Jersey Tribunal Decisions

Jersey Tribunal Decisions

Priaulx v Valla Limited [2019] TRE201

This decision highlights that litigation privilege can only attach to communications with consultants who are not legally trained if the information provided is for the sole purpose of litigation. In this case the Defendant withheld the disclosure of certain pieces of correspondence it had with a HR Consultancy. The Tribunal held that the information provided during those pieces of correspondence were not for the sole purpose of litigation and subsequently ordered the Defendant to disclose those pieces of correspondence.

Action Point: This case highlights once again the potential pitfalls in making use of HR Consultants as opposed to instructing lawyers. Information provided to a lawyer for the purposes of seeking legal advice will attract legal advice privilege which cannot be disclosed in any subsequent proceedings.

Castanheira v Empire Catering Limited [2020] TRE 049

This decision highlights the importance of being open and transparent with an employee who is subject to a disciplinary hearing including who will be involved. It further highlights that if the decision of the disciplinary hearing is appealed that the appeal should be considered and conducted by people who were not involved in the original disciplinary hearing. This applies regardless of the size of an organisation. To not do so can expose an organisation to a claim for unfair dismissal which is what happened here, albeit the employees’ compensation claim was reduced by 100% due to the fact that they ultimately contributed to their dismissal.

Action Point: Ensure that your disciplinary procedure is easily accessible to employees. If you have any disciplinary hearings currently in progress ensure that you are open and transparent with the employee as to who will be involved. If there is to be an appeal ensure that the person hearing the appeal was not involved in the original disciplinary hearing.

Genee-McDermott v Methodist Homes for the Aged [2020] TRE013

The Tribunal held that an application for Flexible Working under Article 15A of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 does not have to expressly say that it is an application under Article 15A of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 so long as the remainder of the requirements of that article are contained in the application.

It is also important to emphasise that should an employer receive such an application from an employee that a meeting is scheduled to discuss it within 28 days of receipt regardless of current work pressures. In this case, the Employer admitted that it did not hold the meeting within 28 days but stated that this was because at that period during which the application was submitted was during their busy period. The Tribunal held that that was no excuse to not comply with their statutory obligation.

Action Point: Ensure that any requests for Flexible Working are actioned and dealt with promptly.

Get in touch