The Government says it respects Friday’s ruling by the Constitutional Court which sided with rank-and-file members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) in their dispute with the Administration regarding overtime pay.

The claim was brought by the Jamaica Police Federation – which represents the rank-and-file cops –which had accused the government of failing to keep promises made in respect of their overtime payment.

In a lengthy statement late Friday afternoon, the Minister of Finance and the Public Service, Dr Nigel Clarke, said the material facts in the matter were not in dispute.

With the government accused of being high-handed in the now settled dispute, and of disrespecting the police, Clarke has provided background information he said was missing from the public discourse.

He noted that in 2008, the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) and the Federation agreed that all rank-and-file members of the police force would receive pay for an additional 10 hours regardless of whether they worked in excess of 40 hours.

“This was to be implemented until a system that could capture actual hours worked was in place,” Clarke shared.

He said the Federation and the government affirmed the “added hours” arrangement in several Heads of Agreement entered into since 2008.

“In addition, since 2008, the Government of Jamaica has paid this ‘added hours’ to all rank-and-file members of the Jamaica Police Force.

“What was in dispute was the interpretation and implication of the facts,” said Clarke.

He said that despite its efforts, the government has not yet implemented a system for capturing actual hours worked by rank-and-file members of the JCF.

“On this basis the claimants sought compensation retroactive from April 1, 2008, to the present, for overtime actually worked across this period.

“The judgment delivered today found that there is ‘no scope’ for such a payment given the ‘ten-hour overtime payment’ agreed to, and accepted by, the GOJ and the Jamaica Police Federation since 2008 and which has been, and continues to be paid,” Clarke stated.

He said that the government, through the Ministry of National Security, has commenced the process of procuring the system for capturing the actual time worked by police officers.

“This work commenced some time ago and the central government budget submitted to Parliament in February 2022 contains amounts dedicated to the payment for this system,” said Clarke.

The Full Court ruled that the government was in breach of several Heads of Agreement for five contract periods with the Police Federation relating to overtime pay.

The court in its ruling declared that the Heads of Agreement entered between the Federation and the Ministry of Finance for the contract periods April 2008 to March 2010, April 2015 to March 2017 and April 2018 to March 2019 are binding on the government.

It said those Heads of Agreement “constitute binding contracts between the parties and created a legitimate expectation among the members of the Force”.

The court ordered that the defendants should, before March 31, 2023, put in place a system which is in accordance with the terms agreed in the Heads of Agreements and which will capture the actual hours worked by JCF members in excess of 40 hours per week and that the members should “thereafter be remunerated accordingly for such excess hours”.

The court further ruled that costs to the claimants against the defendants are to be taxed or agreed.

However, on the issue of whether the claimants were entitled to damages, the court said the agreed 10-hour overtime payment accepted until the system was put in place represents agreed liquidated damages.

In the claim, the Police Federation, now headed by Corporal Rohan James, sued the government because of “frustrations caused by the state’s failure to keep promises made”.

According to the court, unchallenged evidence revealed that the existing manual recording system for the police force remained unreliable due to “integrity issues”. The claimants further contended that a new system has not yet been established and further argued that they are contractually entitled to have the system established.

The claimants sued the government for compensation retroactively computed from April 2008 to present for overtime actually worked in the period and sought declarations and orders as well as damages.