Skip to main content

Public Holidays and Bank Holidays - designation of 26th December 2009 (P.173-2009)-comments

This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.

Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.

STATES OF JERSEY

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS AND BANK HOLIDAYS: DESIGNATION OF 26TH DECEMBER 2009 (P.173/2009) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 30th October 2009 by the Council of Ministers

STATES GREFFE

2009   Price code: A  P.173 Com.

COMMENTS

  1. The Council of Ministers does not support this proposal for the reasons cited below, and recommends that the States reject this proposition.

Background

  1. As  a  result  of  the  approval  by  the  States  of  P.151/2009  ("Draft  Public Holidays and Bank Holidays (Jersey) Act 200-"), it has already been agreed that a bank holiday will be created on 28th December 2009, in order to compensate for the fact that Boxing Day occurs on a Saturday. This has been achieved by moving the designation of "Public Holiday" from 26th December for 2009, to 28th December.
  2. To assist members it is thought useful to outline the present situation for employees in Jersey –

Private sector day workers working Monday to Friday will enjoy the Boxing Day public holiday on Monday 28th December. If the change had not been made many would not have received the benefit of a holiday for Boxing Day as it would have occurred on a normal day off', being the Saturday.

Public  sector  day  workers  working  Monday  to  Friday  will  also enjoy the Boxing Day public holiday on Monday 28th December. If the change had not been made they would  still have received the benefit  of  a  holiday  for  Boxing  Day  as  the  holiday  would  have occurred on a normal day off', being the Saturday, and they would have been entitled to a day off in lieu. Therefore they are in the same position as would ordinarily have been the case, and are no worse off.

Shift workers in the States, by custom and practice, will receive public holiday conditions (payment at double time and day off in lieu) if they are required to work on Saturday 26th December or Monday 28th December (but not both).

Private  sector  day  workers  who  work  Monday  to  Saturday (normally in the retail industry) will enjoy the holiday on Monday 28th  December.  Whilst  it  is  accepted  that  in  theory  it  would  be inconvenient if their Christmas holiday is spoilt by having to work on Saturday 26th December, it is by no means clear that many shops will generally  open  on  that  day.  Feedback  received  by  the  Economic Development  Department  is  that  retailers  are  on  the  whole  not planning to open on that day, apart from a handful of U.K. multiples who tend to employ staff on a 5 out of 7' basis. Convenience food stores may well open for a limited period, but these stores already open on a 7 day basis with shift staff. It should be considered as to whether  such  workers  would  ordinarily  be  required  to  work  on Boxing Day, no matter which day it arose, due to such events as Boxing Day Sales.

  1. Therefore  it  is  considered  that  the  arrangement  agreed  by  the  States  on 8th October in connection with Boxing Day this year, whilst not ideal for every working scenario, is generally fair.

Impact of the proposition

  1. Reference has been made in the report to P.173/2009, as to knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Members do need to recognise that there will always be a requirement for certain employees in both the public and private sectors to work on public holidays, whether this is Easter Sunday, a May Bank Holiday or Boxing Day. The key matter is to ensure that the system is as balanced as practicable to take account of the disruption that does occur to family life as a result. It is certainly the case that public sector shift workers,  such  as  staff  in  the  emergency  services,  are  already  well compensated  for  the  disruption  that  occurs  from  their  requisite  working patterns.
  2. Indeed, it needs to be considered that the nature of shift work means that days of  the  week  are  not  relevant  to  their  work  patterns.  These  could  more appropriately be defined as work days' and days off'. Sometimes days off' will coincide with weekends and public holidays, and sometimes they will not. However the remuneration package, certainly in the public sector, already takes account of the number of public and bank holidays, and also builds in an element of shift pay in recognition of this disruption to family life. Therefore the proposals recently put in place by the Chief Minister do not impact upon their remuneration package. If a shift worker happens to be required to work on a public holiday then they will receive a day off in lieu and double pay as recompense for this additional disruption.
  3. Therefore shift workers are generally already protected financially, and their arrangements have not been amended as a result of P.151/2009.
  4. The result of P.173/2009 will be twofold. Firstly, it will create an additional public holiday on 26th December. That is in addition to 28th December. It will have  no  bearing  on  whether  employees  will  be  required  to  work  on 26th December or not. It will just create another day designated as a Public Holiday.
  5. The impact that this would cause needs to be quite carefully thought out. It is not clear what would happen for private sector day workers employed on a Monday to Friday basis, but the impact would be quite considerable for the public sector.
  6. If the analysis is initially restricted to public sector day workers (working Monday to Friday), they would, under this proposal receive a further day off in lieu. Hence as well as getting the Saturday as a normal day off, they are already receiving the Monday as a public holiday. However under P.173/2009, they would then be entitled to a further day off in lieu. Therefore for one day of holiday they would receive the Saturday, the Monday and then a further day to take at their own volition.

Page - 3

P.173/2009 Com.

  1. Cost has been referred to in the report in a variety of guises, however there is obviously a cost implication to this proposal, and it does need to be clearly understood –

the cost of doing as proposed to the public sector would be of the order of 0.5% of the paybill – approximately £1.5 million. This is because  under  collective  agreements  any  employee  working  on 26th December would be entitled to payment at double time and a day off in lieu; and any employee (day worker or shift worker) who is not expected to work that day will be entitled to a day off in lieu if 26th December is declared a public holiday. Employees would enjoy this in addition to public holiday conditions on the following Monday

28th December –

Clearly, there will also be potential costs for private sector employers, very largely depending on their contractual arrangements appertaining to public holidays.

In the U.K., when Boxing Day falls on a Saturday, the holiday is automatically  moved  to  the  Monday   i.e.  as  a  substitute,  not additional holiday.

  1. It would be a requirement for departments to fund any cost arising from this proposition out of their existing budgets. It is unclear whether this could be achieved at such short notice, but for example, the impact upon the Health budget  would  be  an  additional,  unbudgeted  cost  of  £500,000  at  the  very minimum  given  the  high  proportion  of  shift  workers  employed  in  that department.  It  is  unclear  whether  this  could  be  achieved  without  cutting services as a result.

Summary

  1. In conclusion, the Council of Ministers considers that the existing position is a reasonable and fair position for the vast majority of the Island workforce, and should not be amended. Current arrangements already take account, in the main,  of  disruption  to  family  life  for  those  required  to  work  on 26th December. The financial consequences of this proposition are significant and should not be underestimated. For all of these reasons, the Council of Ministers asks for the support of Members in rejecting the proposition by Deputy S. Pitman.