Public Service: The Suspension of the 'Sunday Allowance' Sparks Outrage

The suspension of the Sunday allowance by the Pay Research Bureau (PRB) has incited anger among unions. Denouncing the unilateral and unjust decision, they fear a deterioration of public service and social climate.

The suspension of the 'Sunday Allowance' in the latest PRB report has sent shockwaves through the public service. Justified by a challenging financial situation, this measure has immediately provoked a strong reaction from unions. Several organizations criticize the unilateral decision, made without prior consultation, and warn that its consequences could be felt far beyond the workers directly affected. A committee is expected to address the issue soon, but in the meantime, social tensions are rising.

This allowance previously concerned a well-defined segment of the public service. The public sector comprises three categories of workers: 'normal workers,' 'roster workers,' and 'shift workers.' The latter two categories were eligible due to the particular nature of their work schedules. Beneficiaries are primarily officers in essential services required to work on Sundays to ensure the continuity of public service, often in emergency or high-pressure situations.

In practice, Sunday work is integral to the organization of many state services. Police, firefighters, hospital staff, rescue services, and certain technical units operate under rotational schedules that do not align with the traditional workweek. The 'Sunday Allowance' aimed to acknowledge this particular constraint while ensuring workforce availability on traditionally rest days.

For unions, the removal of this allowance feels like a decision made without regard to real-world conditions. They emphasize that Sunday work is not a personal choice but a professional obligation driven by public service requirements. They argue that the 'Sunday Allowance' was part of a broader system designed to ensure an appropriate public service, including on weekends and holidays.

Unilateral Decision
The Government Services Employees Association (GSEA) is among the most critical organizations. Its president, Prakash Balukram, laments a decision made without prior consultation with social partners. He finds this method unacceptable, given the direct impact on the working conditions of thousands of public servants affected by rotational and standby schedules. According to him, 'shift workers' are regularly called to work at atypical hours, often in emergency contexts. The GSEA notably represents categories such as firefighters, who are directly impacted by the suspension of the 'Sunday Allowance.'

"This allowance has never been merely a financial incentive. It ensured adequate service even during days off. Today, it is a right taken away from some workers," insists Prakash Balukram. He believes the burden placed on public servants is disproportionate, especially since they are already under significant constraints related to their duties. The union calls on the government to reconsider its stance and announces that it will continue its efforts to obtain a revision of the decision.

Financial Argument Strongly Contested
The financial argument put forth by the PRB has drawn sharp criticism from unions. The Mauritius Labour Congress (MLC) has also stepped into the fray. Its president, Haniff Peerun, openly demands the resignation of the PRB director and calls for a new tripartite meeting involving unions, the Minister of Public Service, the Minister of Finance, and all concerned parties as soon as possible.

For Haniff Peerun, the suspension of the 'Sunday Allowance' is equivalent to retracting an acquired right. He finds the financial argument not only insufficient but profoundly unjust. "Suspending the 'Sunday Allowance' citing financial conditions is an insult. When it comes to government members, there’s money. When it concerns workers, they’re asked to make concessions," he laments.

He asserts that this allowance acts as a significant incentive, helping maintain the motivation of public servants called to work on Sundays, sometimes under difficult conditions. He warns that this decision could hinder public service operations and lead to more severe consequences in the medium term. "By making this change, we risk not only slowing down the service but also creating lasting dysfunctions," he argues.

Fragile Health System
Concerns are particularly pronounced in the health sector, which is already facing structural challenges. Amarjeet Seetohul, president of the Ministry of Health Employees Union (MHEU), warns of the potential impact of suspending the 'Sunday Allowance' on a system weakened by staffing shortages. According to him, freezing this allowance jeopardizes an entire service meant for the public, especially as health facilities must maintain a continuous presence, including on weekends. "We are already facing a human resources deficit.

With this PRB decision, many questions arise. We completely disagree," he states. He believes that service continuity also depends on recognizing the constraints placed on workers, and that removing the 'Sunday Allowance' could worsen staffing mobilization challenges.

As unions amplify their statements, the issue of the 'Sunday Allowance' has become a sensitive social matter, reflecting tensions between budgetary imperatives and operational realities. Beyond just the Sunday allowance, the balance of work in the public service and the state’s ability to guarantee quality services to the population are at stake. While awaiting the committee's conclusions and possible tripartite discussions, unions warn that they will remain mobilized.

Advisory Committee Established
Authorities have announced the establishment of an advisory committee tasked with reexamining the measure. The recommendations from this committee will then be forwarded to a High Powered Committee, which will decide on the next steps.