Employee Protection - Legislation (P.95-2005) - comments

STATES OF JERSEY

r

EMPLOYEE PROTECTION: LEGISLATION (P.95/2006) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 22nd September 2006 by the Minister for Treasury and Resources

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

Part (a)

I fully support of Part (a) of this proposition and the introduction of appropriate Employee Protection Legislation tailored to Jersey's needs and I welcome the work that the Minister for Social Security is undertaking to introduce such legislation.

However, as set out in the Minister for Social Security's comments, the timescale for the introduction of such legislation is somewhere between 18 to 30 months. A draft law might therefore be presented to the States during 2008, but it would then have to be scrutinised, passed by the States and ratified by the Privy Council.

It should be emphasised at this point that there is no certainty that our legislation when it is introduced will mirror that of UK TUPE regulations. Indeed, most comments to date suggest that what is needed is legislation that is suitable to Jersey. As such, it is absolutely critical that time is taken for the proper consideration of exactly what is suitable for the Island and its employees.

The  Minister  for  Employment and  Social Security  will  begin drafting appropriate  legislation in 2007  after consideration of the Employment Forum's ongoing research and consultation on the matter. I am, therefore, doubtful that the legislation could be in force much before to December 2008.

Part (b)

1. I h ave  undertaken,  and  I reaffirm that  I  will provide within any proposed contract of sale  for  the controlling interest inany publicly owned utility (for example the proposed / possiblesaleofJersey Telecom), that employee protection rights will beincludedto a levelat least as high as,and preferably higher than, anything whichwouldbe provided underUK-typeTUPE legislation. For the avoidanceof doubt, this undertaking includes the existing pension rights of past and current employees.

G i v e n this undertaking, Part (b) of the proposition is entirely unnecessary. Far worse, it is damaging and

dangerous because it inhibits any progress whatsoever in respect of the ownership of utilities for the next 2 years or so.

2. S p e cifically with regard to the potential disposalof Jersey Telecom, if Senator Shenton, or indeed any other States Member (including the Members of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Sub-Panel currently engaged in a review oftheproposal to sellJerseyTelecom Group Limited) has concernsaboutwhether myaforementionedcommitment can beachievedthen,rather than approve Part (b)of the proposition, they should allow meto proceed with my deliberations and, if they are then still unconvinced,opposeany sale proposition which I bring to the States, probably early in the NewYear, the Reportforwhich will include myproposals for the protection ofemployee rights.

A t th at time the full detail of the contractual proposals will be available to all States Members. THAT

should be the time at which Members can express their concerns, and if they are not satisfied with the proposed undertakings, THEN is the time for them to oppose the sale.

3. I h ave already outlinedelsewheremy reasons for the timely completion the proposed saleofJersey Telecom Group Limited, and the time for a debate on the matter is when I bring a proposition to the States inthenewyear.Howeverinthecontextof Part (b) of this proposition Members should note that a long termdelaytotheproposedsale[which would be the inevitable consequenceofagreeing part (b)] could, quitecontrary to SenatorShenton's intention, put Jersey Telecom Group Limited employees' jobs at risk in the (quite likely) event that the company were to suffer in the face of new competition.

F o r th ese reasons I strongly urge Members not to support Part (b) of this proposition.