Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
A decision by the Salaries Review Commission (SRC) to recommend a reduction in the salaries of the next Director and Deputy Director of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) has been upheld.
In a judgment delivered on Tuesday, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed the lawsuit brought by the PCA and its incumbent Director David West and Deputy Director Michelle Solomon-Baksh.
Justice Seepersad rejected complaints over the methodology employed by the PCA in making the recommendation in its 120th report, which was submitted in 2024 and approved by the then-Cabinet.
“This court is resolute in its view that the defendant (SRC) engaged in a review which was characterised by reasonableness, procedural fairness and rationality,” Justice Seepersad said.
“The court is of the view that the processes engaged accorded with best practice and industry standards,” he added.
West and Solomon-Baksh’s current remuneration packages are based on the SRC’s 98th Report dated November 2013.
In its 113th Report in October 2022, the SRC noted that it was awaiting a job evaluation exercise and associated compensation survey by the Personnel Department in relation to several public positions under its purview.
In its 117th Report in May 2023, the SRC considered the results of the review process and recommended that the salary of the Director be decreased from $38,540 per month to $33,700 and from $33,570 to $29,100 for the Deputy Director.
The decrease was recommended to take effect from April 2020. That report was rejected by Parliament due to anomalies which led to a recommended reduction in the salaries of several public office holders.
In its 120th report, the SRC affirmed the results of the previous review and still recommended an effective decrease in their salaries.
The SRC maintained its recommendation that their salaries be downgraded from 2020 as suggested in its 117th Report.
However, it recommended that their downgraded salaries be increased from $33,700 to $37,005 for Director and from $29,100 to $31,954 for Deputy Director, effective 2023.
The increases did not supersede the previous reduction, meaning that the salaries for the positions were effectively decreased. However, the SRC recommended that the duo would maintain their salaries while they remain in office and that the changes would only be applied to their eventual successors or if they demit office and are reappointed.
The PCA and the duo filed the case alleging unfairness, procedural irregularities and a lack of proper consultation.
In his judgment, Justice Seepersad rejected complaints over the level of consultation afforded to West and Solomon-Baksh. He suggested that the SRC’s position was not materially unfair.
“If this court were to hold that the claimants herein are entitled to be interviewed and consulted in the manner which they outlined, such a conclusion would impose onerous financial and human resource obligations upon the Commission as it would logically have to extend same to the holders of all 325 offices which fall within the remit of the Commission,” Justice Seepersad said.
He also stated that a salary decrease after the review was a foreseeable possibility.
“The nature of a comprehensive review, in this court’s opinion, inherently suggests that remuneration, terms and conditions could be varied or altered, either upwards or downwards,” Justice Seepersad said.
“Remuneration is always a sensitive and emotive issue, but employees have no right or privilege to be paid more for performance of the duties of the position than the employer is prepared to pay based on the fair and objective worth of the particular contribution,” he added.
Justice Seepersad also rejected complaints over the SRC using a different procedure for assessing the positions than it did in previous reports.
“Fairness is not synonymous with rigidity; its content is inherently contextual and must remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate advances in professional standards, developments in evaluative methodologies and the practical realities confronting modern public administration,” he said.
Stating that the SRC has a difficult task of achieving consistency, proportionality, fairness and equity across a broad spectrum of constitutional and statutory officers, Justice Seepersad said: “The effective discharge of this responsibility necessarily requires the adoption of objective methodologies capable of producing coherent, principled and consistent outcomes across its entire remit.”
Despite finding that the case lacked merit, Justice Seepersad ordered the parties to bear their own legal costs.
Contacted after the judgment was delivered, West did not rule out the possibility of an appeal.
“The PCA will have a conference with Senior Counsel to determine the next step, if any,” West said.
In a statement, Chief Personnel Officer (CPO) Dr Daryl Dindial, who serves as the SRC’s secretary, said he was not surprised by the outcome.
“I maintain that the SRC has consistently demonstrated by their actions, that every aspect of the job evaluation exercise met the highest levels of quality assurance, procedural fairness, stakeholder engagement, transparency, and the use of reliable and valid market data,” Dindial said, as he noted that a world-renowned evaluation methodology was utilised.
“I am therefore hopeful that every office holder under the purview of the SRC is comforted by this judgment,” he added.
The PCA, West and Solomon-Baksh were represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, Anthony Bullock, and Imran Ali. The SRC was represented by Jason Mootoo, SC, Tamara Toolsie and Miranda Julien. The Cabinet was represented by Shalini Singh and Vincent Jardine.
