BELL: RULING ON POLICE OVERTIME A ‘HOLLOW JUDGMENT’

By KHRISNA VIRGIL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kvirgil@tribunemedia.net

STATE National Security Minister Keith Bell yesterday branded the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that mandates police officers be compensated for overtime pay a “hollow judgment”.

While Mr Bell would not comment on whether he supported the court’s ruling, he told The Tribune that officers were not entitled to overtime pay.

“In my view the judgment is a hollow one,” Mr Bell said, “ They didn’t get anything. The only award is cost which the government must pay if we don’t appeal. But that can be taken from the private engagement funds.

“This issue is not whether I support or not. They are not entitled to it.”

He said he was unsure of whether the government would seek to appeal the ruling. Mr Bell spoke to this newspaper from the British Virgin Islands where he is attending the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference.

In his ruling this month, Justice Milton Evans said a Force Order issued by former Police Commissioner Paul Farquharson in 2003 was relevant to the matter, as it mandated that public officers be paid when they work for more than 40 hours in a normal 40-hour work week.

Although counsel for the government argued that the Order isn’t applicable because of its references to the Employment Act, which does not apply to police officers, Justice Evans determined that the salient point is that the Commissioner had clearly set out the terms applicable to “officers who work overtime”. 

On Wednesday attorney Wayne Munroe said the Police Staff Association was prepared to act on the Supreme Court ruling mandating police officers be compensated, adding that he was “puzzled” by the lack of official response.

Mr Munroe pointed out that the ruling gave Commissioner of Police Ellison Greenslade the opportunity to decide whether officers – who have worked 12-hour shifts within the last two years – were paid overtime or given time back.

However, Mr Munroe said the Police Staff Association has not received any communication from the police chief despite the fact that he was free to discuss the terms of compliance with the ruling with the Police Staff Association at his convenience.

Mr Munroe, legal counsel for the PSA, made his comments during an appearance on Guardian Talk Radio with Jeff Lloyd.

He said: “What is a bit disconcerting, puzzling and upsetting, is that you don’t have a sitting down with, even if it’s just the association, to say let’s work it out.

“Since the ruling, nothing. This is the sort of thing that you should be able to work out. I would do that because I’d want to reduce cost, I would want to keep police morale high. Hopefully that will still happen perhaps they are just looking at it to see if it [ruling] is legally sound.

“We are prepared to do what is necessary to make sure that the thing works as it’s supposed to work and we encourage the persons on the other side to do the same.”

He added: “Whether they pay (officers) or give time back is a matter for the Commissioner of Police. But if you don’t have sufficient officers that caused you to do a 12-hour shift anyway, how you gone let all these people take this time back?”

Earlier this week, State Minister for Legal Affairs Damian Gomez - acting Attorney General at the time - told The Tribune that the government has not yet determined whether it would appeal Justice Evans’ decision, saying officials are likely to discuss the way forward on the matter this week.

Comments

Well_mudda_take_sic says...

Our hard working law enforcement officers deserve the overtime pay they have earned consistent with the Court's ruling on this matter. As for the privileged and very highly paid law enforcement officers assigned directly to the illegal intelligence unit under the command of Nottage and Bell, well, these very privileged officers frankly do not deserve any overtime pay or other perks of any kind.

Posted 31 July 2015, 12:19 p.m. Suggest removal

John says...

Wait until the new Shane Gibson's minimum wage kick in next month . Unemployment will skyrocket. As for the armed forces receiving overtime pay, It is a catch 22 situation. Does this mean that police are no longer officers 24/7? This ruling not only have the potential to become extremely expensive but gives police officers grounds to refuse when they are called to duty. It puts grave restrictions on authorities to manage the manpower of the force

Posted 31 July 2015, 1:16 p.m. Suggest removal

Guy says...

Your argument has been proven mute in 2001 when the minimum wage was increased to $150. Have you tried living on 700 a month? It is impossible. As for your position on the court ruling...it does no such thing. It does not suggest that officers can refuse to be called to duty. What it does say, is if they are called to work 50 percent more hours, that they should be compensated...either by overtime pay, or rest time. You cant just move a 40 hour week to 60 hours and say tough luck.

Posted 2 August 2015, 12:34 a.m. Suggest removal

proudloudandfnm says...

What a moron....

Bell just needs to hush....

Posted 31 July 2015, 1:57 p.m. Suggest removal

Bahamianpride says...

Any required work other than upper management or contract work beyond 40 hrs must be compensated with time or pay, especially involving the people who protect us. Pay the cops, in fact raise the standards for hire and pay them more, they protect our lives. Take the money from political budgets of our politicians, more than enough to cover the cost.

Posted 31 July 2015, 3:42 p.m. Suggest removal

pablojay says...

I have written a few blogs concerning Bell before and this article continues to reaffirm my
opinion that he is an ass,though(supposedly) an intelligent one. After all he is a minister of
state in the present government , maybe that says it all. Every time he opens his mouth,
foolishness comes out. If you didn't know it ,you would never guess that he was a police
officer. It reminds me of many of our people who have attained a lofty position and have
permanently erased from their minds the fact that they came up from the ranks.
The article say that he refused to comment on whether or not he supports the Court's
ruling, but everything he said shows my toddler grandson that he does not support it.
A "no comment" would have been a neutral answer.

Posted 1 August 2015, 11:29 a.m. Suggest removal

John says...

Sometimes it is more productive to address the issues rather than attacking personalities. Can the Bahamas really afford to pay its armed forces over time?

Posted 1 August 2015, 12:44 p.m. Suggest removal

thomas says...

If they can pay 12 million for carnival they can pay the armed forces

Posted 1 August 2015, 1:08 p.m. Suggest removal

pablojay says...

Exactly my sentiments ! They spend money wherever they want and not necessarily on
what the country needs.

Posted 1 August 2015, 1:14 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment