April 29, 2026
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a scaffolder from March 2025. He resigned without notice on 29 September 2025, citing unpaid wages, the late provision of his written contract, missing pay slips, and what he described as a dismissive working environment. He subsequently brought claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, and statutory compensation under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. His claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed at an early stage due to insufficient qualifying service.
It was common ground that the Claimant was contractually entitled to work 40 hours per week at £17.50 per hour, giving a gross weekly wage of £700. However, during August and September 2025 there were 21 days on which he was not paid because the Respondent had insufficient work available. The Respondent initially argued that the Claimant had received income support during this period, but the Tribunal rejected that submission as irrelevant: The Respondent’s contractual obligation to pay wages subsisted regardless of state benefits. The sum of £2,940 in unpaid wages was therefore awarded in full.
The Tribunal also found breaches of statutory duties. The Claimant did not receive a written statement of employment terms within four weeks of starting work, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Law. Although the contract was only one week late, the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and left the Claimant uncertain about important rights, including bank holiday pay. Applying Tribunal guidance, compensation equivalent to two days’ pay (£280) was awarded.
In addition, two payments were made without the provision of pay slips at or before the time of payment as required under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. While no specific detriment was shown, this remained a statutory breach. The Tribunal characterised it as relatively minor but nonetheless awarded compensation of £280.
On the issue of constructive dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that the primary reason for the Claimant’s resignation was the sustained failure to pay him for 40 hours’ work per week over a significant period. That failure alone amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant did not affirm the breach and resigned promptly after obtaining advice. He was therefore constructively dismissed and entitled to pay in lieu of his two week notice period. Arguments that he had mitigated his loss by working elsewhere during that period were rejected on the evidence. Notice pay of £1,400 was awarded.
In total, the Respondent was ordered to pay £4,900, comprising unpaid wages, notice pay and statutory compensation for the late contract and missing pay slips. All sums were ordered to be paid gross.
The decision demonstrates that sustained non payment of contractual wages will readily constitute a fundamental breach justifying resignation, regardless of an employee’s receipt of income support. Even modest delays or omissions in compliance with statutory requirements can generate additional liability. Employers, particularly smaller businesses, should ensure clarity of contractual terms and timely payroll administration to avoid compounding exposure in employment disputes.
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a scaffolder from March 2025. He resigned without notice on 29 September 2025, citing unpaid wages, the late provision of his written contract, missing pay slips, and what he described as a dismissive working environment. He subsequently brought claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, and statutory compensation under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. His claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed at an early stage due to insufficient qualifying service.
It was common ground that the Claimant was contractually entitled to work 40 hours per week at £17.50 per hour, giving a gross weekly wage of £700. However, during August and September 2025 there were 21 days on which he was not paid because the Respondent had insufficient work available. The Respondent initially argued that the Claimant had received income support during this period, but the Tribunal rejected that submission as irrelevant: The Respondent’s contractual obligation to pay wages subsisted regardless of state benefits. The sum of £2,940 in unpaid wages was therefore awarded in full.
The Tribunal also found breaches of statutory duties. The Claimant did not receive a written statement of employment terms within four weeks of starting work, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Law. Although the contract was only one week late, the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and left the Claimant uncertain about important rights, including bank holiday pay. Applying Tribunal guidance, compensation equivalent to two days’ pay (£280) was awarded.
In addition, two payments were made without the provision of pay slips at or before the time of payment as required under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. While no specific detriment was shown, this remained a statutory breach. The Tribunal characterised it as relatively minor but nonetheless awarded compensation of £280.
On the issue of constructive dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that the primary reason for the Claimant’s resignation was the sustained failure to pay him for 40 hours’ work per week over a significant period. That failure alone amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant did not affirm the breach and resigned promptly after obtaining advice. He was therefore constructively dismissed and entitled to pay in lieu of his two week notice period. Arguments that he had mitigated his loss by working elsewhere during that period were rejected on the evidence. Notice pay of £1,400 was awarded.
In total, the Respondent was ordered to pay £4,900, comprising unpaid wages, notice pay and statutory compensation for the late contract and missing pay slips. All sums were ordered to be paid gross.
The decision demonstrates that sustained non payment of contractual wages will readily constitute a fundamental breach justifying resignation, regardless of an employee’s receipt of income support. Even modest delays or omissions in compliance with statutory requirements can generate additional liability. Employers, particularly smaller businesses, should ensure clarity of contractual terms and timely payroll administration to avoid compounding exposure in employment disputes.
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a scaffolder from March 2025. He resigned without notice on 29 September 2025, citing unpaid wages, the late provision of his written contract, missing pay slips, and what he described as a dismissive working environment. He subsequently brought claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, and statutory compensation under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. His claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed at an early stage due to insufficient qualifying service.
It was common ground that the Claimant was contractually entitled to work 40 hours per week at £17.50 per hour, giving a gross weekly wage of £700. However, during August and September 2025 there were 21 days on which he was not paid because the Respondent had insufficient work available. The Respondent initially argued that the Claimant had received income support during this period, but the Tribunal rejected that submission as irrelevant: The Respondent’s contractual obligation to pay wages subsisted regardless of state benefits. The sum of £2,940 in unpaid wages was therefore awarded in full.
The Tribunal also found breaches of statutory duties. The Claimant did not receive a written statement of employment terms within four weeks of starting work, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Law. Although the contract was only one week late, the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and left the Claimant uncertain about important rights, including bank holiday pay. Applying Tribunal guidance, compensation equivalent to two days’ pay (£280) was awarded.
In addition, two payments were made without the provision of pay slips at or before the time of payment as required under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. While no specific detriment was shown, this remained a statutory breach. The Tribunal characterised it as relatively minor but nonetheless awarded compensation of £280.
On the issue of constructive dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that the primary reason for the Claimant’s resignation was the sustained failure to pay him for 40 hours’ work per week over a significant period. That failure alone amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant did not affirm the breach and resigned promptly after obtaining advice. He was therefore constructively dismissed and entitled to pay in lieu of his two week notice period. Arguments that he had mitigated his loss by working elsewhere during that period were rejected on the evidence. Notice pay of £1,400 was awarded.
In total, the Respondent was ordered to pay £4,900, comprising unpaid wages, notice pay and statutory compensation for the late contract and missing pay slips. All sums were ordered to be paid gross.
The decision demonstrates that sustained non payment of contractual wages will readily constitute a fundamental breach justifying resignation, regardless of an employee’s receipt of income support. Even modest delays or omissions in compliance with statutory requirements can generate additional liability. Employers, particularly smaller businesses, should ensure clarity of contractual terms and timely payroll administration to avoid compounding exposure in employment disputes.
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a scaffolder from March 2025. He resigned without notice on 29 September 2025, citing unpaid wages, the late provision of his written contract, missing pay slips, and what he described as a dismissive working environment. He subsequently brought claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, and statutory compensation under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. His claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed at an early stage due to insufficient qualifying service.
It was common ground that the Claimant was contractually entitled to work 40 hours per week at £17.50 per hour, giving a gross weekly wage of £700. However, during August and September 2025 there were 21 days on which he was not paid because the Respondent had insufficient work available. The Respondent initially argued that the Claimant had received income support during this period, but the Tribunal rejected that submission as irrelevant: The Respondent’s contractual obligation to pay wages subsisted regardless of state benefits. The sum of £2,940 in unpaid wages was therefore awarded in full.
The Tribunal also found breaches of statutory duties. The Claimant did not receive a written statement of employment terms within four weeks of starting work, contrary to Article 3(1) of the Law. Although the contract was only one week late, the Tribunal held that the Respondent’s explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and left the Claimant uncertain about important rights, including bank holiday pay. Applying Tribunal guidance, compensation equivalent to two days’ pay (£280) was awarded.
In addition, two payments were made without the provision of pay slips at or before the time of payment as required under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. While no specific detriment was shown, this remained a statutory breach. The Tribunal characterised it as relatively minor but nonetheless awarded compensation of £280.
On the issue of constructive dismissal, the Tribunal accepted that the primary reason for the Claimant’s resignation was the sustained failure to pay him for 40 hours’ work per week over a significant period. That failure alone amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Claimant did not affirm the breach and resigned promptly after obtaining advice. He was therefore constructively dismissed and entitled to pay in lieu of his two week notice period. Arguments that he had mitigated his loss by working elsewhere during that period were rejected on the evidence. Notice pay of £1,400 was awarded.
In total, the Respondent was ordered to pay £4,900, comprising unpaid wages, notice pay and statutory compensation for the late contract and missing pay slips. All sums were ordered to be paid gross.
The decision demonstrates that sustained non payment of contractual wages will readily constitute a fundamental breach justifying resignation, regardless of an employee’s receipt of income support. Even modest delays or omissions in compliance with statutory requirements can generate additional liability. Employers, particularly smaller businesses, should ensure clarity of contractual terms and timely payroll administration to avoid compounding exposure in employment disputes.