Review Body on Senior Salaries
Major review of the Judicial Salary Structure
Consultation Document dated 30 June 2005
Response of the District Chairmen of the Appeals Service
1. Specific questions.
1.1 The Association of District Chairmen of the Appeals Service commends the
thoroughness and transparency with which the Review Body has approached this
1.2 However, it appears to us that there are a number of errors relating to our group,
which we assume will be corrected in due course. Because of this, we believe a
proper evaluation of all the data collected from all of the full-time judiciary within
the Appeals Service warrants inclusion of District Chairmen in the existing Group
6.2, but with a revised spot rate.
1.3 The Association’s answers to the 6 questions posed on page 2 of the Consultation
Document are as follows:
This is provided that they are placed in the appropriate group.
1. Group 7 comprises a disparate collection of judicial appointments with nearly
100 points separating the extremes. Group 6.2 is a useful position into which
those scoring above Group 7 level can rise – it also allows for hierarchical
positioning against Group 6.1. For example, within the Appeals Service, the
existing Group 6.2 posts of Regional Chairman would, as recommended, rise
to Group 6.1. This would reflect levels of additional responsibility in
management and also our respective hierarchical positions.
2. The review provides scope for fixing a new spot rate for the entrants into
Group 6.2 and with it the opportunity to bridge the present substantial
differential between Group 6 and high scorers in Group 7. The previous joint
submissions made on behalf of Group 7 provide good evidence of the sense of
injustice felt by those post-holders who assimilate Group 6 responsibilities
whilst being remunerated under Group 7.
3. This review provides data from which those post-holders can now be
identified and given proper recognition.
4. In their ‘Job evaluation of the judiciary’ (paragraph 5.30) PwC state that
creation of a new unified Tribunal Service points to the need to maintain a
single salary group because of the need to have operational flexibility between
judges who sit in different types of tribunal. This is in our view a
misunderstanding. There is already such operational flexibility and there will
be no change from this if our proposals are accepted. For example, a Regional
Chairman, currently Group 6.2, sitting as an employment tribunal chairman,
Group 7, as a secondary jurisdiction continues to be paid at the rate
appropriate to their substantive appointment, ie Group 6.2. A District
Chairman, Group 7, sitting as a deputy Social Security Commissioner, Group
6.1, continues to be paid at Group 7 level. None of that would be changed or
endangered by recognising our legitimate claim to be placed in a new salary
group intermediate between the current Group 7 and Group 6. Further, this
stated concern fails to realise that although Regional Chairmen are paid at
Group 6.2, their jurisdiction is exactly the same as ours – ie judges sitting at
the same jurisdictional level are already being paid at different rates.
5. Our point is particularly relevant because two of the three proposed entrants to
the new group already have 100 points separating them.
6. A reduction of the differential by 50% between Groups 7, and 6.1 would be
acceptable to the Association.
This is because the premise is that the data supports an average score of 303 and a
median score of less than 300 (PwC, paragraph 5.23). We seek to demonstrate in
the following submission that a proper evaluation would place us well above
those levels. This means District Chairman should be in Group 6 even if Group
6.2 is abolished.
As is now clear we do not support removal of Group 6.2- but urge a remodelling
We do not resile from the argument, consistently put forward over the years, that
the differential between everyone in Group 7 and the group above is too wide.
1. We have concluded that remuneration plays little part in maintaining the high
quality of the judiciary.
2. Remuneration is not seen to be the motivation for those seeking appointment.
However, in the upper echelons it must demotivate suitable candidates whose
circumstances do not allow them the luxury of reducing their earnings.
3. We would observe that once appointed it is possible for post-holders to
encounter increasing demands, perhaps beyond expectations. This would
explain how the Review Body became concerned about the level of
dissatisfaction “…among some sections of the judiciary…”.
4. The data on pre-appointment earnings does not make it clear where District
Chairmen fit in. We are not sure whether they fall within those who overall
suffer a drop of earnings by 17% or those who gain an increase of 15%.
Many within our ranks are former principals or partners in solicitors’ firms
and our experience is that their earnings are similar in real terms, as is
5. In theory motivation could be affected if it were not for the integrity typical of
6. No conclusions can legitimately be drawn on the question of retention. Post-
holders are constrained by conditions prohibiting a return to legal practice. In
the main, therefore, there is no escape other than by promotion or seeking an
easier jurisdiction (a route which some District Chairmen are known to have
taken). Retention cannot therefore be seen as a measure of job satisfaction.
2. Ancillary considerations.
2.1 Issues surrounding the job score of District Chairmen of the Appeals Service.
2.1.1 The relevant issues relate to the evaluation of our judicial activity
2.1.2 The number in post is 64, not 8, (page24)(where reference to “Regional
Chairmen” was clearly intended to mean “District Chairmen”).
2.1.3 The number of Regional Chairmen is 7, not 12, correct on page 24, but not on
PwC page 18.
2.1.4 It is reasonable to assume that the reliability of the scoring increases with the size
of the sample. The size of the sample within the jurisdiction of the Appeals
Service was about 4.7% for District Chairmen (3 out of 64) whereas it was 43 %
for Regional Chairmen (3 out of 7).
2.1.5 The scores relate to Factor 1 – “Jurisdiction”; Factor 2 – “ Complexity and
diversity of cases”; Factor 3 –“ Impact and sensitivity of decisions”; Factor 4 –
“Court craft” and Factor 5 – “ Out of court management and leadership
2.1.6 The scores attained were as follows:
Interviewer DC Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Total
1 2 3 4 5
? Mr P 85 80 42 90 44 341
Mrs NB Mr S 65 60 42 84 36 287
Mrs NB Mr T 65 60 42 81 33 281
Interviewer RC Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Total
1 2 3 4 5
? RC x 3
2.1.7 District Chairmen and Regional Chairmen all exercise exactly the same
jurisdiction. There is no hierarchical distribution as presumed by PwC, the type of
appeals may vary from time-to- time, including the incidence of
complex/difficult/sensitive/high-value cases, but overall the profile of work is
precisely the same. Since all District Chairmen are involved in the same
jurisdiction we are unable to accept that their score can vary by 20 points in
respect of jurisdiction, or by 20 points in respect of complexity and diversity of
cases or by 9 in respect of court craft. Since however an individual’s
management responsibilities may vary according to his or her district we would
accept that there may be some variation in the score for Factor 5.
2.1.8 If, as we believe, the higher value for these factors is the most accurate, the
District Chairmen’s average score becomes 335 and the median score becomes
2.1.9 A second “test” as to the accuracy of our score comes from comparison with the
score of Regional Chairmen.
2.1.10 The work of District Chairmen is summarised in PwC - Pages 122/3 and the
Regional Chairmen in PwC - Pages 119/20.
2.1.11 As will be obvious from Para 2.1.6 hereof, we do not have access to the
breakdown of Regional Chairmen’s scores. We therefore rely upon the job
2.1.12 On page 122 the summary states, “…The role of a Regional Chairman is
primarily a management role…” While this is true, much judicial management
and listing is delegated to District Chairmen and this is reflected in the District
Chairmen’s evaluation. A District Chairman (not a Regional Chairman) is also
appointed specifically (as National Judicial Training Officer) to design and
implement the national training programme within the regions and he is assisted
by other District Chairmen as Regional Judicial Training Officers – Regional
Chairmen have very limited input into either the design or the delivery of training.
Regional Chairmen do not in general sit as frequently as District Chairmen and
are thus given more time for their management responsibilities. We do not
therefore consider that Regional Chairmen could, or should, have increased their
average score to 82 more than that of District Chairmen flowing from Factor 5
2.1.13 The remaining four Factors all relate to judicial activity where the Regional
Chairmen’s jurisdiction, duties and responsibilities are identical to those of the
District Chairmen. There is no jurisdictional hierarchy in this respect. It is
however ironic that in practice, it is the District Chairmen who exercise the
appellate jurisdiction under Section 13(2) Social Security Act 1998, because it is
District Chairmen to whom applications for leave to appeal are referred. The
Regional Chairmen’s’ job summary indicates that they “ exercise judicial
leadership by sitting on cases of special difficulty whether by reason of their
complexity; being District Chairmen’s decisions which have been set aside either
by the Commissioner or by a District Chairman: having a high value; or which
are especially sensitive”. We accept that such cases are from time to time
included on their lists but it is more often a description of what District Chairmen
do on a regular basis. We regularly sit on Commissioner’s re-hearings, on cases
of considerable complexity, on sensitive cases and on appeals involving
substantial amounts of money. A further irony is that only we are available to re-
hear appeals where the decision of a Regional Chairman may have been set aside!
Since as stated above, District Chairmen sit more frequently than Regional
Chairmen we sit on these cases to a far greater extent than they do. In addition,
each District Chairman, within every region carries a judicial “lead” responsibility
in a particular area of our jurisdiction. This results in such District Chairmen
being the first choice for listing of complex appeals in that area of responsibility.
PwC interviewers recorded in our individual job evaluation summaries that we
“are allocated the more complex cases and cases involving large monetary
awards….” We were satisfied with this description in general terms, being
unaware that Regional Chairman would go into greater detail, thus giving the
impression to their interviewers that there were types of cases exclusively for
them. The level of our hearings and their content were such as to lead PwC to
record the need for preparation to be done in our own time.
2.1.14 If, as we suspect, the Regional Chairmen have been marked more highly than us
on the four judicial factors, we conclude that because nearly 50% of Regional
Chairmen were interviewed the data is reliable and should equally apply to
2.1.15 For these reasons we submit that our scoring is too low and should be at a level
which would bring us comfortably within Group 6. Having regard to our
recognition of the management hierarchy we argue that our proper position is in a
remodelled Group 6.2.
2.2 Outside Comparisons.
2.2.1 We are sceptical about the introduction of comparison based on the PwC model
called “Monks Six Factor Methodology,” but relieved that it is intended to
“illustrate patterns of differentials only.” Our view is that it use blemishes the
hitherto transparent process of the Review. Post-holders cannot be expected to
commission organisations like PwC to frame their responses to the Consultation
Document. However, whatever statistical data may have been employed, we have
learned that it boils down to a judgement having been made which compares us
with a group of employed lawyers. It is not our experience of commerce that senior
staff are retained, if they, like the District Chairmen, are expected to remain in a
salary grade below that at which their work is valued and which includes
employees who are as much as 100 points behind them. Our experience is that
they change their employer (witness the movements in City firms)- not a course
open to the judiciary, hence the levels of dissatisfaction already noted.
2.2.2 We have noted the earnings attained by senior officers in the Armed forces to
which we accept, that at our level, the linkage is less precise. However, apart from
the Judicial Pension, we are not aware of any members of Groups 6 and 7 having
any significant perquisites of employment. Military personnel of similar rank
receive a plethora of allowances including private education for children,
accommodation, recreation, domestic staff and chauffeur driven vehicles. District
Chairmen, in the main, use their own cars to travel to distant venues and receive
only 40p per mile for doing so! This rather weakens the comparison.
2.2.3 We do not object to the value of the judicial pension being factored into the
calculation of judicial earnings although the data as to how this squares with pre-
appointment earnings of District Chairmen is not clear to us. We have mentioned
above that it might be around 15/17% above or below. Many District Chairmen and
other Group 7 Post-holders have been principals or partners in solicitors’ practices.
A comparison of earnings in real terms should include the allowances that partners
receive as self-employed earners who, as such, are favourably treated by the
Revenue in respect of e.g. health insurance, postages, stationery, journals,
telephone lines, mobile phones, IT equipment, use of home as office and quality
3. Summary of the main issue.
o District Chairmen’s work is identical to that of each other and to that of
Regional Chairmen save in relation to:
management and administration issues
the fact that we sit more frequently than Regional Chairmen do.
o There is no justification for scoring us any differently on the first four of
the five Factors (and if there were any difference, it should be in our
favour, as above). Any shortfall between our score and that of Regional
Chairmen should accordingly be limited solely to Factor 5.
o Since we have significant management and administrative responsibilities
we do not believe that the difference in scores, between the Regional
Chairmen and ourselves, of some 82 points, is an accurate reflection of the
actual difference in our responsibilities under Factor 5.
o For the reasons stated we consider that our score should have been in the
region of 330 rather than 303.
o We therefore submit that our score should be adjusted accordingly and
that we should be re-positioned in Group 6.2 at a spot rate midway
between Group 7 and Group 6.1.
16th September 2005
Derek Searby TD (Chairman)
Dr Kenneth Mullan