PSA’s attorneys write to judiciary

THOUGH for the past three weeks judiciary workers have been protesting, the Public Service Association (PSA) has now decided to retain attorneys who yesterday wrote to the judiciary to find out exactly what changes it intends to make to its workforce.

Addressed to court executive administrator Master Christie Anne Morris-Alleyne, the law firm Fortis Chambers headed by attorney Jagdeo Singh, said new contract employment being introduced to fill posts currently occupied by both permanent and contract staff, would have serious consequences.Judiciary staff, both permanent and on contract, have been protesting on mornings outside Hall of Justice, Port of Spain, San Fernando High Court and magistrates’ courts throughout the country.

PSA’s president Waston Duke has been leading them in prayer sessions on mornings and on Friday last, he requested that they leave their jobs every hour to pray or 15 minutes.

Duke is contending that the job of judicial support officers who work directly with judges in the civil and criminal courts, marshalls, baliffs, magistrates’ note takers and clerical staff, will be made redundant by the proposed changes.

The judiciary, however, is yet to disclose exactly what the changes would be.Attorney Kiel Taklalsingh told Morris-Alleyne in the letter that with Singh and attorney Dinesh Rambally who is a former Industrial Court judge, they act for PSA and want full scope of the changes and positions that would be affected. The letter warned that posts currently occupied by already-trained personnel in the judiciary, came from the general public service and the proposed changes could affect its independence.

The letter said, “As you would no doubt appreciate, such a change in the administrative arrangements of the judiciary, may have myriad of consequences not only for the employment status of numerous workers, but also for the administration of justice itself given the high standards of impartiality and independence with which the judiciary must conduct all of its affairs including internal administration.” The letter reiterated that the proposed changes should not be cloaked in secrecy.