Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period: Employment Forum's Recommendation and Comments of the Minister for Social Security

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 12 June 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-S-2013-0053
Decision Summary Title :	DS Forum UDQP Recommendation		Date of Decision Summary:	10 June 2013
Decision Summary Author:	Policy Principal		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	Minister response to UDQP Recommendation		Date of Written Report:	7 June 2013
Written Report Author:	Policy Principal		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: States Report - Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period; Employment Forum’s Recommendation and Minister’s response
Decision(s): The Minister decided to present to the States the Employment Forum’s recommendation on the Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period and his response to that recommendation.
Reason(s) for Decision: Prompted by the comments of certain employers and employer representative bodies, as well as the UK government’s decision to extend the qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal from one year to two years in April 2012, the Minister directed the Employment Forum to consult on the requirement for an employee to have 26 weeks continuous service in order to be entitled to make a complaint of unfair dismissal. In particular, the Minister wanted to consider whether a longer qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal in Jersey could have a positive impact on employment. Having undertaken public consultation, the Forum concluded that that qualifying period should not be extended and presented its recommendation to the Minister on 7 June 2013. The Minister has accepted the recommendation and therefore will not be proposing an amendment to the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal will remain at 26 weeks.
Resource Implications: There are no financial or manpower implications.
Action required: Policy Principal to request the Greffier of the States to arrange for a Report to be presented to the States at the earliest opportunity.
Signature:		Position:
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period: Employment Forum's Recommendation and Comments of the Minister for Social Security

Report

Employment Forum: Unfair Dismissal Qualifying Period

Minister’s response

In December last year, I directed the Employment Forum to consult on the period of continuous employment that an employee must have served with their employer before qualifying for protection against unfair dismissal. That period is currently 26 weeks.

During 2012, certain employers and employer representative bodies had stated publicly that they were concerned that the current qualifying period deters employers from employing staff and creating new jobs, mainly due to the perceived risk and cost of defending complaints to the Jersey Employment Tribunal.

Prompted by the comments of employers, as well by the move from a qualifying period of one year to two years in the UK in April 2012, I decided to consider whether a longer qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal in Jersey could have a positive impact on business confidence and growth.

I asked the Forum to consult as soon as possible and to report to me by the middle of 2013. I am grateful to the members of the Employment Forum for preparing this recommendation and I thank those who responded to the consultation.

The Forum’s recommendation demonstrates that, as in the UK and Northern Ireland, there is little hard evidence that a longer qualifying period would have a positive impact on employment and on job opportunities. As the Forum concludes, the rise and fall of the qualifying period in the UK appears to have been generally politically-driven rather than evidence-based.

Having considered the information that has been presented, I believe that the qualifying period is unlikely to be a determining factor for employers in deciding whether to take on more staff and I agree with the Forum that the potential negatives of a longer qualifying period are likely to outweigh the potential positives. Whilst employers might feel more comfortable with a longer period in which to assess new employees, this is not a sound basis on which such a significant change should be introduced.

The call of employers for additional leeway and flexibility must be balanced against the importance of this relatively low-level, but hard-fought right for employees. I am not prepared to remove this protection from potentially 12,000 employees – a quarter of the workforce – in Jersey. We must remember that an employer can still dismiss an employee who has 26 weeks’ service, but they must do so fairly.

I therefore accept the Forum’s recommendation and I will not be proposing an amendment to the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal will remain at 26 weeks.