A BALLOT over industrial action among Jersey Airport firefighters will be reopened “imminently” after Ports of Jersey failed in their attempt to block the move.
The Employment Tribunal recently ruled that an ongoing pension row between the two parties should be resolved through negotiations facilitated by Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service (JACS) – the Island’s employment relations service – rather than through the legal route.
Bob King, Prospect’s national secretary, commenting yesterday on the ruling for the first time, said the union “offered discussions” at JACS to “find a satisfactory way forward” while “imminently restarting the industrial action ballot that [Ports] previously blocked”.
A Ports of Jersey spokesperson last week told the JEP that its team were “continuing constructive dialogue with both Prospect and Unite unions, while we digest the judgment and consider the next steps”.
The dispute centres on Ports of Jersey’s decision to close the Public Employees’ Pension Scheme to new members from January 2020. New employees were instead offered what the union described as “a savings scheme that provides a finite sum and not a pension”. Union secretary Mr King previously described the changes as “hugely detrimental”.
Ports of Jersey, however, defended the alternative scheme as a “good-quality pension” with employer contributions ranging from 5% to 10%. In response, Prospect argued the Airport firefighters were the only group of eligible emergency service workers in the Island to be denied access to the pension scheme – leaving them without the same protections afforded to ambulance staff, police, and civilian firefighters.
Discussions between the union and Ports of Jersey went through three stages of a four-stage resolution process earlier this year, but broke down in February when Prospect opted out of the process.
They announced they would hold a vote among union members to decide whether to go on strike after a preliminary ballot included unanimous support for industrial action.
In July, the union said that it would be balloting members in the “near future” about industrial action – leading Ports of Jersey to launch legal action against the union for “opting out” of the agreed dispute resolution process. However, a newly published judgment on the case, which was heard in September, shows that the matter ended in a stalemate – with the Employment Tribunal declining to back either side.
Ports had argued that Prospect was bound to follow the four-stage procedure in the 2001 collective agreement and that its actions in failing to do so were “unreasonable”.
Prospect countered that a 2015 agreement replaced the older 2001 framework and suggested bringing in a mediator from JACS to help resolve the issue, which Ports of Jersey declined.
The tribunal ruled that neither the 2001 nor the 2015 agreements provided clear rules for resolving this kind of dispute, and recommended that the parties use JACS to help move things forward. It also found that neither side acted unreasonably.
In response to the ruling, a statement from Prospect said: “The Tribunal issued its decision in which it found the Ports of Jersey had no jurisdiction to bring its claim and backing the union in finding the Ports of Jersey had been unreasonable in its refusal to consider alternative routes to resolving the dispute.”
Bob King commented: “The Tribunal was clear that Prospect has the right to a fair process and to ballot for industrial action. The attempt by Ports of Jersey to block that fair process using the courts has simply cost them money, and infuriated firefighters who just want the same pension as every other emergency services worker in the Island.
“We have again offered discussions at JACS in the hope that Ports will discuss the PEPS scheme with us to find a satisfactory way forward, but we will also be imminently restarting the industrial action ballot that they previously blocked.”
In a statement sent to the JEP, a Ports spokesperson said: “We are maintaining a constructive dialogue with both Prospect and Unite unions, while we consider the next steps. We do not anticipate any impairment of service.”
