No inconsistency in judgments, says tribunal

Thursday 11 December 2014

The employment tribunal has rejected claims by a lawyer that they have shown “a dangerous level of inconsistency” in two recent judgments on unfair dismissal claims.

Responding to criticism from Lindsay Edwards-Thatcher of TM Legal Services about different decisions on two cases brought outside of the usual time limit, the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal has pointed out that the cases had very different circumstances.

The lawyer’s criticism focused on the fact that one of the applications was allowed to continue despite being made outside of the deadline, while the other was not.

In their response, the tribunal say that the successful applicant had been badly advised by the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service – a body it described as a centre of excellence on employment and discrimination – and that the bad advice and other elements of the case represented an “exceptional circumstance”, that allowed them to look past the deadline issue.

The statement said: “The Chair of these hearings was aware of the potential for inconsistency in these judgments but having taken all the facts and circumstances of both scenarios into consideration believes that the decisions made were the correct ones.

“All applicants and respondents appearing before the JEDT have the right of appeal to the Royal Court if they are unhappy with a decision. This right is clearly stated in the Law and is also set out at the beginning of the reasoned judgment.

“Having addressed the question of inconsistency in its judgments the Tribunal is concerned by Ms Edwards-Thatcher’s statement that ‘this kind of incomprehensible inconsistency can only further undermine employer’s faith in the Tribunal process and makes something of a mockery of the Tribunal’s remit to pass judgment on the ever growing list of spurious employee claims’.

“The Tribunal was set up to address all claims by employees under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 and does not in any way distinguish between small or large claims, each case is considered on its own merit.”