Teachers and Civil Servants’ Salaries Safe after SRC’s Proposed Law is rejected in Parliament
On Wednesday there was a reason for joy among all civil servants including teachers after the National Assembly turned down the Salaries and Remuneration Commission’s (SRC) proposed law that could have given the agency powers to cut their pay and allowances.
The SRC promised to scrap some allowances with some civil servants earning layered allowances likely to be the most affected.
However, government agencies including the Public Service Commission and the Parliamentary Service Commission sent their petitions to the House rubbishing the proposal as illegal leading to the rejection of the proposals.
The SRC wanted to be the only agency that is mandated to approve collective bargaining agreements reached between civil servants and their unions. It is also wanted to be able to set and review the pension schemes of civil servants.
However, through their memorandums in Parliament, the Public Service Commission (PSC) said that the SRC wanted to give itself powers of dealing with ministries, state departments, agencies and universities, all of which are crucial roles of the PSC.
The argument centred on the fact that the SRC’s role is limited to reviewing and setting salaries of state officers including the president, deputy president, Members of Parliament (MPs) Cabinet Secretaries (CSs), Principal Secretaries (PSs), Members of County Assembly (MCAs), judges and magistrates among other entities.
The National Assembly’s Delegated Legislation Committee of the National Assembly rejected the SRC’s regulations saying that the Commission did not conduct proper public participation.
As a result, the Committee reached a consensus of recommending to the House not to approve the publication of the Draft Salaries and Remuneration Commission (Remuneration and Statutory Benefits of State and Other Public Officers) Regulations, 2022 for the reasons of not conducting public participation as required by the Constitution and Statutory Instruments Act and for contravening the provisions of the SRC Act of 2011.
In addition, the Public Service Commission argued that the regulations were unconstitutional. They also felt that the regulations were to the ‘extent that they vest job and performance evaluation on the SRC and not the employer’.
Regarding CBA consultations, the PSC said that the rule derogates the powers of public service employers. Also, the way the SRC defined benefits and state bodies in the regulations allowed it to have powers of dealing directly with the ministries, state departments, agencies and universities. for simple, they felt that the SRC had overreached.
“The power to deal directly with the MDAs and public universities falls within the mandate of the Public Service Commission (PSC),” said the agency.
MPs told the SRC that just like in the past, it had overreached in its mandate to set remuneration and benefits for state officers. The Commission in charge of MPs’ welfare also criticized the Commission for giving itself powers to regulate the facilitation allowances such as mileage and per diem.
“The regulation of facilitation allowances by the SRC interferes with the responsibility of the PSC to provide facilitation of MPs to undertake their constitutional mandate,” said the MPs.
Besides, they said that state agencies are not required to obtain the approval of the SRC when it comes to setting the benefits for public officers.
In their defence, Judges argued that the Constitution allowed the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) exclusive powers to review and recommend conditions of service for judges and judicial officers.
On their part, the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) said that the rules could have allowed the SRC an irregular mandate to advise on the internal managerial prerogatives of employers.
“The SRC seeks to unlawfully usurp the mandate of the public service employers. It would do so by irregularly granting the Commission the mandate to advise on internal managerial prerogatives of the public service employers,” said Dr Nancy Macharia the TSC Chief Executive Officer.
“The term ‘benefits’ in the regulations are ultra vires for encompassing non-financial compensation which exceeds the mandate of the SRC,” added TSC.
Comments are closed.