Pay structure for Magistrates and Judges

The salary scales for magistrates and judges appeared in the media early in 2013. The then Minister for Finance, Mr. Githae, alluded to, without elaborating, the apparent disparities in the proposed pay structure. 

In an unpublished article of April 13, 2013, I made my own observations on the same as follows:

The basic salary scales proposed by the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) for magistrates and judges, show differences between different grade levels, that are hard to comprehend. The proposed basic salaries vary irregularly between successive job grades. Clearly, a difference of thirteen percent (13%) between the lowest job grade and the second lowest job grade; a difference of fifty-six percent (56%) between job grade level 2 and level 3; eleven percent (11%) between level 3 and level 4, and a difference of thirty-nine percent (39%) between level 4 and level 5, cannot be explained. Such an irregular pattern in the pay structure signifies a problem, either in the organizational structure, or inequalities in the salary structure itself, or both.

A graphical representation highlights these differences clearly. The graph is constructed using the data in table 1, below, of the recommended base pay. In addition, a new row is inserted to indicate what would be expected to be the maximum pay for each job grade level.

Table 1: Judiciary salary for levels 1 to 9 (from the lowest to the highest job grade)

The projected maximum pay is inserted by assuming that a single factor could be used to determine the range of pay for each job grade. In this case the highest job grade, level 9 (Chief Justice) is used as the reference point. The difference between the minimum base pay for this grade, at KES 1 million, and the maximum pay at KES 1.3 million, is thirty percent (30%). Assuming that the same mark-up of 30% can be applied to all the other job grade levels, we can obtain the maximum pay for each job grade as shown in table 1. It is not uncommon to find business organizations applying a 40% to 60% mark-up between the minimum and the maximum pay for job grades at managerial and executive levels.

The pay rates for levels 6, 7 and 8 are not shown in the SRC’s pay structure. We can insert the values by using extrapolation for the purpose of constructing Table 1. The salary curves constructed from Table 1 data are shown below as Graph 1.

Graph 1: Salary Curves for the Judiciary based on Table 1 data 

From Series 1 (0 – 12) on the Graph we can see grade levels 1 to 9(Resident Magistrate to Chief Justice).

Series 2 line represents the SRC’s proposed pay rates, and

Series 3 represents possible maximum pay, which is set at 30% above the base pay rate for each grade level.

 As can be seen from the graph, the series 1 curve highlights the irregularities in the base pay rates for different job grades in the judiciary. The judgments and policy decisions taken in arriving at the base pay may have contributed to this anomaly. But more likely, the distortions are the result of superimposing the results of a shoddy job evaluation exercise onto a bad salary structure.

The same information can be used, depending on policy decisions, to construct a salary structure that takes into consideration the concept of equity. An example of this is shown in Graph 2, constructed using Table 2, which is a modified version of Table 1. 

Table 2

Graph 2: Salary structure using SRC’s pay rates after reducing disparities                                                                                                                      Series 1 represents the proposed base pay, and series 2, the maximum pay at 30% mark-up

Although the resulting salary curves are not perfectly smooth, at least most of the inequities in the pay structure, shown in Graph 1, are removed. The remaining inequities can easily be resolved by making the necessary pay adjustments. 

The above are only illustrations of how inequities in a pay structure may be highlighted. It is important to note that, in many cases, it is the inequities in pay, whether perceived, real or imagined, that are the source of dissatisfaction in organizations rather than the actual pay per se. It is important to emphasize that setting pay levels, and removing pay disparities in the resulting salary structures are two distinctly different activities.

It is often the case, that after the pay structure has been established through fiscal policy decisions and judgments, inequities emerge in the pay structure. The effective solution to eliminating such inequities is to conduct a thorough job analysis, write job descriptions (usually job guides for senior level jobs), followed by a job evaluation exercise. The success of such an exercise will often depend on the expertise of the job analyst(s), the extent to which the key stakeholders are involved in the process of conducting the exercise, and the preparedness of the organization for the exercise. It is important to note that, a job evaluation exercise must be conducted within the entity that wishes to eliminate internal inequities in pay, and cannot be conducted across different entities as the SRC has attempted doing for the public sector.  

In conclusion, if what is reflected by the pay structure and the salary curves for the magistrates and judges in the judiciary is anything to go by, then the SRC has some homework waiting to be done. Otherwise there will be murmurs over ‘inequities’ in pay. But when all is done, the public sector, and by extension, the country as a whole, will be the beneficiaries, and confidence in the Commission will be its reward.

Hopefully, the pay structure for the judiciary has since been corrected - although I have my doubts that this has been done. It is instructive to note a report appearing in the media toward the end of 2016,, of a stand-off between the SRC and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) over the latter’s sitting allowances. And, I am in full agreement with Ms. Anne Amadi – JSC Secretary – that the SRC has overstepped (and has been overstepping) its mandate – indeed, perhaps in more than one area.