Jersey’s employment tribunal has ruled that it could not decide whether a worker was wrongly charged rent for staff lodgings, finding that disputes over accommodation fall outside its legal jurisdiction.
Barbara De Sousa brought claims against Alfonso Catering Meats International Ltd after alleging that the company unlawfully deducted £292 from her wages for accommodation which she said she had never lived in.
She also claimed she had not been allowed to choose when to take time off in lieu after working three bank holidays.
The Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal dismissed her unlawful deduction claim, but upheld her complaint over bank holiday leave, awarding her £312.
The company argued that Ms De Sousa had agreed to live in staff accommodation before arriving in Jersey, moved into the flat with her family, retained the keys and later returned them.
It also said her employment contract listed the flat as her address and that she had used it when registering with Revenue Jersey.
Ms De Sousa denied ever living there and said she had found her own accommodation, producing a letter from Sarum Hotel Limited confirming she was resident there.
However, the tribunal said the central issue was not whether rent was actually owed, but whether it had the power to decide that question.
Advocate Dr Elena Moran wrote: “As long as there is a written agreement permitting the deduction of rent there will be no unlawful deduction from wages.
“If the amount of rent deducted is the wrong amount or not due, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with that dispute.”
If the amount of rent deducted is the wrong amount or not due, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with that dispute
Advocate Dr Elena Moran
The judgment explained that Jersey’s Employment Law specifically prevents the tribunal from determining disputes arising from contractual terms relating to living accommodation.
As Ms De Sousa’s employment contract allowed rent to be deducted from wages, the deductions were lawful for the purposes of the Employment Law, and that part of her claim was dismissed.
But the tribunal reached a different conclusion on the bank holiday claim.
Ms De Sousa had worked on Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day and was later given three days off in lieu. However, the days off were allocated by her employer rather than chosen by her.
The tribunal found that the wording of her employment contract did not clearly remove her statutory right to choose alternative days off.
Advocate Moran wrote: “The wording must be clear. The wording is not clear. The words ‘available time’ cannot be expanded to say at a time of the employer’s choosing.
“The wording could also mean at a mutually agreed time or at a time of the employee’s choosing.”
Although the employer argued that awarding compensation gave Ms De Sousa “a windfall”, the tribunal said that was “a consequence of the employer’s failure to comply with the statutory obligation to give her chosen days off in lieu of bank holidays she was made to work”.
