Questions on CJ’s accrued vacation leave

JADA LOUTOO

NOT SO FAST, Chief Justice: the leave you think you may have, you do not. Doubt has now been cast whether Chief Justice Ivor Archie is entitled to take 35 weeks’ vacation, as sources within the Judiciary say there are no legislative provisions for accruing vacation leave.

Under the Judges Salaries and Pensions Act, judges are entitled to the “long vacation” period from August 1 to October 2, as well as Easter and Christmas and six weeks’ vacation, for a Justice of Appeal, and four weeks for a puisne judge, with six weeks in alternate years.

Regulation 2 of the act, however, makes it clear that vacation provided for “shall be taken at such time or times as may be approved by the Chief Justice and shall not be accumulated from one year to another.” On Wednesday, Archie said he had decided not to go on a controversial six-month sabbatical.

Instead, he said he will use accrued vacation leave to “rest, reflect and study” in the United States.

In a statement, Archie said, “Conscious of consternation which appears to have been caused by opting to access my sabbatical option and in a clear desire to ensure that the heads of all arms of the State are not derailed from truly important national business by this issue, I have opted to not proceed on sabbatical.

‘However, as I have, since the middle of 2017 been engaged with the highly respected US Federal Judicial Centre on the issue of my study; and in November 2017 committed to this undertaking, I will proceed to utilise a portion of my vacation leave entitlement to address my study.

“As of today, I am entitled to 35 weeks’ unutilised vacation in the office of Chief Justice. I trust and pray that in my absence in the interest of the country and of all Judges of the Supreme Court the issue of legal interpretation of the 98th report of the SRC will be ventilated and clarified without ad hominem consideration.

“I will be returning from time to time to Trinidad and Tobago during the period of my study.”

Archie also responded to queries on his outstanding workload, saying, “I have no outstanding judgements.” He is expected to leave the country next week.

The Chief Justice’s announcement that he would take vacation leave instead of his previously planned sabbatical has not gone down well with judges, who have said if the CJ was right on his assessment of vacation leave, “then all judges have several months of accrued vacation.”

While admitting that the correlation between Regulation 1 and 2 of the Judges’ Salaries and Pension Act is not clear, they say good administration would mandate that the leave is primarily taken during the long vacation. Also on Wednesday, Senior Counsel Martin Daly said the concession by the CJ to opt out of sabbatical leave did not put him “in the clear.”

Daly described the decision by Archie as “a surrender obtained as a result of the pressure of public opinion expressed through a few resolute voices.

“However, this concession does not put the Chief Justice in the clear and one only hopes that the Government will find the capacity to be resolute regarding the outstanding issues surrounding the office of the Chief Justice in the public interest.”

There has been a chorus of condemnation over Archie’s announcement that he was taking a sabbatical.

Office of the President did not respond to questions on whether Archie’s application for vacation leave was accepted.