Return to Contents

Fair Play In The Workplace

Melanie Cavey

In 1997 the Employment and Social Security Committee (ESSC) was asked by the Policy and Resources Committee in its Strategic Policy Review and Action Plan "to bring forward for consideration employment legislation and social security policies to encourage the more effective use of manpower" [1] . Running parallel to that request was the belief held by the ESSC that Jersey’s employment laws were out of date, fragmented and ineffective. Whilst legislation establishing sound and internationally recognised controls upon the finance industry is readily forthcoming there is, in comparison to many other countries, little legislation to protect either the employer or the employee in the workplace itself. In addition some believe that if Jersey is to maintain its good image as an international financial centre, it is imperative that up to date employment legislation is introduced.

As a first step towards answering the Policy and Resources Committee’s request the ESSC embarked upon a survey of islanders’ expectations with regard to employment legislation. In December 1998 a consultation document entitled "Fair Play in the Workplace - Good employment practice in Jersey" ("the consultation document") was widely circulated. The aim was to ascertain the views of all sectors of the community. In addition the ESSC held a series of meetings with States members, trade union representatives and employer groups and three public meetings. Some 500 individual responses to the survey were returned and several detailed replies were received from representative groups.

In his foreword to the consultation document the President of the ESSC, Deputy Terry Le Sueur, stated that:-

"the Committee firmly believes that fair play in the workplace is enhanced by a partnership approach underpinned by a legal safety net of rights, responsibilities and protections. Jersey cannot justify remaining one of the few states that denies its citizens such basic rights as protection from unfair dismissal and freedom from discrimination. At the same time we should not become as heavily regulated as some other states within Europe and elsewhere. A sensible balance needs to be struck.

The purpose of the consultation process, therefore is to reach consensus in our society on a legal framework which will provide standards of decency and fairness in the workplace but not undermine the social and economic benefit that we have from a healthy economy and full employment." [2]

In her own foreword the Controller of the Employment and Social Security Department, Mrs Ann Esterson, added the following:

"There is a pressing need for a workable legislative framework which will reflect the Island’s particular circumstances and introduce rights and responsibilities both for employers and employees. ……….The reader will see in the report that the employment relationship is now highly regulated and becoming more so, particularly in Europe. This poses a problem for small jurisdictions like Jersey which do not have the infrastructure required to support such legislation" [3]

These extracts epitomize the approach which the ESSC is taking towards the challenge laid down by the Policy and Resources Committee. The purpose of this article is to assess how best the ESSC can fulfil its aims while taking account of the responses to the survey.

The Island’s "particular circumstances"

At the time of writing the ESSC is considering the submissions in developing a policy for the immediate future. Fundamental to any policy decisions will be the need to have a clear understanding of the Island’s "particular circumstances," as referred to by the Controller, against the background of which employment legislation will be introduced. But arguably Jersey is, in reality, no different from any other nation state when social rights such as a minimum wage, anti-discrimination, maternity rights and unfair dismissal are in issue. Modern employment laws have evolved as a result of society’s recognition of basic human rights in the modern workplace. The effects of this recognition are seen throughout the developed world where many countries now have employment legislation providing for such employment rights. They are succinctly described in the following quotation from an American legal encyclopaedia:

"In the modern world, employment is the means by which goods and services are provided. Beyond establishing an economic relationship between employer and employee, work provides a powerful structure for organising social and cultural life. The employment relationship is more than the exchange of labour for money. In U.S. society, self-worth, dignity, satisfaction, and accomplishment are achieved primarily by one’s employment responsibilities, performance and rewards. The development of employment law demonstrates the importance of work." [4]

So what circumstances are particular to Jersey? The writer suggests that a combination of factors give the Island its "particular circumstances". The people are prosperous and condensed into a politically quasi-autonomous area of only forty-five square miles. The population stands at approximately 85,000 of which about 42,000 are in the workforce. Jersey has the highest percentage of female workers in Europe and a thriving economy. The success of the economy has led to the introduction of what some describe as draconian measures to restrict the increase in job numbers and the imposition of housing regulations which control an individual’s eligibility to own or rent property in the Island. In addition the basis of the Island’s economy has fundamentally changed in the last thirty years with the rapid growth of the finance industry. In contrast the agricultural and tourism industries have seen a steady decline. However most islanders accept the importance of keeping both industries afloat not least because of the employment opportunities which they bring. Immigrant workers are needed to work on the farms and in the hotels but only for a few months of the year. There are large numbers of working women who have no family network in the Island to help them with sick children and with after school and holiday care. The Island’s social security system does not provide child benefit and unemployment benefit as a matter of course as for example in the United Kingdom. The equivalent family allowances and parish welfare system are both means tested. There are many businesses representing worldwide institutions but also many small and old established businesses. It is worth noting too that 80% of businesses in Jersey employ less than 10 staff, whilst a large Jersey business may employ no more than 250 staff.

Given these "particular circumstances" how can the ESSC build a workable infrastructure of employment laws that will provide fairly for all employers and employees?

What rights are covered in the employment law of other jurisdictions?

As part of the background research to the consultation document the ESSC looked at other countries, and in particular small jurisdictions, to see if there was a rôle model of employment legislation that could readily be adopted by the Island. No such model was found but the research demonstrated that employment legislation has evolved in other jurisdictions over a period of time as attitudes have become less tolerant of any perceived unfairness in the workplace. Perhaps many jurisdictions have realised the value of their workforce to their economy and as a result have sought to redress the inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee.

Many countries have legislation covering most, if not all, of the employment issues such as equal pay, rights to a statement of contract terms, anti-discrimination, leave provisions, minimum wage, grievance procedures and maternity rights. Some also have Human Rights Acts and some rely on Codes of Practice to supplement their legislation.

United Kingdom

Employment legislation started to appear on the statute book in the UK in the mid 1960’s when statutes providing for written particulars of contract terms [5] and redundancy measures [6] were enacted. These were followed in the 1970’s by statutes protecting an employee from unfair dismissal [7] (as opposed to the common law right to protection from wrongful dismissal) and from discrimination [8] . The European Economic Community also emerged as a law making body with an impact in this field. Many additional pieces of legislation have issued over the last thirty years from both the UK Parliament and the European Union leaving many people in the UK with the impression that employment legislation is a confusing jigsaw of piecemeal provisions which are continuing to increase in number and to add to business cost.

The main relevant pieces of legislation currently in force in the UK are:-

1. Equal Pay Act 1970; this lays down requirements for equal treatment of men and women in the same employment;

2. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; this imposes a duty on an employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees;

3. Sex Discrimination Acts 1975 and 1986; these prohibit discrimination on grounds of gender, or marital status, or by way of victimization in the employment field;

4. Race Relations Act 1976; this prohibits racial discrimination in the employment field;

5. Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation ) Act 1992; this contains provisions (inter alia) dealing with secondary industrial action and requirements for ballots before industrial action;

6. Disability Discrimination Act 1995; this contains protection for disabled persons;

7. Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (originally called the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996);

8. Employment Rights Act 1996; this consolidating act has 245 sections containing provisions dealing with (inter alia) employment particulars, protection of wages, guarantee payments, Sunday working, time off work, maternity rights, termination of employment, unfair dismissal, redundancy payments and the insolvency of employees. [9]

Finally the UK Parliament has just enacted the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which provides that all workers qualifying under the terms of the Act should be paid at not less than the national minimum wage, and the Working Time Regulations 1998. These Regulations implement the European Working Time Directive and set out the health and safety requirements for the organisation of working time, creating limits on hours of work and entitlements to rest breaks and paid annual leave. In addition the UK Government’s own much talked of Employment Relations Bill, which deals with the worker and family friendly policies contained in its "Fairness at Work" White Paper, is expected to receive Royal Assent in the autumn. A detailed section of the bill deals with union recognition and derecognition and another section deals with maternity rights including an extension to the current basic statutory maternity leave. The bill itself does not refer to the expected reduction in service requirement from two years to one before an unfair dismissal claim can be brought, but it is assumed that this provision will appear in the accompanying Regulations. Indeed much of the detail of the new provisions will be in the form of Regulations. Also to be implemented by virtue of the Bill are the European Parental Leave Directive which sets out minimum leave rights which each member state must grant to new parents, and the Part Time Work Directive which states that part-time workers cannot be treated less favourably than full-time workers.

Other jurisdictions

The Isle of Man has two key pieces of employment legislation, the consolidating Employment Act 1991 and the Redundancy Payments Act 1990. Although enacted prior to the UK Employment Rights Act, the 1991 Isle of Man Act largely mirrors the provisions of the UK Act with the exception of the redundancy issue, which is dealt with in the Redundancy Payments Act. The 1991 Act also includes provisions relating to trade union membership although the majority of trade union issues are dealt with in the Trade Unions Act 1991, as amended.

New Zealand is another jurisdiction with a comprehensive act dealing with all employment issues. The Employment Contracts Act 1991 is described as providing "the overall legislative framework for industrial relations in New Zealand" …. whose purpose " is to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the labour market" [10] . The preamble commences with the words "An Act to promote an efficient labour market…" It contains 189 clauses dealing with issues such as freedom of association; bargaining; personal grievances; enforcement of employment contracts; discrimination; recovery of wages; strikes and lock-outs and employment courts and tribunals. [11]

Bermuda may be considered as being the small jurisdiction perhaps closest to Jersey in many ways. Interestingly, Bermuda, although having some employment legislation including the Bermuda Constitution Order 1981 [12] ; the Human Rights Act 1981 [13] and the Trade Union Act 1965 [14], rely heavily on Codes of Practice. However the Bermudian authorities have acknowledged in correspondence with the Employment and Social Security Department that there is evidence to suggest that some employers are ignoring the Codes. They are consequently considering introducing some form of legislative framework of legally enforceable rights.

The aim of the Ministry of Labour in Singapore is to "foster an efficient labour market and a safe and harmonious work environment in partnership with workers and employers so as to achieve economic growth and prosperity for the well-being of Singaporeans." [15] This maxim seems to parallel the published aim of the ESSC. In describing its services, the Ministry continues "The Labour Relations Department promotes and maintains industrial peace and stability in Singapore by balancing the interests of employers and employees and providing a legal framework to achieve this balance……… The three social partners [i.e. government, employers and trade unions] should therefore continue to work closely together to preserve industrial harmony so that Singapore can remain an attractive place for investments." Not only does this statement fully endorse the "partnership approach" referred to by the president of the ESSC but also it encapsulates the secondary reason why Jersey might consider the introduction of additional employment legislation, namely the retention of its good image internationally. Currently in force in Singapore are the Employment Act 1968 which provides for basic terms and working conditions for all types of employees except those employed in managerial, executive or confidential positions, seamen and domestic workers; the Industrial Relations Act 1960 which established the Industrial Arbitration Court; the Singapore Labour Foundation Act 1977, the Trade Unions Act 1940 and the Trade Disputes Act 1941 which all deal with union issues and the Retirement Age Act 1993.

Finally, it may be worth casting an eye across the waters to our neighbouring Island of Guernsey. On January 4th 1999 the Employment Protection (Guernsey) Law 1998 came into force. The Law succinctly provides for a number of scenarios in which a dismissal will be unfair and for complaints to be heard by independent adjudicators. One response to the "Fair Play" survey made the point that Jersey should work more closely with our sister Bailiwick when drafting employment legislation. If one looks at the similarity of the laws that Guernsey already has on its statute book [16] it is evident that co-operation could be beneficial.

Current employment laws in Jersey

Jersey currently has four pieces of employment legislation as well as the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989. A Minimum Wage Law is yet to be drafted but was approved in principle by the States in March 1999. A Human Rights Law is also currently being drafted.

The Industrial Disputes (Jersey) Law 1956 is little used. The preamble states that it is "A Law to make provision for the settlement of industrial disputes, and for regulating conditions of employment." It provides for the appointment of an Industrial Disputes Officer and Deputy (both of whom should be States members) and for the creation of an Industrial Disputes Tribunal to which the Industrial Disputes Officer can refer disputes for settlement. The Industrial Disputes Officer does not however have authority to act at the instance of an individual complainant. He can act where a dispute exists in a trade or industry or in an undertaking and the dispute is reported to him by

1. " an organisation of employers, on behalf of employers who are parties to the dispute; or

2. an employer, where the dispute is between that employer and workers in the employment of that employer; or

3. an organisation of workers, on behalf of workers who are parties to the dispute." [17]

The Industrial Disputes Officer cannot deal with disputes where internal mechanisms to resolve the issues have not been exhausted.

The Payment of Wages (Jersey) Law 1962 [18], as its title implies, contains provisions which deal with the payment of employees’ wages. There is however no requirement in the Law that an employer provide an itemised pay statement, and the issue of deductions from wages is dealt with simply in Article 8 which states "Nothing in this Law shall be deemed to prohibit the deduction of any amounts authorized by or under any enactment or collective agreement to be so deducted". Anyone acting in breach of the Law is subject to a fine not exceeding £250.

The Termination of Employment - Minimum Periods of Notice (Jersey) Law, 1974 ("the 1974 Law") provides for "minimum periods of notice to be given by employers or employees to terminate an employment and to make provision for related wage payments" [19] . The statutory minimum periods of notice are more favourable to the employee than under UK law for an employer must give one week’s notice to an employee who works for him for more than twenty-one hours per week as from the date of employment; once that employee has worked for a period of twenty-six weeks or more, longer minimum notice periods start to apply. In the UK the statutory minimum starts only after a period of one month’s service and the longer provisions become effective after a period of two year’s service. It has to be remembered that there are no redundancy provisions under Jersey law and it is believed that the longer notice periods granted under the 1974 Law were drafted in recognition of that fact. The 1974 Law also contains articles dealing with the computation of periods of employment and the circumstances of an employee where his employer changes. This is the nearest provision under Jersey law to the problematical Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 enacted in the UK to implement the EC Business Transfers Directive (No. 77/187). The UK Regulations are intended to provide protection for employees affected by the transfer of their employer’s undertaking. Although not so extensive in its effect, Article 4 of the 1974 Law gives limited protection by providing that an employee’s period of employment will be regarded as continuous even if the business is transferred.

Finally, the Terms of Employment (Jersey) Regulations 1998 are triennial regulations which were first enacted in 1995. The terms are very similar to those of Section 1 of the UK Employment Rights Act, and provide that an employer must provide an employee with a written statement of his particulars of employment within four weeks of the commencement of that employment. The statement is not to be confused with the contract of employment itself but it will be strong evidence of the contractual terms. It is obligatory to state the identity of the parties, the title of the job and the date when employment started. However, although the Regulations list a number of additional points for inclusion such as details of notice periods, rate of pay, holiday entitlement, grievance procedures, sick pay etc., article 2(3) states that if there are no particulars relating to these points then the employer is simply required to state that fact. This is comparable with the UK Employment Rights Act but the writer would argue that little comfort is to be gained from these provisions by the employee, who is likely to want clarification on those very issues the details of which are not made obligatory in the Regulations. It is known that many people in Jersey do not have a written statement of their terms of employment, and presumably no written contract. Although the Regulations make provision for the appointment of a Terms of Employment Officer to deal with cases where an employer has omitted to provide a written statement of particulars or where confusion exists regarding its terms, there is no law on unfair dismissal in Jersey. It is suggested that the low incidence of cases brought before the Terms of Employment Officer results from the lack of protection that any employee seeking redress under the Regulations has from being unfairly dismissed for raising a complaint and the limited remedy available. The penalty that can be levied against an employer for failure to provide a statement is a fine not in excess of £500.

Similarly the Payment of Wages Law is seen to have limited effect without the back-up of an Unfair Dismissal Law.

The current legislation needs to be viewed against the background of the Jersey customary law of contract and its effect on employment issues. In the consultation document the Law Officers summarized the position as follows:- [20]

"The relationship between employer and employee is essentially part of the ordinary law of contract. Whilst the essentials of the Jersey law of contract may be said to have more in common with French law than with English law, nonetheless, for practical purposes the resulting relationship between employer and employee is not dissimilar to that which prevailed at English common law before the evolution over a period of many years in that jurisdiction of a framework of statutory rights and obligations. In Jersey, the parties are free essentially to make their own contract. In accordance with the maxim "la convention fait la loi des parties", they will be bound by any contract which is not otherwise void or unlawful. Implicit in any contract of employment is a duty on the employee to give his personal service (i.e. not to delegate the performance of his duties to another person), to obey all lawful orders given to him by his employer, to act with loyalty and good faith towards his employer and to exercise reasonable care in his work. Also implicit are certain duties upon the employer. He must pay the agreed remuneration. He must take reasonable care for the safety of his employees. This involves amongst other things the provision of a safe system of work and the exercise of reasonable care in the provision and maintenance of plant, tools and equipment."

Jersey case law dealing with employment issues has often highlighted problems that have arisen in the interpretation of restraint of trade clauses written into contracts that the employee has subsequently attempted to avoid. The Court has not been liberal in its interpretations of such clauses. In the case of Wallis v Taylor [21] the maxim referred to above was applied in the case of a driving instructor employed under a contract which prevented him from starting his own driving school or taking employment with another driving school for one year from the termination of his employment. Bois, Deputy Bailiff stated:-

"It is an established principle of Jersey law that "la convention fait la loi des parties" and the Court will enforce agreements provided that, in the words ofPothier, (Oeuvres de Pothier, Traité des Obligations, 1821 edition, at page 91) "elles ne contiennent rien de contraire aux lois et aux bonnes moeurs, et qu’elles interviennent entres personnes capables de contracter." Where an agreement is freely entered into between responsible persons, good cause must be shown why it should not be enforced, and the matter which we have to determine is whether and the extent to which, in Jersey law, a covenant in restraint of trade can be held to be invalid."

Until such time as legislation further refining the parties ability to contract freely is introduced it is suggested that the Court will continue to apply this maxim in this way in all employment cases where it is appropriate.

Human rights law and the trade unions

No detailed mention has been made of two key issues in employment legislation largely because both are subjects on which separate articles could be written in their own right. The first is the rôle that the impending Human Rights Law will play in employment relationships and the second is the rôle of the Island’s trade unions.

Opinion is varied as to whether the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights will have an impact on employment law. Employment issues are not specifically mentioned in the Convention. Neither the UK nor the Island’s Human Rights statute is in force at the time of writing but it is suggested that the correct approach is for those drafting employment legislation to ensure that the law in question does not conflict in any way with the principles contained in the Convention.

There are no local statutes governing the legal status of trade unions. However at common law every individual has a right to association for legal purposes and accordingly any employer or employee can form an organisation so long as its aims are within the law. The survey results indicated that many Islanders wished to see the introduction of laws imposing rules on the calling of industrial action and prohibiting the closed shop and secondary industrial action. The unions will be likely however to regard the issue of trade union legislation as one which will need to be considered as a separate issue from that of employment laws.

The way forward

The enormity of the task facing the ESSC if they are to devise a workable, effective and acceptable legal framework of employment legislation that will take the Island’s workforce, both employers and employees, successfully into the millennium is clear. But how much additional legislation are Islanders prepared to accept? In the responses to the survey phrases describing the exercise "as taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut" and "if it ain’t broke don’t fix it" were common. The reader can see from the brief survey of employment law in some other jurisdictions that employment infrastructures are usually established over a period of years. The "Fair Play" questionnaire asked Islanders whether they felt that a new employment law was needed. A large majority of both employers and employees gave a positive response to this question. However the questionnaire then went on to ask questions relating to specific areas of employment law and at this point opinions varied. Three elements which did score highly were the need for an ACAS style conciliation service supported by an Employment Tribunal system, the need for employers to provide itemised pay statements for their employees, and protection for employees from unfair dismissal.

Another area of the law which, according to the survey, Islanders are keen to see improved is that relating to both the issue and enforcement of contracts of employment. Interestingly there was no question specifically dealing with the issue of contracts in the questionnaire other than that which asked whether Islanders agreed with the ESSC’s definition of both the employers’ and employees’ duties and responsibilities in an employment relationship. Many commented that a lot of the proposals included in the survey were matters that could best be dealt with in an employee’s contract. Perhaps unwittingly Islanders seemed to support the retention of the old Jersey maxim "la convention fait la loi des parties".

Most also endorsed the concept of the "partnership culture" whereby employers and employees work together for the good of their business enterprise and forsake the old adversarial master/servant approach to employment relationships. However, is it realistic to expect the partnership culture to work without a legal infrastructure to support it? The Bermudian experience referred to above suggests not.

The imminent prospect of a Minimum Wage Law has given rise to considerable negative reaction from some business sectors. States members have also already endorsed the introduction of a maternity pay policy in the private sector comparable to that in the public sector. The introduction of maternity pay and rights (other than the right not to be unfairly dismissed on the grounds of pregnancy) were, perhaps surprisingly, not issues which scored particularly highly in the "Fair Play" survey. However at the public meetings held by the ESSC considerable antagonism was expressed by those representing small businesses on the issue of maternity pay and a woman’s right to return to work after the birth of a child. Given also the recent "rebellion" amongst the small business community over the impact of the Regulation and Undertakings Law on their ability to hire staff and the capitulation of the Finance and Economics Committee to their demands the States may be wise to tread cautiously before embarking upon a major legislative programme in other areas of employment law.

It will be important to ensure that any legislation that is promoted forms part of a logical and cohesive structure. If employment legislation is to be introduced over a period of time, it should not be done in such a way that a confusing jigsaw results but rather as part of a logical and orderly scheme. The effect of the pending Human Rights Law has already been mentioned, but another area actively under review by the Legislation Committee is that of race relations. The ESSC will be consulting closely with the Working Group charged with that research. It is suggested that the States would be well advised to prepare the business community for the introduction of new legislative measures over a period of time. During the transitional period whilst the Minimum Wage policy was being drafted for the States debate the business community had time to accustom itself to the idea. John Cridland, the Director of Human Resource Policy at the CBI when talking of the impact of the new family friendly policies in the UK has said: [22]

"The key point is one of clarity and definition. Employers do not oppose the sensible introduction of family friendly working arrangements where there is a clear understanding of the impact such moves will have. It is vital, for example, that the introduction of the Parental Leave Directive is sufficiently flexible to allow employers to manage their resources".

Mr Cridland’s reference to flexibility also echoes the sentiments of the ESSC which is aware that "an overall strategy which supports a flexible workforce" [23] will be essential if its proposals are to meet the Policy and Resources Committee’s requirement that any new employment legislation should encourage the effective use of manpower.

The issue of whether the ESSC will propose that there by any exemptions to any laws that are introduced was frequently raised in the "Fair Play" survey. There is a view that exemptions would create more bureaucracy and opportunities for abuse and that so long as employers have sufficient warning of any new system that is to be implemented that is all that is required. Against this view are the opinions of the majority of those who run small businesses who fear that excess legislation will cripple their ability to function.

Finally, the ESSC will need to decide how many issues should be left to market forces and whether any can be "controlled" by a change of attitudes brought about through education. The recently formed Jersey Employers Network on Disability (JEND) is a shining example of how success can be achieved without legislation. In its first year of existence, JEND has placed over one hundred disabled people in employment with local employers. Is it not better in an island like Jersey to encourage a greater understanding of the needs and abilities of the disabled through education rather than to introduce legislation as complex as the new Disability Discrimination Act in the UK?

Conclusion

Whom do legislators seek to protect when they draft employment legislation? What is the particular vice that the ESSC is seeking to remove when contemplating the introduction of new employment legislation? It is admirable to want to create a harmonious, co-operative and flexible environment in the workplace whilst at the same time effectively employing the Island’s manpower. But what is actually needed to achieve this? The implementation of legislation will cost money, both to employers who will incur additional administrative costs, and to government by way of law drafting time and enforcement measures. The President of the Policy and Resources Committee made it clear in the Minimum Wage debate that the introduction of the minimum wage would be subject to the usual prioritisation processes with regard to both law drafting time and manpower resources. It is suggested that employment legislation will be treated in the same way.

However in some key areas legislation will be needed as a result of the recent States decision on the minimum wage. The States voted for:

"(i) a minimum wage at such hourly rate as the States may from time to time prescribe by Regulations;

(ii) ……

(iii) individuals to have the opportunity to ensure compliance with the minimum wage through a Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service and an Employment Tribunal established under a new Employment Law;" [24]

It is suggested that the Industrial Disputes (Jersey) Law 1956 should be repealed and that the services provided under that law assumed by the new Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service (JACS) and Employment Tribunal constituted by the new Law. The services offered by these institutions will also extend to the individual and are likely to be modelled on the UK ACAS and Employment Tribunal system. The Payment of Wages (Jersey) Law 1962 should be updated for an effective Minimum Wage Law will require employers to issue itemised pay statements.

The unfair dismissal hurdle will need to be jumped. If no law on unfair dismissal is introduced not only will the current Terms of Employment Regulations and Payment of Wages Law remain without teeth but so too will the new JACS authority and Employment Tribunal and the Minimum Wage Law.

But at that point, given Jersey’s "particular circumstances" does the Island really need anything else other than perhaps the introduction of a few more compulsory terms in a written statement of terms of employment? Should we not bide, at least for now whilst the dust settles in the UK and Europe from the latest round of social legislation and in our own Island from the impending changes, with the words of Pothier?

Melanie Cavey is a solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales and is currently employed as the employment policy officer in the Employment and Social Security Department, States of Jersey. The views expressed in this article are her own views and not necessarily those of the Department or the ESSC.

____________________

Footnotes - (Top)

[1] - Strategic Policy Review and Action Plan 1997 page 3 paragraph iv

[2] - Fair Play in the Workplace – President’s Foreword

[3] - Fair Play in the Workplace – Controller’s Foreword

[4] - West’s Encyclopaedia of American Law http://www.lawoffice.com (update May 2010 - this website now not available)

[5] - Contracts of Employment Act 1963 (now repealed)