Ghana Standards Authority dismisses claims of pay disparities and irregular recruitment

The Ghana Standards Authority (GSA) has rejected allegations of pay disparities and irregular recruitment at the institution, describing claims circulating on social media as misleading and factually inaccurate.

In a statement issued by its management, the Authority said an online publication alleging unfair remuneration and politically motivated recruitment failed to accurately represent the circumstances surrounding the engagement of two different groups of employees.

According to the GSA, the officers referred to in the publication as the "first cohort" were originally recruited under the now-defunct Nation Builders Corps (NABCO) programme. Following the end of the initiative, the Authority retained them on temporary contracts, renewable annually, with their salaries paid from its Goods and Services budget.

Management explained that the arrangement was already in place when the current Director-General assumed office, stressing that the officers were never placed on the Government of Ghana's central payroll, were never gazetted and did not receive parliamentary approval as alleged in the publication.

The Authority further clarified that after assuming office, the current Director-General secured approval from the Ministry of Finance to recruit 500 Trading Standards Inspectors in 2025 under a newly established operational mandate.

It said the recruitment was conducted under the Single Spine Salary Structure, the government's approved public sector salary framework, with remuneration financed from the Authority's Internally Generated Funds (IGF) in line with a pay structure sanctioned by the Ministry of Finance.

The GSA noted that although both the earlier NABCO-origin staff and the newly recruited inspectors are paid outside the central government payroll, the difference in their remuneration stems from the approved salary structures governing their respective engagements rather than any political considerations.

Management also dismissed claims that Parliament approved the names of the earlier cohort, describing the assertion as entirely false.

It explained that the engagement, renewal and management of temporary staff fall within the Authority's administrative and human resource responsibilities and have never required parliamentary approval.

The statement also refuted suggestions that employees from the earlier cohort had been neglected, indicating that scientific staff whose expertise is essential to the Authority's laboratory operations have since been reassigned under improved conditions of service.

According to management, the move reflects the Authority's recognition of their professional skills and contributions.

The GSA reiterated that all recruitment, engagement and remuneration decisions are guided by Ministry of Finance approvals, applicable public sector pay policies and the operational requirements of the Authority.

It stressed that employment decisions are not influenced by the political administration under which any employee was initially recruited.

Management encouraged affected staff to use the Authority's established labour relations mechanisms to address any outstanding contractual concerns instead of resorting to the media.

The Authority reaffirmed its commitment to transparency, fairness and compliance with government regulations in the management of its workforce.