12 July 2024 – Jersey
Employment period: 24 January to 11 February 2024 (18 days)
Claims: Payslips, written terms of employment, rest periods, age discrimination, disability discrimination, and holiday pay.
Key facts
Mr Dutton’s employment lasted only 18 days, which is notably brief. Despite this, he raised multiple claims, indicating significant dissatisfaction with his employment conditions.
The claims included issues related to payslips, written terms of employment, rest periods, and allegations of age and disability discrimination.
Tribunal’s decision
- Holiday pay: The Respondent acknowledged that holiday pay is due, so this claim succeeds, and the company had already committed to pay the whole sum due to the Claimant.
- Payslips, written terms of employment, rest periods, age and disability discrimination: Dismissed for failure to attend hearings ordered by the Tribunal.
Mr Dutton promptly filed his claim after his employment ended. The company’s response was timely, denying all claims except for holiday pay, which they acknowledged.
A case management meeting was scheduled for 7 June 2024 to set the direction of the case and give various orders to the parties to complete essential tasks ahead of the final hearing. The company’s attendance and Mr Dutton’s absence, however, marked the beginning of his non-compliance.
The main hearing was held on 12 July 2024; again, Mr Dutton was absent. His absence at both the case management meeting and the hearing was pivotal in the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss his claims.
LAW thoughts
Given the Claimant’s total non-compliance during the Tribunal process, it seems somewhat surprising that the Tribunal continued to hold the final hearing. Adding to the surprise choice is the significant cost for the taxpayer (the payment of a legally qualified chair and their two lay members and the significant time spent by the Tribunal’s Registrar to contact the claimant), plus the time and preparation required by the Respondent.
In this scenario, one would have expected non-compliance at a case management meeting to have ultimately been met with an ‘unless order’ – where unless the delinquent party starts following instructions from the Tribunal, their cases can be thrown out without further cost on the part of the taxpayer or, in this case, the Respondent.
One considers whether, in this case, the Tribunal wanted to make a point that some kind of costs regime should be implemented within the Tribunal to penalise, monetarily, non-compliant parties. Particularly given the Chair’s final comments in the judgement:
“Mr Dutton, meanwhile, has gone his own way with impunity. The relevant Jersey legislation makes no provision for costs, loss of fee, forfeiture of a deposit, or any other sanction against him.”
Overall, this was a thoroughly dissatisfying end to a claim that was ultimately costly to the taxpayer and the Respondent. The Claimant, who commenced the proceedings, simply walked away.
As it happens, the Employment Forum had released its recommendations only the month before this case concerning a limited costs regime to sanction and deter vexatious claims and conduct. Parties will still be unable to recover their costs on a general basis, so whilst very limited, this is positive, particularly for employers.
A costs regime dealing with vexatious claims and conduct may deter some employees from bringing claims in bad faith – either to elicit a monetary settlement, embarrass the employer, or both.
We will have to wait and see whether the Government accepts the Employment Forum recommendations and ultimately includes them in the statute books, so watch this space!
Let’s hope this proposed costs regime is implemented quickly to help the Tribunal avoid such a significant waste of cost and time as this case brought.
Need some help?
Our Tribunal team are experts at providing advice, support, and representation at Employment Tribunal Hearings across the Channel Islands.
