Darius and a different approach to Jersey employment

It is not unusual to treat employers as the bad guys when disputes with employees arise. In Jersey there are over 5,000 small businesses that have five or fewer staff.

Out of a total of 53,000 employed people there are about 800 wholesale and retail employers and Darius - who features in the 17 minutes video below - is in this category.
He runs a small retail business in central St Helier employing one or sometimes two staff.

Except that Darius has unusual views about his employees status because he would prefer that they were classed as "self employed" but of course, the Social Security Department does not share that view.

The difficulty that is described here came about because a young woman left employment with Darius following a dispute and took her grievance to JACS (the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service) from where it proceeded to a hearing before JET (the Jersey Employment Tribunal) via the Royal Court.

Because Darius considered her to be "self-employed" there was no contract of employment and so it was difficult to determine what "contract rights" if any, had been broken.

Like so many of Jersey's small businesses, workers are often employed under vague conditions and there is no Trades Union involvement.

We have been trying to monitor the hearings before JET which are supposed to be held in public but this hearing was not announced and we had no knowledge of it until it was all over. Except that the JEP had previously reported some aspects of the Court hearing months after if actually took place and in a manner which was not at all accurate according to Darius.

After many months, waste of time and cost to the public of £thousands the matter was finally resolved because Darius and his ex-assistant were willing to agree on a settlement of a payment of less than £500.

This Darius says, could have easily been achieved if only JACS had  been more reasonable at the outset.

We offer this interview with Darius to show that small businesses do have particular problems which may not be appropriate for JACS and JET to deal with as currently constituted. This is a viewpoint that the Jersey Chamber of Commerce seems to share and there is already a move to undo some Employment laws.
On the other hand we have observed instances where small businesses have treated staff very badly and that JACS etc provide a most important safety net  giving valuable support to people in very stressed circumstances.

We will try to find an ex-employee to interview in the near future to illustrate the other side of the problem but we note with some concern that employers - such as the States - often require job applicants to declare if they are involved in disputes with previous employers! This is hardly a climate to encourage workers to come forward to be interviewed for fear of being stigmatised in the job market-place.
Now that un-employment is rising in Jersey, potential employees are very wary of expressing any critical views in public...

We thank Darius for his time and frankness.

More on hearings...

WE continue to lobby and monitor re so called "public hearings" and tribunals etc in Jersey.

The Employment Tribunal is now undertaking a project to put the times and dates of future hearings on-line and has a member of staff specifically working on this project.
In the meantime the JET office - behind the Ann Summers business in Bath Street - sticks a notice on its door at midday on a Friday with details of any meeting planned for the coming week. Hardly satisfactory but that is the state of play there...
We have as yet no further information on Social Security Appeals which are handled by this same office but so far we have been exluded from these supposedly "public" hearings.

The States Greffe advises that there are no Complaints Board hearings currently planned but one is in the pipeline. When and where this might take place is subject to whim - often the hearings take place in Parish Halls and may be closed to the public if deemed "necessary."

We contacted the Judicial Greffier/Viscount some months ago re publishing details of all Court Hearing and Inquests.
There has been some improvement and the electronic screen in the lobby to the main entrance to the States building in Royal Square is now working again and includes inquest times.
We have asked that more details of the nature of hearings might be made available because generally the public have no idea what the cases are about unless personally involved.
We are advised that this aspect is being considered as something to put on the super-duper web-site that is now being  "worked on."

Of course we always remind officials that not everybody has access to IT facilities and that there is still a need for a central access point(s) to a comprehensive list of public hearings due - say on a weekly basis. This should be available at the States and Judicial Greffes, CAB and Parish Halls for a start.

This could be extended to include details of ALL official public meetings and hearings that are to take place such as Scrutiny, Parish meetings etc.

The simple external notice board on the wall of the Royal Court building that lists some pending court matters and Scrutiny meetings/hearings is totally inadequate and is of course not accessible to everybody. It is not always kept up to date.

On being able to access buildings and to be able to hear the proceedings are matters that we continue to lobby on.

We have written yet again to the Bailiff''s Office about poor sound quality in ALL the courts and this has clearly beeen circulated because we have received the reply below regarding the Magistrates' newly built facilities.

Attending at the States Chamber recently to hear a judgment (the building is sometimes used as a court) and having climbed the impossible staircase to the public gallery we found that the sound system (for which we had lobbied so long) was not turned on. So nothing could be heard  - but a written copy of the "Non Reported" judgment has been provided subsequently.

Signs are another matter of concern. We have asked that all officials in court or other hearings should display their names so that litigants and members of the public can identify who they are.
The Magistrates' court says that names of Judges sitting are posted outside the courts in session but there are other anonymous officials present too. The same applies to Royal Court hearings - especially bearing in mind that hearings often take place in  unusual locations.
This week's Royal Court proceedings with a video link to Curtis Warren in his UK prison actually took place in the Magistrates Court....and is the sort of high profile case that could attract public interest.

It is noted that the JEP is publishing much more (but selective) information recently about future hearings etc and we presume that more details are being issued by the Communications Unit of the States or some other body.
Unfortunately, whatever the source of this information - it is not sent to bloggers!
We do not receive any Press Releases either - so remember this if YOU are participating in any such events  to keep US informed.

REMEMBER ALSO that information is business. The JEP receives over £300,000 each year to publish official States notices in the Gazette etc and there is much other printing and publishing work to be had.
So keeping the general public in the dark is all part of the scheme - FREE information brings OZO and his friends out in spots. That is why the States Greffe Bookshop loooks like it is running a closing down sale these days and offers so few printed leaflets for free....

The Magistrates Court responded.....

 I have been asked to respond to your email in regards to the Magistrate's Court.  I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties in regards to No 2 Court so perhaps the following will supply some measure of assurance.

All 3 courts within the Magistrate's Court have enhanced hearing to the public gallery via the digital recording system relayed to loud speakers.  This relies upon all parties speaking clearly so that the microphone can 'pick' up what is said and the system can relay this.  At times the Magistrate has to remind people of this or request that the person speaks clearly.

In additions, all 3 courts also have a hearing loop systems for those who are hard at hearing.

In regards to No 2 Court: a member of the Communication Department was on site today and I asked him to check the voice re-enforcement system with me.  A Centenier was also present and assisted with this task.  Neither one of us had any difficulty with hearing what was said at various points of the public gallery.  I also sat in a number of points in the public gallery whilst a court was in session to ensure the sound re-enforcement was working and, again, I had little difficulty hearing what was said in court

However, I do appreciate that you must feel  frustrated when you have difficulties as outlined so I have asked the Communications Dept. to undertake a complete check of the hearing loop system.  The Magistrates are also aware of this issue and will ensure, wherever possible,  that all parties talk clearly and that a microphone is nearby to pick up the sounds.

I trust that these measures will address your concerns but please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information.

yours sincerely

Magistrate's Court Greffier