Private Notice Question

Transcription

1 Private Notice Question To ask Dr the Honourable Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Home Affairs and External Communications, Minister for Rodrigues - Whether, in regard to the PRB Report 2013, he will state (a) how same was approved by Government when the recommendations thereof widen the gap between the highest and the lowest paid civil servants, indicating the requests submitted by the Unions in relation thereto, including if they have proposed an interim wage increase; (b) the names of the persons proposed by the Unions as Chairperson and Members of the Committee on Errors, Omissions and Anomalies; and (c) if Government has discussed with the Mauritius Employers Federation and the Unions of the private sector regarding any request from the employees of the private sector for an adjustment of the salaries, as a consequence thereof? REPLY Mr Speaker, Sir, The House will surely appreciate that Government has fulfilled its promise by ensuring the publication of the 2013 PRB Report ahead of time, despite a very tight and extremely economic difficult context. A salary review is normally due every five years. As the last report was published in July in fact, this new report should have been published in July 2013 and, therefore, should be applicable in January of we are, therefore, in real terms having a salary review in four and a half years instead of five years. This report is also applicable to Rodrigues and all the parastatal bodies. Nevertheless, the Government has approved the 2013 report in toto, to be effective on 01 January 2013, that is, instead of July Payment will be effected in full. The House will recall that in 2003, even though there was no global economic crisis, payment of the PRB salaries had been phased over two financial years. In evolving the proposed package, the PRB has taken into consideration the following factors -

2 (i) the capacity of the Government to pay; (ii) the economic and financial development in the country; (iii) the remuneration trends in the economy and market realities; (iv) the need to retain experienced and scarce talents; (v) the need to maintain an acceptable salary ratio of General Worker to Permanent Secretary; (vi) the need to partially bridge the gap between public sector and private sector at the appropriate levels of the echelon; (vii) the need to establish fair relativities to maintain harmonious employee relations; (viii) the erosion of purchasing power since the 2008 Pay Review; (ix) the unparalleled job security, pension benefits, work life balance and status provided by public sector jobs, and (x) the need to strike the right balance between providing an adequate pay package and ensuring social acceptability, among others. Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to part (a) of the question, Government decided to approve the 2013 PRB Report in the full knowledge that the Report, itself, makes provision for errors and omissions as in the past. After the publication of the Report, Government received a number of representations from the Trade Unions and including they were asking for a meeting with me. I accepted to meet them on the 26 of October 2012 and, as a responsible Government, decided to extend the scope of eventual corrective measures not only to errors and omissions but also to alleged anomalies. This decision was communicated to the representatives of the Trade Unions at the meeting I had with them. The Trade Unions unanimously approved the proposed course of action and, at their request, Government decided to extend the deadline for the submission of Option Forms to 19 November It was also agreed that all submissions relating to Errors and Omissions and alleged anomalies should be submitted by 30 November It was further agreed that the Committee set up to look into Errors and Omissions and alleged anomalies should submit its Report by the end of February I wish to point out, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the salary ratio General Worker to Permanent Secretary which was 1:8.6 in July 2008 was reduced to 1:7.7 in December This ratio has been reinstated at 1:8.8 with the 2013 Report. 2

3 Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to part (b) of the question, during the meeting with Trade Unions, I invited them to submit the names of potential persons who may form part of the Committee on Errors, Omissions and Anomalies. I am informed that the Trade Unions, subsequently, submitted the following names - Trade Unions (i) State and Other Employees Federation (ii) Government Teachers Union (iii) Primary School Common Front (iv) Trade Unions Common Platform Names Mr Mick Gujadhur as Chairperson and Mr Abdool Hamid Malleck Amode as Assessor Mr Bijaye Coomar Appanah, former Director of PRB Mr Bijaye Coomar Appanah Mr Paul Matthews - Consultant Mr Chandan Jankee, Professor in Economics Mr Kemil Gobin However, the Unions were unable to reach consensus on either the Chairperson or the Members of the Committee. In the circumstances, Cabinet decided on the 16 of November 2012 that the Committee on Errors, Omissions and Anomalies of the PRB Report 2013 to be as follows - (a) Chairperson Mr Dharam Dev Manraj, former Financial Secretary and presently Senior Adviser, Project Management and Delivery Unit of my Office; (b) Members Mr Devendra Parsad Ruhee, former Senior Chief Executive and presently President of the Public Officers Welfare Council, and (c) Mr Khemil Gobin, Director, Edge Consulting, a company specialised in Human Resource Services (his name was proposed by the Trade Union Platform itself). I wish to highlight the fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Trade Union Common Front has welcomed the appointment of Mr Dev Manraj as Chairperson of the Errors, Omissions and Anomalies Committee. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the same meeting, a request was made by the Trade Unions for an interim increase of Rs2,000 to be paid across the board to public officers. However, following 3

4 the decision to set up the Committee on Errors, Omissions and alleged Anomalies, they did not pursue the matter further. This is, Mr Speaker, Sir, not the first time that the publication of the PRB Report is the subject of representations from Trade Union Representatives relating to errors, omissions and alleged anomalies. For instance, the 1987 PRB Report was accepted by Cabinet but rejected by the Unions. This led to considerable tension and Government, subsequently, appointed Mr Donald Chesworth as Salaries Commissioner in April Mr Chesworth submitted his Report in September 1988 in which he made, inter-alia, the following observations and I quote - It is of course the custom that after a major salary review this is followed by the vigorous pursuit of anomaly claims. Since there is a convention that for existing holders of all posts there should be no deterioration in remuneration or conditions of employment, there is every incentive for both Unions and individuals to reiterate their claims described not just as anomalies but glaring anomalies. Presentation of anomaly claims is a highly developed art, not to say popular sport in Mauritius. The temptation to do this is enormous since nothing can be lost, and there is always the prospect of improvement if there is some forum with revising powers. Unquote Mr Speaker, Sir, after the publication of the PRB Report in 1993, many Unions reported industrial dispute on alleged anomalies arising out of the Report. The then Minister of Civil Service referred the dispute to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal which decided to set up an Ad-hoc Anomalies Advisory Committee to assist in the determination of the dispute. It was only three years later in 1996 that the Tribunal came up with a set of awards. The PRB Report of 1998 was released in August with effective date being 01 July The Errors and Omissions Report was published in June Following complaints received from Trade Unions on the 1998 Report, the then Government decided in July 1999 to set up an Ad-hoc Committee to look into representations regarding the alleged anomalies. The Committee submitted its Report in October The 2003 PRB Report was published in June 2003 with effective date being 01 July The Errors and Omissions Report was published in May

5 The 2008 PRB Report was published in May 2008 and the Errors and Omissions Report in June Thus, Mr Speaker, Sir, this amply demonstrates that there is nothing anomalous about representations being made about anomalies. Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding part (c) of the question, salary adjustment in the Private Sector is a matter for collective bargaining between employer and employee in sectors not governed by Remuneration Orders. Government otherwise intervened with statutory increases that take into account cost of living and these are addressed yearly in the additional Remuneration Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, I should also perhaps add. It is a fact that salary increases in the public sector at certain echelons tend to gradually lead to adjustments in the private sector. However, it is well known that, in the private sector, salaries and perks are skewed in favour of the top and middle management. It is important for good industrial relations that such disparities be remedied. Had the PRB Report been a mere unit within the Ministry instead of an independent institution, the need for Government approval and the provision for a post-prb mechanism for correction of errors, omissions and anomalies would then not have arisen. Because PRB is allowed to operate independently, Government reserves to itself the freedom to approve its Report purely and simply or, as it has done in this year s Report, to have the Report re-examined as regards errors, omissions and anomalies. The approach that Government has taken in the implementation of the 2013 PRB Report has been endorsed almost unanimously. In fact, as at 10 a.m. this morning, 51,940 out of the 52,612 civil servants have already submitted their Option Forms which comes to about 98%. 5