The Con­sol­i­dat­ed As­so­ci­a­tion of Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice (CAMP) is push­ing back against in­ter­pre­ta­tions of a re­cent High Court rul­ing that sug­gest the Po­lice Ser­vice So­cial and Wel­fare As­so­ci­a­tion (TTPSS­WA) can now seek of­fi­cial recog­ni­tion to rep­re­sent Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice Of­fi­cers.

CAMP says such a move would un­der­mine over a decade of le­gal ad­vo­ca­cy for a ded­i­cat­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tive body for the Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice Ser­vice (TTMPS).

In a me­dia re­lease, CAMP said the Ju­ly 15 rul­ing—while con­firm­ing the right of mu­nic­i­pal of­fi­cers, along with Spe­cial Re­serve and Tran­sit Po­lice, to join the TTPSS­WA and vote in its elec­tions—does not au­tho­rise the as­so­ci­a­tion to ne­go­ti­ate on be­half of mu­nic­i­pal of­fi­cers.

“The in­ter­pre­ta­tion emerg­ing from this rul­ing, par­tic­u­lar­ly the as­ser­tion that the TTPSS­WA can now re­quest recog­ni­tion as the of­fi­cial rep­re­sen­ta­tive body for Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice Of­fi­cers, rais­es se­ri­ous con­cerns,” the re­lease stat­ed.

CAMP main­tained that on­ly a body es­tab­lished un­der the Mu­nic­i­pal Po­lice Ser­vice Reg­u­la­tions can be recog­nised for col­lec­tive bar­gain­ing pur­pos­es. In 2022 and 2023, let­ters from the TTPSS­WA to the Fi­nance Min­istry re­quest­ing that au­thor­i­ty were re­ject­ed on those grounds.

CAMP, which was in­cor­po­rat­ed on June 9, said it in­tends to meet the le­gal thresh­old of sign­ing up at least 51 per cent of mu­nic­i­pal of­fi­cers in or­der to be for­mal­ly recog­nised by the Chief Per­son­nel Of­fi­cer.

Speak­ing to Guardian Me­dia, a CAMP spokesper­son said of­fi­cers have wait­ed too long for equal treat­ment: “We can no longer sit idly by while of­fi­cers en­dure stalled ca­reers and un­equal pay.”

The spokesper­son point­ed out that some of­fi­cers re­cruit­ed un­der the for­mer Statu­to­ry Au­thor­i­ties Ser­vice Com­mis­sion have re­mained con­sta­bles or cor­po­rals for more than two decades, while oth­ers hired since 2014 un­der up­dat­ed reg­u­la­tions have ad­vanced to sergeant and in­spec­tor ranks with­in nine years.

“There are a lot of in­fringe­ments on the rights of the of­fi­cers, and even in the re­cent judg­ment, it speaks of free­dom of as­so­ci­a­tion,” she said.

While ac­knowl­edg­ing the in­for­mal sup­port the TTPSS­WA has of­fered over the years, CAMP ar­gued it can­not legal­ly ne­go­ti­ate for mu­nic­i­pal of­fi­cers. “When they signed for four per cent, no mu­nic­i­pal of­fi­cer ben­e­fit­ed be­cause they can­not ne­go­ti­ate for us,” the spokesper­son said.

CAMP ref­er­enced the Privy Coun­cil case Os­wald Al­leyne and 152 Oth­ers v At­tor­ney Gen­er­al, which spot­light­ed mu­nic­i­pal of­fi­cers’ push for their own union and tai­lored ser­vice reg­u­la­tions.

On Ju­ly 14, the as­so­ci­a­tion al­so wrote to the Di­rec­tor of Per­son­nel Ad­min­is­tra­tion call­ing for ur­gent re­forms in pay, pro­mo­tions, and gov­er­nance. The let­ter ap­pealed for “a ded­i­cat­ed statu­to­ry frame­work” to en­sure mu­nic­i­pal of­fi­cers re­ceive “the re­spect, recog­ni­tion, and ben­e­fits” aligned with their du­ties.

CAMP said it will op­pose any at­tempt to side­line the hard-fought progress made to­ward for­mal, in­de­pen­dent rep­re­sen­ta­tion for the TTMPS.