Early visit to the law officers would help States on their way

As part of these measures the States have also created the statutory post of industrial disputes officer, a position I was privileged to hold on two separate occasions for a number of years. The IDO was charged with using his/her best endeavours to resolve industrial disputes through recourse to:

The Conditions of Employment (Guernsey) Law, 1985

The Industrial Disputes and Conditions of Employment (Law),1993

The Employment Protection (Guernsey) Law 1998.

In addition to this the Law of contract is relevant but is administered through the courts not the Industrial/Employment Relations service.

Since I left the position of IDO other laws have been added to the statute book, in respect of discrimination and other matters.

Additional support was provided by the then Industrial Relations Service, Board of Industry, followed by the Department of Commerce and Employment by publishing a whole host of guides, books of advice and copies of the relevant laws available to employers, employees and public alike dealing with the intricacies of most laws and legal requirements appertaining to employment matters. I trust that these are still available to the public as they offer an invaluable source of information and advice to everyone.

Furthermore, I always found that the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown was most willingly given and of great assistance. If I was still unable to resolve a dispute through conciliation I was given the authority under law to refer the dispute to arbitration, in which case the assistance of the UK Arbitration and Conciliation Service was sought to appoint an independent arbitrator to hear the case and to make a decision, which was and still is I believe binding in law and subject to the authority of the Royal Court. There can be no unresolved employment dispute in Guernsey, otherwise a small number of key employees or employers could hold the island to ransom. The industrial disputes officer is always on hand to assist States deputies when they are facing tricky employment issues.

Your Opinion column, sir, also makes the point that it is the right under our laws for everyone to have the facility to lay their case before any employment tribunal; anyone may also be accompanied by a ‘friend’, i.e. a properly legally qualified representative: this is after all only natural justice. So far this has been denied Mr Lazarus. In this matter it should be remembered that the States Assembly has no more and no less power than the smallest employer; the fact that it is also the island’s legislature, responsible for more weighty matters of state, is of no consequence in an employment tribunal; its various functions should never be confused. In fact, during my tenure of office it was felt in the island that the States should set a standard of conduct for others to follow.

In this case Mr Lazarus has been summarily dismissed, which during my training was regarded, in almost every case, to be unwise; it was then thought that best and safest practice was to suspend the employee on full pay. A wise employer in these circumstances would then make haste to set up a disciplinary hearing at which the said employee would be able to make his/her case. This procedure reduces significantly the employee’s likelihood of winning any appeal on grounds of unfair procedures.

I know that the States will claim that Mr Lazarus has not been dismissed. I believe that the States policy for dealing with an unresolvable dispute between a senior official in a States department and its president is to move the senior official, presumably to another department. This exposes the States to a claim for unfair dismissal on the grounds of constructive dismissal. In any case, in my view it’s a wholly unsatisfactory, expensive and unethical procedure, as a highly trained and experienced professional in one field could find himself/herself in an alien environment for which he/she has little knowledge, training or aptitude; this can and has caused aggravation in the staff of the receiving department. I am minded of the Robinson report into the States as an employer, when Graeme Robinson stated words to the effect that ‘Guernsey finds it hard to ask difficult questions’, hence make difficult decisions.

In the case of senior appointments, this can have serious cost implications.

Therefore, I beg the Department for Economic Development and the whole States for that matter to pause and do its homework before a ‘tangle’ becomes an unnecessary, unholy and very costly mess, at a time when the new States has enough complex issues to deal with, let alone good causes on which to spend our money. I would suggest that an early visit to the Law Officers of the Crown would help them on their way.

Finally, none of us should need reminding that in a democracy, the law sits above all other institutions and individuals and that every citizen no matter how poor, rich, humble or of lofty status has equal rights under the law. The States of Guernsey threw their lot in with forces of Parliament during the Civil War of 1642 to further this cause and to restrict the powers of the Executive. It would be nice to think that this new States could attain the high moral and ethical standards with which earlier administrations were regarded, in which case it should pay regard to the old adage about fools rushing in.

R. S. TAYLOR,

Former Industrial Disputes Officer.