A removals company has been ordered to pay £1,500 to a former employee after failing to provide a written contract or payslips – despite being told by the government’s tax office that no contract was needed because the worker could not read or write.
Fabio Gomes, who began working for Fabio Ferreira at 1st Class Removals in May 2024, brought claims for compensation, unfair dismissal, and notice pay after his employment ended earlier this year.
The Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal ruled that while Mr Gomes’ claims for unfair dismissal and notice pay failed, he was entitled to £1,496 in compensation for the lack of a written contract or payslips.
Mr Ferreira argued that Mr Gomes had said he did not need a contract because he could not read or write, and claimed that the company had been incorrectly advised by Revenue Jersey that a verbal contract was sufficient.
Tribunal chair Dr Elena Moran said: “I consider that Mr Ferreira has a reasonable excuse for the breach of Article 3(1) as he was given incorrect information by Revenue Jersey.
“In addition, Mr Gomes expressly said that he did not require a contract.”
However, the Tribunal found that “nominal compensation” for the breach was warranted, and awarded compensation of £136 to Mr Gomes.
Advocate Moran found that Mr Ferreira had “no good excuse” for failing to provide written pay slips to Mr Gomes, but added: “I accept Mr Ferreira’s evidence that Mr Gomes said he did not want them.”
She described this as a “moderately serious breach” and awarded Mr Gomes £1,360 – the equivalent to two weeks’ gross pay – in compensation.
Mr Gomes also claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed.
The removal worker said he was sacked over the phone in February when his employer told him there was “no point” returning to work after a period of sick leave.
Mr Gomes took this to be a dismissal but Mr Ferreira denied that he sacked him on the call, stating that he “genuinely needed” the employee.
Advocate Moran said: “There is nothing in the text message sent a few hours after the phone call to suggest that he has been dismissed.
“Had Mr Ferreria dismissed Mr Gomes I would have expected Mr Gomes to refer to that in the text.
“I find that Mr Ferreira did not say anything on the call that could be reasonably construed as an immediate dismissal.”
As the tribunal did not find that Mr Gomes had been dismissed, his claim for notice pay also failed.
The tribunal noted that Mr Gomes had been signed off sick during the relevant period so, even if he had been dismissed, he would not have suffered a loss from the lack of notice.