the highest rating would receive it, and some would be rated “successful” or lower despite their results. Moreover, it is unclear how the decision would be made on who among those meeting the criteria would actually receive the top ratings. For instance, in a body with 60 staff, only three could be rated “excellent,” and only nine “particularly successful.”
  • It is unrealistic to expect this system to have a motivating effect. On the contrary, it could reduce the work effectiveness of those who consistently perform at a high level and previously received the highest ratings (a common practice), but now fall outside the 5% or 15%, resulting in demotivation.

Additionally, since the evaluation will rely on objective and detailed criteria set by a government decree, these very criteria can be used to distinguish between “excellent,” “particularly successful,” and “successful” ratings. Thus, there is no need for a legal restriction on the percentage of civil servants and employees who may receive the highest ratings.

The goal can be achieved by using well-defined evaluation criteria and applying them objectively and rigorously, instead of limiting the percentage of employees who can receive certain ratings.

However, if the quota-based approach is retained, additional steps must be taken to ensure consistent application of the law, a transparent and objective evaluation and reward system, and to prevent arbitrary decisions by institutional heads as well as potential discrimination or favoritism. Specifically, it is necessary to prescribe how the decision will be made regarding which civil servants and employees who meet the criteria for “excellent” – potentially more than 5% – will actually receive that rating, and which will not. The same applies to the “particularly successful” rating.

Moreover, in evaluating and determining which employees will receive the top two ratings, comparisons should not be made between groups of employees whose job descriptions, complexity, and responsibilities are not comparable. Instead, employees should be compared to those in similar or comparable roles (e.g., doctors with doctors, teachers with teachers). Otherwise, there is a risk that those in less complex roles – such as cleaners, cooks, administrative secretaries – may be overlooked for top ratings, even if they perform excellently and their work is essential for the functioning of the institution.

Furthermore, if this evaluation model remains, exceptions to the prescribed limits should be considered for specific government bodies/public services or their organisational units, due to the demanding nature of their tasks and the high employment criteria. This could include independent institutions that oversee public bodies or conduct inspections, in order to safeguard their independence.

Finally, in addition to defining evaluation criteria, it is necessary to develop a method for measuring work performance, as criteria alone are insufficient to assess effectiveness.

Shorten the period required to qualify for a performance bonus

The proposed legal framework for determining performance-related salary bonuses is unlikely to provide sufficient motivation to most civil servants and employees, as it would take six years of work to qualify for the minimum bonus of 3%.

Those with longer years of service would likely not qualify for the performance bonus before the end of their careers or would qualify only for the lowest percentage, which would be additionally demotivating and would have an unequal impact on older civil servants.

Therefore, in line with available financial resources, the law should stipulate that the performance bonus can be earned over a shorter period – one or two years.

Short consultation period and difficulty in assessing impact

As with the Civil Servants Act, the public consultation lasted only 15 days. These are highly significant laws; for example, the Act on Salaries in the Civil Service and Public Services is a key regulation that governs the salary system for over 230,000 public and civil servants.

Moreover, it is extremely difficult to comment on two legally and substantively linked laws within such a short period. Additionally, the Draft Act on Salaries in the Civil Service and Public Services will be followed by the adoption of 10 government decrees regulating key issues, and without the texts of these decrees, it is even more difficult to assess the Draft Act’s impact on civil servants and employees.

All our comments on the Draft Act on Salaries in the Civil Service and Public Services and the response from the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration can be found [here].