Comment in response to the Draft Act to Annul the Employment Relations (Codes of Practice) (Jersey) Order 200- (P.9/2008).

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (29/01/2007) regarding: Comment in response to the Draft Act to Annul the Employment Relations (Codes of Practice) (Jersey) Order 200- (P.9/2008).

Decision Reference: MD-S-2008-0011
Decision Summary Title :	L:\General Information\Workgroups\Policy\Employment\Ministerial decisions\DS Comment Annul Codes 28Jan08		Date of Decision Summary:	28/01/2008
Decision Summary Author:	Kate Morel, Policy Principal		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title :	L:\General Information\Workgroups\Policy\Employment\ \Ministerial decisions\ WR Comment Annul Codes 28Jan08		Date of Written Report:	28/01/2008
Written Report Author:	Kate Morel, Policy Principal		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Comment in response to the Draft Act to Annul the Employment Relations (Codes of Practice) (Jersey) Order 200- (P.9/2008).
Decision(s): The Minister approved the Comment and requested that it be presented to the States Assembly.
Reason(s) for Decision: Deputy Southern has lodged a Proposition to annul an Order which would bring into effect the Codes of Practice made under the Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007. The Minister’s Comment responds to that Proposition.
Resource Implications: There are no financial or manpower implications.
Action required: The Greffe to circulate the Comment in advance of the debate of P.9/2008, by arrangement with the Minister.
Signature:		Position:
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Comment in response to the Draft Act to Annul the Employment Relations (Codes of Practice) (Jersey) Order 200- (P.9/2008).

Written Comment on Proposition to annul R&O 184

The Minister is of the view that the codes, as finalised, meet the policy intent and balance the range of interests of employees, employers and the general public. Further to extensive consultation over many years, the Minister considers the codes to be proportionate for a small island community.

Consultation

The Employment Relations codes of practice have been issued after a seven year consultation process with the public and interested parties.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has commented positively on the extensive consultation conducted by the Minister, with all interested groups, prior to the enactment of the Law.

Secondary action

Deputy Southern’s proposition claims that union members may be imprisoned for taking secondary action that is not in accordance with the codes. This is misleading.

This definition of secondary action is not unworkable, is similar to the UK, but reflects local conditions and the interests of Islanders. The ability for trade unions to widen industrial action to involve others who are not party to the primary dispute would be extremely disruptive to the Island and the provision of necessary services to citizens.

Essential services

The code does not prohibit industrial action in essential services. It provides that a service becomes essential if the interruption of key aspects of that service would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or a part of the population, or where the extent and duration of a strike in aspects of that service could result in an acute national crisis.

The ILO has recommended that where a strike occurs for a prolonged period of time, services that are not essential in the strictest sense of the term may become essential. These provisions are consistent with our international obligations.

Although a bus or taxi drivers strike is likely to be inconvenient for many, it is inconceivable that the lack of those services would cause an acute crisis endangering the life or health of the population, irrespective of the duration of the strike. Deputy Southern’s assertion is again misleading.

The codes render it unreasonable for a union that represents members who provide such services to the public to reach an agreement with their employer. Such an agreement does not amount to a no-strike agreement, but instead would define a minimum service to be provided during a dispute and provide for a formal, rapid and impartial dispute resolution process.

Conclusion

On such a matter as this, there are bound to be polarised views. Consideration has been given to all of those views and the Minister believes that an appropriate balance has been struck.

The Minister strongly opposes this Proposition to annul the Order bringing the Employment Relations codes of practice into effect, and asks Members to reject the Proposition.