The Impact of The Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 as amended
This article was written by Sarah Nibbs.
The Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 as amended came into force on 1st August 2005, introducing various statutory obligations and duties for Jersey employers towards their employees.
Many employers greeted the advent of the Law with some scepticism, considering the legislation to be an “Employees’ Charter” which placed various administrative burdens (and potential financial penalties) upon them and their businesses. Inter alia, the Law requires itemised pay statements to be given. Failure to include details of any deductions made, such as social security deductions, is an offence under Article 55 of the Law, punishable by a fine of up to £5,000. Employers are also now obliged to give employees a copy of their employment contracts and the Tribunal has discretion under Article 9 of the Law to impose a fine of up to £5,000 for this offence, if a contract is not provided.
Two major features of the Law relate to unfair dismissal and the recently established Employment Tribunal. The Law enshrines the employee’s right not to be unfairly dismissed and states at Article 61 (1) that: “An employee shall have the right not to be unfairly dismissed by his employer”. Should a dismissal take place, it is for the employer to show the reason for this.
The Tribunal offers aggrieved employees an accessible forum in which to bring claims. Working on the “industrial jury” system, with a legally qualified chairman or deputy chairman, each tribunal will also be convened with two laypersons representing an employer and employee perspective to ensure a rounded approach.
Of the nine cases that have been adjudicated on by the Employment Tribunal, it is unsurprising that employees, claiming unfair dismissal, have brought about the vast majority. Whilst describing itself as “not unsympathetic” to the difficulties faced by all businesses, especially family businesses, when considering the issues raised in Huet v Les Ruisseaux Holdings Ltd, in comprehending and implementing employer obligations under the Law, the Tribunal nonetheless fined the Respondent a total of £200 for its breaches of Articles 9 and 55.
The clear message arising from the decisions of the Tribunal so far for employers is to take advice about “best practice”, from the drafting and content of employment contracts, to the appropriate use of grievance procedures in the workplace (Brennan v Family Nursing & Home Care (Jersey) Inc (2006).
Now is the time for employers to perfect their many obligations under the Law, as workplace anti-discrimination legislation is also set to come into force, and will in time enable employees to instigate tribunal claims on grounds of perceived discrimination.
Whether or not employers consider such legislation to constitute a further burden upon their businesses, or as an opportunity to test their (hopefully already in place) anti-discrimination policies, it is inevitably going to place more Jersey businesses under the focus of the Tribunal and to allow employees to seek redress for a wider variety of claims.