v/a EQUA OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION (EOC/16/68 and EOC/17/126) Re: Complaint of Mr Lee Young UNT-WAN {Complainant against Mauritius Institute of Training and Development (MITD) {Respondent} REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (Pursuant to Section 33 of the Equal Opportunities Act) 1. Follo 1g advertisement and selection exercise, the-Complainant secured a job as Training Officer (Electronics) with Respondent (MITD), on a month to month contract. basis from 01 April 2012 until 31 August 2013, when he was offered employment in a substantive capacity with effect from 1 September 2013. It is not disputed by the Complainant that, at that point in time, he was being properly paid the initial salary attached to the post together with three incremental credits as provided by the relevant PRB Report. 2 The gist of the Complaint relates to an alleged discrimination (favoritism) by Respondent employer who recruited Mr Komul Prasad Ramdass, on contract basis in March 2012 and subsequently appointed him in a substantive capacity in March 2014 | prescribed salary but topped up with twelve incremental credits thereby conferring on Mr Ramdass, not only a higher salary, but also a seniority status although with the init he joined the institute after the Complainant (in defiance of the prevailing principle and practice that seniority, per se, stems from the date of substantive appointment to the relevant post). “ Page 1 of 7 Tel3. The explanation of the MITD (Respondent) regarding the reasons for the difference in treatment is as elaborately set out in its letter of 23 February 2018 (folio 47) which reads as follows: “Please refer to the meeting held on 15 February 2018 in connection with the above complaint. ‘As per you request, please find hereunder additional information pertaining to the salary offered to Mr K P Ramdass. (i) Mr K P Ramdass was initially recruited as Training officer on a one year contract basis with effect from 06 March 2012 following an ‘open advertisement in November 2011. Mr K P Ramdass was selected and negotiated his salary prior to joining the MITD on the ground that he reckoned eleven (11) years of experience which were relevant to the field in which he would be required to deliver training. To that effect, he was granted a salary of Rs 26,400/- (11 increments) plus ER in the salary scale of Rs 9,000 — Rs 40,000 as per PRB Report 2008. (ii) His contract of employment was renewed for an additional year as from 06 March 2013. (iii) He was subsequently placed on permanent and pensionable establishment on 06 March 2014, in line with the policy approved by the MITD Board in February 2013 for the placement on permanent and pensionable establishment for 107 staff who were employed on contract basis at the MITD. (iv) The MITD Board also approved that the ‘salary to be offered to the contractual officers on their placement on PPE would be the starting point on the salary scale of the grade and one increment relevant service in ld with M a TO whi Mt d his ent salar the top salary in the scale.’ (This decision has been termed as an “exceptional measure” which is no longer in force (3° page of Document A). Page 2 of 7(The salary offered to Mr KP Ramdass when placed on PPE was not at his personal request, but in pursuance of the policy adopted by the MITD Board. He was therefore granted a salary at a discounted rate of Re 32,980/- in accordance with the master conversion table of the Errors and Omissions and Anomalies Committee Report 2013 in the salary scale of Rs 23675 X 750 — 29675 X 900 - 34175 X 1200 - 3775 X 1500 ~ 52775, representing eleven (11) increments from the starting salary point in the salary scale. (vi) It may be noted that this policy was applied indiscriminately to all the 107 officers concerned. As regard Mr Lee Young Unt Wan, the following is to be noted: (i) He joined the services of the MITD on a month to month basis for a period of one year with effect from 18 October 2010. Mr Lee Young Unt Wan negotiated his salary despite he did not reckon any previous working experience prior to joining the MITD: He was granted a salary of Rs 22,000/- (5 increments) plus ER in the salary scale Rs 19,000 — Rs 40,000 as per PRB Report 2008. (ii) Mr Lee Young Unt Wan was thereafter offeréd employment on a contract basis with effect from 01 April 2011. He maintained his salary of Rs 22,000/-, His contact of employment was subsequently renewed on an annual basis up to 31 August 2013. (iil) Mr Lee Young Unt Want was offered appointment as Training Officer in a substantive capacity with effect from 01 September 2013. (iv) In line with the above policy decision, the salary offered to ‘Mr Unt Wan was Rs 25,340/- (3 increments) in the salary scale of Rs 23675 X 750 - 29675 X 900 ~ 34175 X 1200 - 37775 X 1500 X 52775 for the post of Training Officer as per the EOAC Report — PRB 2013 when he was placed on the permanent and pensionable establishment representing the initial salary point of Training Page 3 of 7Officer plus one increment for each relevant working experience he reckoned at the MITD”. During the investigation and hearing of this Complai on 27 September 2017, the ‘Acting Deputy Director who represented the MITD made the following startling remarks in answer to questions regarding the award of more than 3 increments to Mr K P Ramdass on his appointment: “The Board can take any decision concerning conditions of service and that as per the MITD Act, the Board can take any decision. In general, we follow the PRB Report but then the MITD can opt out of the PRB. This answer speaks volumes about the mentality which prevailed at the MITD, an adept of the “might is right” approach which occults and negates the fundamental principle that no one is above the law. It is worth noting that additional increments awarded to Mr RK Ramdas and others on the basis of “each year of relevant service in the field with other employers and MITD is pure fiction and not found in the PRB Report which ‘ought to have been the basis of its decision. The relevant general provisions of the PRB Report 2013 are reproduced below: “18.9 INCREMENT AND INCREMENTAL CREDIT Increment 18.9.1 Most of the grades in the Public Sector have the salaries which are in scales. A salary scale has an initial and a top salary point. Movement from the initial to the top salary point is incremental. A few grades have a flat salary (one point salary). When the salary of an officer is on an incremental scale, the holder is not entitled to draw any increment as of right. An officer, on appointment, is granted the initial salary of the salary scale of the grade. The guaranteed salary for an incumbent in the grade is the initial salary and any movement in the scale has to be earned. Increment is a method for rewarding those who have demonstrated adequate yearly progress and whose work and conduct have been satisfactory. Page 4 of 718.9.2 Besides annual incremental movement by virtue of good performance, provision exists for the grant of incremental credits for (i) previous experience/s acquired under supervision; (i) temporary service completed in the same capacity prior to substantive appointment; and (ii) additional relevant qualification/s obtained that are higher than those mentioned in the scheme of service. Incremental Credit for Experience 18.9.3 Currently, incremental credits up to a maximum of three are granted to specific categories of employees for experience acquired, under certain conditions, before entry into the service. In areas of scarcity, provision has also been made to grant ‘more than three incremental credits for experience. Further, incremental credits, up to a maximum of three, are also granted to officers who have gained experience in a similar capacity and who move from one institution to another, both being covered by the PRB. We are maintaining these recommendations. Recommendation 1 18.9.4 We recommend that one incremental credit for each year of relevant experience acquired before entry into the service up to a maximum of three should be granted in respect of the following categories: (a) post-registration experience of professionals such as in the case of Medical and Health Officer/Senior Medical and Health Officers and Dental ‘Surgeon/Senior Dental Surgeons; (b) experience after having obtained the right to practice from the appropriate registered professional body or Council as in the case of Architects, Engineers and others; (c) post-qualification relevant experience acquired by other categories of graduates who may not normally require registration or authorisation before practice; and (d) post-qualification experience in a recognised hospital for fully qualified nurses. 18.9.5 Applicants should, however, provide evidence of their experience, which should have been acquired locally or internationally, under licensed private practice or in a legally recognised institution or firm. Page Sof 7 Tal18.9.6 We also recommend that, incremental credit for experience beyond three increments may be granted in cases where an organisation encounters difficulty in the recruitment and retention of officers in a grade, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reforms (MCSAR). Movement between institutions reported upon by the PRB Recommendation 2 18.9.7 We recommend that officers who move to the Civil Service be eligible to the grant of one incremental credit, up to a maximum of three, for each year of ina similar capacity in a or Par Body and Other Statutory Body reported upon by the PRB. This recommendation should also apply to employees of the Private Secondary Schools, covered by the PRB, and joining the Civil Service. However, the incremental credits due under this recommendation would be payable on confirmation. 18.9.8 We also recommend that the provision under paragraph 18.9.7 be extended to officers of a Local Authority, a Parastatal Body and Other Statutory Body reported upon by the PRB and the Private Secondary Schools, covered by the PRB, who move from one institution to another. 18.9.9 We further recommend that the Standing Committee under the Chairmanship of itinues to examine tal experience ining the service cowards appropriate”. It is clear from the above extract from the PRB Report 2013 that the MITD got it all wrong or, at worse, deliberately chose to act ultra vires its statutory powers thus making such appointments invalid ab initio. The decision, subject matter of this Complaint, amounts to discrimination and is in complete disregard of the Equal Opportunities Act 2008 and the Guidelines for Employers (Equal Opportunity Policy at the place of work) published since April 2013, which have been completely ignored, if not flouted, at the material time. Page 6 of 77. It is a matter of concern that the generosity of the MITD, at the material time, must have made serious inroads into public funds and that same, surprisingly, has gone undetected until now. How come? 8. It is equally a matter for concern that the MITD, did not on this issue, consult the parent Ministry, the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reforms as well as the ‘Standing Committee on the issue of Seniority, raised by the Complainant, provided at para 18.9.9 of the PRB Report. 9. We trust that the MITD will address the issues raised by the Commission urgently and take corrective steps in the interests of one and all. Chairperson A Blan RR Dookhony G Shibchurn Member Member Date: 09 October 2018 Page 7 of 7 co