Despite longstanding requirements under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 (the "Law"), recent decisions of the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal (the "Tribunal") and the JACS' 2024 Annual Report demonstrate that some employers in Jersey continue to fall short of their statutory obligations. Actions of employers in failing to issue compliant itemised pay statements and written terms of employment, and making unauthorised deductions from wages, undermine employee rights and now carry increased financial risk for employers following changes to Jersey's employment law.
In Jersey, employers (including small businesses) must ensure that they are meeting a range of statutory obligations including in relation to:
- Provision of written terms of employment within 28 days (4 weeks) of an employee starting work, setting out prescribed information required under Article 3 of the Law;
- Provision of itemised pay statements on or before each pay date, outlining gross wages, deductions, net pay and method of payment; and
- No deduction from wages unless explicitly authorised by the contract or by law.
Historically, the Tribunal could award up to 4 weeks' pay for each breach. From 25 July 2025, however, that cap has doubled enabling the Tribunal to award a maximum of 8 weeks' pay per breach, significantly raising the stakes for non-compliance (see Viberts legal update here). Two recent decisions of the Tribunal underline how costly this can be.
Vira Balandiuk v Sonnic Support Solutions [2024] TRE 168
The Claimant ("C") brought multiple claims following brief employment with the Respondent ("R"). While C's unfair dismissal and holiday pay complaints were rejected, C succeeded with claims arising from the following statutory breaches:
1. Unlawful deductions from wages:
The Tribunal found that R had unlawfully withheld wages (wages can only be withheld where this is authorised by law or the contract) in several instances, including in relation to:
- Disputes over whether shifts were worked (despite WhatsApp evidence confirming attendance), the hourly rate and deducting pay due to "budgeted hours" constraints which were never communicated to C; and
- Charging the cost of a DBS check without any contractual basis for doing so.
2. Failure to provide itemised pay statements
R did not issue payslips in a timely manner. For instance, the March payslip was only received on 1 May – a clear breach of Article 51 of the Law which requires a payslip to be provided at or before the time of payment of wages.
3. Failure to provide written terms of employment
Despite R claiming a contract of employment had been issued, it
could provide no evidence of this. WhatsApp messages showed that C
had repeatedly requested a contract of employment from R.
The Tribunal found in favour of the employee in relation to all
three breaches and awarded compensation.
Please click here for the full judgment
Sin Joyee Li v Hong Kong Chef Limited [2024] TRE 221
Again this case addressed failures by an employer ("R") to issue legally compliant payslips and a written statement of employment terms to the employee ("C").
C was an employee of R and briefly became a part-owner and director of R in 2024 before pulling out of the purchase. The Tribunal upheld C's complaints over missing paperwork, finding that no formal contract had ever been issued to C and that it was not satisfied that there had ever been a "consistent practice of providing the requisite information" in terms of payslips at the relevant times. Instead, pay information was provided on Post-It notes, approximately on a weekly basis.
This paperwork is important because it ensures that both parties are clear on what has been agreed and employees understand whether or not they have been paid properly.
Again the Tribunal found in favour of the employee on these matters and awarded compensation.
Please click here for the full judgment
Practical Steps for Employers
The findings of the Tribunal in these cases (and others like them) align with data published in JACS' 2024 Annual Report, which revealed:
- 560 employment-related contacts involved missing written terms of employment
- 84 cases concerned missing or late payslips
These figures suggest that non-compliance is not limited to a few isolated cases. Under the new regime, such failings now carry much greater financial exposure.
To avoid liability and maintain good employment relations, Jersey employers should: - Ensure that compliant written terms of employment (contracts) are issued to employees within 4 weeks of the commencement of employment at the latest, but preferably prior to the commencement of employment
- Review contracts and employment documentation regularly (we would suggest every 2-3 years), to ensure that terms remain appropriate, given changes to the law and to the employment
- Ensure payslips are issued on or before each payday and include all legally required information
- Avoid deductions from pay unless clearly authorised by statute or the contract
- Keep clear employment records
- Ensure that responsible managers are up-to-date with legal requirements or bring in third party expertise to ensure statutory duties are met (e.g. from payroll providers)
Conclusion
Basic statutory obligations such as issuing payslips and written employment terms are not optional. The Tribunal has demonstrated a willingness to penalise even relatively short-term or informal breaches.
With enhanced penalties now in effect, compliance should be a top priority. There are no exceptions for small businesses but there is significant help available. This includes free assistance from JACS and Jersey Business, as well as support available from law firms and other service providers.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
