Jersey employment law update: Key practice points from recent Employment and Discrimination Tribunal cases

A number of decisions have been published in the Jersey Employment and Discrimination Tribunal in early July 2026 with some practical implications for employers in Jersey. We have summarised those decisions in the article below.

The key takeaways for employers are:

1. Statutory rights such as the right a written statement of terms (contract) and written statement of reasons for dismissal must be provided to employees. Similarly, statutory and public holidays must be dealt with under the terms of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The tribunal can and will order damages in appropriate cases.
   
   
2. For something to be a PCP it has to be more than a one off act. It also needs to be more than a specific/targeted act at the claimant. The Tribunal first has to consider whether there is a provision, criteria or practice that applies to all staff equally.
   
   
3. Employees also have to show substantial disadvantage due to the PCP. Trivial or minor impact will not lead to a successful claim.
   
   
4. Damages for discrimination can compound where there are multiple complaints, which can lead to potentially significant awards.

C v Minister for Education [2025] TRE 48A

C (through their parents) succeeded in three disability discrimination complaints against the Minister for Education. This judgment followed a remedies hearing and reviewed whether the increased cap for discrimination claims (£10,000 to £30,000), including injury to feelings (£5,000 to £30,000) applied retrospectively, ie to acts of discrimination and cases that were issued before the increases came into force. The Tribunal held the new cap applies retrospectively where remedy is undetermined. The Tribunal reiterated that the cap applies separately to each distinct complaint and a claimant may have multiple complaints arising out of the same facts, and confirmed the brackets for injury to feelings.

What this means for employers: The increased cap of £30,000 per complaint materially raises employers’ exposure. The retrospective application of this cap means conduct predating the amendment is caught if the tribunal claims remain outstanding. Employers facing multiple discrimination complaints could face very substantial aggregate awards.

Cova v Trust Cleaning Services Limited [2026] TRE 28

The claimant was dismissed verbally on 17 January 2026, with one week’s notice, on the stated ground of reduced demand for the respondent’s services; this reason was never communicated to her in writing. The claimant confirmed in evidence that she never requested the reason for her dismissal in writing. Although she asserted she suffered financial hardship following her dismissal, she gave no evidence that any specific problems arose because she did not receive written reasons (as distinct from the dismissal itself). The Tribunal found the respondent in breach of Article 63A of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003 (failure to give written reasons for dismissal within 7 days). However, it declined to award any compensation for four reasons: (1) the claimant had already been told the reason verbally at the same time as her notice; (2) she provided no evidence that the absence of a written note (as opposed to the dismissal itself) had any impact on her; (3) the respondent was a small employer with limited HR resources; and (4) the respondent accepted the failure and confirmed it would comply going forward. This is a notably different outcome from the same judgment’s treatment of the written terms of employment breach, where compensation of one week’s pay was awarded despite similar mitigating factors. 

What this means for employers: A failure to provide written reasons for dismissal will constitute a breach even where the employee already knows the reason verbally, but the Tribunal will not automatically award compensation for that breach. Compensation depends on the facts and in appropriate cases where there is little to no practical impact, particularly where the employee knows why they were dismissed, the Tribunal may decline to award anything at all. Employers should still put dismissal reasons in writing within the statutory 7 day window.

De Sousa v Alfonso Catering Meats International Limited [2026] TRE 36 & 72

A coffee shop assistant on a fixed-term contract claimed unlawful deduction of rent for accommodation she said she never occupied, and breach of her right to choose her own days off in lieu of bank holidays worked. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction over accommodation disputes. The interesting point for employers was the decision on bank holidays. The employee received her normal pay when working three bank holidays and she was given a paid day off in lieu on a later date. Importantly these were not dates she chose, but dates that the employer specified via a rota. The Tribunal held that Article 11 gives employees the right to choose their alternative day off unless a “relevant agreement” clearly and unambiguously displaces that right. A clause providing time off “at an available time” was too ambiguous and the employee therefore received payment for a further three days leave.

What this means for employers: Contractual clauses displacing statutory bank holiday choice rights must be clear and unambiguous: vague wording will not suffice. Employers that want to determine when a day in lieu must be taken should review their contracts to ensure any displacement of Article 11 rights is express and specific.

Mitchell v Jersey Cares Limited [2025] TRE 269

An employee resigned alleging disability discrimination (failure to make reasonable adjustments) and constructive unfair dismissal after being asked to stop working pending medical clearance. The Tribunal found no ongoing “provision, criterion or practice” as a one-off decision directed at the claimant does not qualify as a PCP. Even if there had been a PCP the tribunal also held that there was no substantial disadvantage as the employee remained on full pay. As a result there was and no repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence to justify the claimant’s resignation. The “last straw” relied upon was objectively trivial.

What this means for employers : A one-off management decision, such as temporarily standing an employee down pending medical clearance for a return to work is unlikely to constitute a PCP for reasonable adjustment purposes. Keeping an employee on full pay while managing a health-related absence significantly strengthens the employer’s position where there are questions about whether the employee is fit to return to work or not.

Olliver v RFS Jersey Limited [2026] TRE 39

A managing director brought an unfair dismissal claim. The employer argued she lacked 52 weeks’ continuous service and therefore she did not have the right to claim unfair dismissal. The employee had initially been given notice terminating employment on 3 February 2026, which would have taken her length of service over 52 weeks. The employer issued a second written notice, exercising its contractual right to pay the employee in lieu of part of her notice period and bringing forward the termination date to 31 December 2025, which shortened the employee’s continuous service to under 52 weeks. The Tribunal held an employer can unilaterally bring forward the EDT by giving a clear second notice, provided it unambiguously communicates an identifiable earlier date. Any ambiguity will be construed in the employee’s favour.

What this means for employers: While an employer may bring forward an EDT by clear second notice, and provided they have the contractual right to pay in lieu of notice, any ambiguity will be resolved against the employer and could inadvertently confer qualifying service for unfair dismissal protection. Termination letters should be drafted with great care. The dispute could have been avoided in the first place had the employer taken early legal advice and planned the termination properly.

Tarnawska v Smile 2012 Limited t/a Smile Dental Clinic [2025] TRE 158

The claimant, a dental nurse, had disclosed high blood pressure and a heart condition to her employer in 2020.  In 2025 the clinic installed a centrally locked air conditioning system designed to maintain a specific steady temperature range that staff could only switch on or off, not adjust.  She complained the fluctuating temperature made her “really uncomfortable,” referencing her condition, but did not mention more serious symptoms at the time.  She claimed the clinic failed to make reasonable adjustments by refusing to unlock her controls or give her access as this would have undermined the effectiveness of the system.  

The claim failed. The clinic was found to have known of her disability, but she had not proven a “substantial disadvantage”, as her contemporaneous complaints described discomfort only, not the additional symptoms raised later in her witness statement.  In any event, the Tribunal found the clinic’s response, namely offering to set her preferred temperature and permitting on/off use, while keeping the system locked for legitimate clinical reasons, was a reasonable step.  

What this means for employers: The case is a reminder that informal, undocumented disclosure of a health condition, can be enough to fix an employer with knowledge of a disability. In this case the contemporaneous documents did not support the claimant’s case. It was also helpful that the employer genuinely considered the request for adjustments and had proper reasons why they could not be accommodated.