PHILIPSBURG--Police union NAPB St. Maarten says there has been no agreement from the union on the approved function books for justice system workers.
“The board of the NAPB wants to make it emphatically clear that neither the membership of the NAPB nor the board of the NAPB has approved the latest version of the function books,” the union said in a press statement on Tuesday.
“NAPB has not signed off with this Minister of Justice or the Minister of General Affairs on any function book as part of a covenant or part of a collective labour agreement.”
NAPB said that there had been intentions to involve union representatives in the process of reviewing the function books in the Committee of Civil Servants Unions (CCSU) but it was only allowed to participate as “observer”.
“As observer, we have followed all meetings held by this consultative body reviewing the function books. The advice prepared by the CCSU was very critical,” said the union.
NAPB said that at no time had CCSU and the minister reached a consensus for the minister to continue. “The minister was advised to take all the legislative concerns of the union representatives in the CCSU into account prior to resubmitting her request to the CCSU,” NAPB said. It said the Minister had never resubmitted an amended version of the function book to the CCSU. “In other words, no consensus was reached with the CCSU members.”
“What happened to the controversial issues pointed out by the union representatives in the CCSU?” they asked.
The unions said there are decisions that are in conflict with established legislation, such as article four of the National Ordinance on the Organisation of Government LIOL, all legislation regulating the range of justice personnel, all legislation regulating the Reporting Center for Unusual Transactions MOT, legislation regulating the functioning of the National Detectives and legislation regulating the functioning of the St. Maarten Police Force KPSM.
They added that legal advice of the Legal Affairs Department was missing, “which is considered critical when proposing amendments that deviate from established legislation.”
“The proposed amendments to reduce previously-agreed-on fees are not in accordance with the conditions of the country package of December 2020, the Plan of Approach Strengthening Border Control 2018, and recommendations of the Progress Committee of 2019-2020,” NAPB added.
The union further stated that the draft National Decree containing general measures (Landsbesluit Houdende algemene maatregelen LB HAM) contains information that is not in accordance with the proposed formation in the respective formation plans submitted. These differences result in a financial paragraph containing an inaccurate financial analysis.
“The intention of the Minister of Justice to centralise the ‘bedrijfsvoering’ of Justice, in doing so make 33 Justice employees ‘boven formatief’. This is contrary to legislations of all justice departments (with the exception of Justitiele Zaken and Stafbureau), which clearly indicate that by law all departments within Justice have their own ‘bedrijfsvoering’ that handles sensitive information,” the union pointed out.
“In her answer to the CCSU the Minister of Justice did not ask the CCSU for further clarification or elucidation, but informed the CCSU that she would proceed to send the function books to the Advisory Council,” the union said in its statement. “In other words, neither the unions represented in the CCSU, nor the police union has given their approval to the function books version the minister sent to the Advisory Council.
“If the function books approved yesterday are the version which the CCSU members have criticised, how can the minister thank the unions, where NAPB for sure did not have any agreement with the minister on the function books, which has to regulate the legal position of its members in the justice system?” the union asked.
NAPB said there had been several instances of discriminatory treatment of police officers regarding overtime allowance, the salary scales and the promotion policy for police officers.
It also noted the lack of a cost-of-living allowance since 2011 and lack of clarity on the budget and what it could mean for members of KPSM.
“On top of that the minister started to talk publicly about incorrect police action and police brutality, which is not boosting the motivation and the morale of police officers,” said the union.
The union stated that every union as well as the NAPB has the right to collective bargaining. “The right to collective bargaining is the right to negotiate collective labour agreements for its members,” it stated.
“The Minister of Justice still denies the right to collective bargaining to the NAPB. Where in the Netherlands police unions negotiate collective labour agreements for their members, in St. Maarten this is still not the case.
“In St. Maarten the CCSU is still the consultative body which addresses all changes in the legal position of civil servants, also of the police. NAPB has demanded that, just as in the Netherlands the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on Collective Bargaining C154 already resulted in collective labour agreements negotiated by the police unions with the Minister of Justice, the Chief of Police, this also should be happening in St. Maarten.
“In conclusion, based on the ‘statement of assent’ that was exposed on social media, we, the board of the NAPB, would like to explain that these signatures were pertaining to the change of the number of FTEs [Full Time Equivalents – Ed.] on the formation plan and not for the Function Book that was never seen. This, according to us, is not good governance and shows a lack of integrity,” the union concluded.
