Ramesh L Maharaj Pres Conf. re MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICERS CASE June 2, 2015 - Trinidad

• Report rights infringement
• published: 03 Jun 2015
• views: 143

STATEMENT MADE BY RAMESH LAWRENCE MAHARAJ SC AT PRESS CONFERENCE HELD ON 2ND JUNE 2015 ON THE ISSUE OF THE DISOBEDIENCE BY THE CABINET OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE ORDER OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN THE MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICERS CASE FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. Municipal Police Officers are unable to access the Industrial Court to have their dispute between government and themselves relating to salaries, allowances and other pay issues resolved by a Court of Law. The reason for the denial of access to justice to Municipal Police Officers is because the government has not made Regulations pursuant to Section 26 of the Statutory Authorities Act. Section 26 of the Statutory Authorities Act provides that Cabinet through the President ought to make Regulations setting out the conditions to be satisfied and the procedure to be adopted for the recognition by Municipal Police Corporations of Municipal Police Associations. 2. That Act envisaged that Municipal Police Officers would have a similar scheme which regular Police Officers have for resolving their salaries, allowances and other pay disputes which they have with the Government. The procedural route which the regular Police Officers has is that their recognized Police Service Association consults with the Minister of Finance in respect of disputed remuneration for regular Police Officers. If after such consultation the Association and the Minister of Finance are unable to reach an agreement, that dispute is referred to an Independent Special Tribunal. That Tribunal is guided in reaching its award by the considerations set out in the Industrial Relations Act which considerations include the necessity to maintain and approve the standard of living of workers. The award of that Special Tribunal is final. 3. Since no such Regulations have been made the Municipal Police Officers have conducted and/or tried to have negotiations with the Government but since no Regulations were made their Association could not have had statutory recognition. Since their Association do not have statutory recognition under the Statutory Authorities Act the Municipal Police Officers do not have the right to the statutory scheme of consultation and dispute resolution which regular Police Officers enjoy. Consequently, they have no right of access to the Industrial Court through their organizations and they cannot access the Industrial Court as individuals having regard to the provisions of the law. 4. Municipal Police Officers as a result of the failure of the government to make Regulations has denied and continues to deny Municipal Police Officers of this procedural route in order to have their pay and allowances disputes with government resolved by a Court of law. THE LITIGATION 5. Municipal Police Officers filed a Constitutional claim which alleged denial of the protection of the law in that the government failed to make Regulations under Section 26 of the Statutory Authorities Act. The High Court gave a decision in their favour and ordered the government to pay compensation. The government appealed and the Court of Appeal set aside the order for compensation but instead made an order directing the government to make the regulations within 6 months of the date of its judgment which was December, 2011. 6. In the meantime the government appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal which ordered the government to make the Regulations and the Municipal Police Officers appealed the order of the Court of Appeal which set aside the order for compensation. 7. The Privy Council heard the appeal on the 13th October, 2014. Up to the time the Privy Council heard the appeal the government did not make the Regulations as ordered by the Court of Appeal. The government therefore disobeyed the order of the Court of Appeal from December, 2011 to October, 2014 when the matter was heard in the Privy Council. 8. The Privy Council on the 13th October, 2014 reserved its judgment. Subsequent to the Privy Council reserving its judgment the Attorney General submitted to the Privy Council Regulations it made pursuant to Section 26 of the Statutory Authorities Act. Those Regulations however were held by the Privy Council when it gave its judgment on the 21st January, 2015 to be deficient. The Attorney General gave an undertaking to the Privy Council that it would fix the deficiencies. The Attorney General has not fixed the deficiencies. 9. The Privy Council decided that the government’s failure to obey the order of the Court of Appeal brought the system of justice itself into disrepute. It also held that the conduct of the government in not obeying the order of the Court of Appeal demanded it made a special award of compensation against the government.