PROPOSALS FOR ATTORNEYS’ AND NOTARIES’ EMPLOYEES (R.O.) REGULATIONS

1.INTRODUCTION
On 7th August 2007, the Minister of Labour, Industrial Relations and Employment, acting under Section 94(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1973 (IRA), referred to the National Remuneration Board (Board) the Attorneys’ and Notaries’ Employees (Remuneration Order) Regulations 1994 for an extensive review. The review exercise was initiated in January 2008. Public Hearings ended in October 2008. However following the reconstitution of the Board under the Employment Relations Act 2008 (ERA), acting under Section 108 (13), the Board proceeded as follows:
•Notice inviting interested parties to re‐submit written representations were published in the Government Gazette on 9 June 2009 and two daily newspapers, namely Le Mauricien and Le Socialiste, on 11 June 2009.
•The same parties responded as in the previous exercise:
‐The Mauritius Law Society (MLS), representing the attorneys;
‐A group of employees representing the interest of attorneys’ Clerks;
‐A group of employees representing the interest of notaries’ Clerks;

•The Board held one public hearing on 17 July 2009 whereby parties confirmed their earlier written and oral submissions and with general consent, proceedings held previously were made part of the present proceeding. Despite being contacted on several occasions, notaries neither submitted any written representations, nor were they represented at the hearing sessions. To make matters worse, despite reminders the Chamber of Notaries did not make the least move to provide the information sought by the Board for the purpose of this review exercise.
•On completion of public hearing, the Board undertook its own fact gathering exercise. However, out of fear, real or imaginary, there was a certain reluctance on the part of employees to
respond and submit required information. Despite given the assurance that all information will be treated with strict confidentiality, only 12 respondents dared to participate in the Board’s investigations. The Board would like to put on record the non‐collaborative attitude of the employers and their representatives during the Board’s survey.

2.OVERVIEW
Whereas the Notaries Act 2008 limits the number of notaries to a maximum of 100, there is no restriction as regards attorneys. As at November 2009, according to the records of the Supreme Court, there were 56 notaries and 138 attorneys as compared to 35 and 108 respectively in 1994, when the R.O. was last revised. Hardly 6 notaries and 3 attorneys employ more than 9 employees, providing employment to around 170 persons. Based on the figures of the Census of Economic Activities conducted in 2007, the attorneys and notaries employing less than 10 persons, employed around 728 workers of whom 6.6% were engaged on a part‐time basis. 57% of the full time employees were female workers. The average number of paid employees per unit stood at 3.5 for attorneys and 5.4 for notaries. It should however be noted that the present R.O. caters for only two categories of employees in this sector namely, Clerks and Typists while the messengers are covered by a separate R.O. of their own.
According to the Board’s observations 33.3% of employees are being remunerated above the minimum prescribed rates, 33.3% are drawing strictly the minimum rate and the rest are being under-remunerated. It is worth mentioning that in at least one case a clerk in his 8th year of service with his employer, while reckoning an overall 14 years’ experience in this field, is drawing 3% below the starting salary prescribed for a new entrant and therefore 16% less than the rate prescribed for an employee with 8 years service! This is a clear sign of bad faith on the part of the employer.

For complete proposals:
http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/labour/file/att_not.pdf