'It's stress and distress'

As the law term is set to begin next Monday, another judge is raising concerns about the proposed re-organisation of the Judiciary, especially as it pertains to staffing for judges.

In March, these concerns were raised by Justice Carol Gobin who spoke of the impact the proposed changes would have on judges’ support staff and their own operations.

On Tuesday, Justice Devindra Rampersad spoke of his own disquiet. In an e-mail sent to Isora Hoskins, a human resource personnel in charge of staffing at the Judiciary, Rampersad took issue with Hoskins’ earlier e-mail to judges which spoke of approved staffing for judges in both criminal and civil courts providing for one judicial support officer (JSO), one case management officer, one judicial secretary, one orderly and one judicial research counsel.

Rampersad questioned who gave the approval for the staffing allocation and by what method it was done.

“That word “approved” certainly has to be demystified. Certainly, neither myself nor any of my team was consulted despite the fact that we actually do the work and know the loads that are involved.”

Rampersad has repeatedly objected to the proposed configuration since July 2017.

“That is more than two years ago. I explained that the configuration seemed to have been conjured up before the deluge of the CPR (Civil Proceeding Rules) by someone sitting at a desk who has never seen the workings of a court or of a judge’s team,” the judge said.

He said he was assured that human resources would look at his concerns, but, according to him, he has not received a response, despite his invitation to have someone from the HR department sit in with his team for a month “to see the stress and distress that the current configuration causes to my team.”

Rampersad said he also raised his concerns with the court executive administrator (CEA), who, at the end of an exchange of e-mails, indicated that his concern was above her pay grade, and he was referred to the Chief Justice.

He also said he had discussions with the CJ and told it would be addressed.

“I am therefore quite surprised that you are sending this notification to me with the attachment reiterating a position which I have repeatedly called for dialogue and review on without any success to date,” the judge wrote.

He said he had an extra JSO with him until July but she has since reverted to her designated post at the Finance Ministry.

“As a result, and having regard to the blatant unwavering failure or neglect to address this staffing concern, I know that I would not be given a replacement.

“Consequently, my team’s work has suffered tremendously. Dates for hearings are now being affected negatively, as are the preparation of orders, minutes, etc as my team continues to struggle with the normal workload and the increased demands of online orders and e-mails.

“On one day alone we receive in excess of 50 e-mails – some of which were inter-related and all of which are related to files which were not before us and which had to be retrieved and which required considerable time and effort to deal with. Add that to the rigours of daily trials and CMC (case management conferences) hearings. It is the reality of the current weight of my docket and my team’s responsibilities – a reality not shared or experienced by some unknown decision-maker who has approved a configuration but who may have been on the firing line of a CPR docket or even spoken to someone who has.

“Now, with even more foreboding is your indication of some unidentified changes,” he said.

Rampersad said the proposed staffing changes were not discussed with judges – “a very important stakeholder – the face of the Judiciary, who does the public work on the frontline of dispute resolution and who bears the brunt of the criticisms for delays and inefficiencies.”

“If a litigant now has to wait an extra two months or more for a hearing, their grouse is not expressed in terms of the deficiencies of the HR department but it is addressed as a deficiency of the judge.

“As I await some kind of indication of this impending change, I once more voice my objection to the configuration mentioned and call for an informed review of the manner in which such “approval” is assessed and granted. I have seen more than one of my staff crumble under the pressure.

“The days for this sort of autocracy and the imposition of, and on, human relations without dialogue, despite several seemingly disregarded attempts to do so, ought to be behind us. Issues are best heard with they are listened to,” he said.

Also in March, administrative staff at the Judiciary, with their union – the Public Service Association (PSA) threatened to shut down the courts to protest a move to terminate them and hire contract workers to fill key positions.

They stayed away for one day and called it a “justice holiday,” held vigils for days outside the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain and prayer sessions at courts throughout TT.

A lawyer’s letter was also sent to the Judiciary on behalf of workers also asking for disclosure on the proposed changes.

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.

The Judiciary has said it was re-organising each district court for improved efficiency and productivity.

The Judiciary’s CEA Master Christie Ann Morris-Alleyne has previously said the changes are the result of the combination of new legislation and initiatives to reduce the backlog of cases in the system.