A POLITICIAN is seeking to limit the proposed rise in the maximum compensation for employer discrimination to £30,000 because he has concerns that the proposed £50,000 cap could deter businesses from taking on “staff with differences” as “the cost of getting it wrong could be financially catastrophic”.
Earlier this month, Social Security Minister Lyndsay Feltham proposed amendments to Jersey’s employment and discrimination legislation.
The changes were based on a report and recommendations on the Island’s compensation awards regime published by the Employment Forum in June last year, and included plans to increase the maximum compensation for discrimination by an employer from £10,000 to £50,000.
But Deputy Malcolm Ferey is seeking to reduce what he described as an “excessive” increase to the “more realistic sum” of £30,000.
He raised concerns that the £50,000 maximum award could be “a barrier to employment” for some Islanders.
“Employers who are considering taking on staff with differences may be deterred from doing so as the cost of getting it wrong could be financially catastrophic to the business or charity,” he said.
Deputy Ferey added: “It is also important to remember that this sum is per alleged breach of the law, so, if there were three breaches by an employer this could result in a £150,000 claim against them; with the potential addition of legal costs this could easily exceed £200,000.
“In addition, unfair dismissal claims for discrimination are a day-one right, so there is no one-year qualifying period before a claim can be brought.
“This means an employee could make a compensation claim of £50,000 or 52 weeks’ pay, no matter their length of service.”
The politician also highlighted the fact that Jersey’s discrimination law, in relation to disability, takes elements from both medical and social models, as opposed to the UK’s Equality Act 2010, which follows the medical model of disability.
“Therefore, some cases of discrimination are far more nuanced than would be apparent in the United Kingdom,” he said.
Deputy Ferey sought to emphasise that the amendment was “in no way connected” with his role as vice-chair of the States Employment Board.
“I have taken advice from the Law Officers’ Department and there are no conflicts of interest in my bringing this amendment,” he said.
“Also, this amendment is not an attempt to diminish the progress of enhancing rights and freedoms for employees.
“It’s also not designed to undermine the great work of the Employment Forum, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t reconsider the recommendation they have made.”
Deputy Feltham’s proposition and Deputy Ferey’s amendment are due to be debated by States Members in February.
