Ports of Jersey Limited v Prospect: [2024] TRE 110

Ports of Jersey Limited (Ports), submitted a claim under the Employment Relations (Jersey) Law 2007 (the Employment Relations Law) referred to a 2001 Collective Agreement (the 2001 Agreement) and sought various declarations as to its effect.  Specifically, Ports sought a declaration that any action taken in breach of the 2001 Agreement would be unreasonable within the meaning of the Employment Relations Law and the Jersey Arbitration and Conciliation Services (JACS) Codes of Practice (the Codes).

Prospect the Union (Prospect) filed a response denying the application of the 2001 Agreement.  Instead, Prospect sought a declaration that a 2015 Collective Agreement (the 2015 Agreement) took precedence over the 2001 Agreement and specifically sought an order that Ports were bound to comply with its terms.

Each of these claims arose due to an underlying dispute between the parties about pension provision for employees working for the Jersey Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (colloquially referred to as JARFFS), specifically those members of JARFFs who joined Ports after 1 January 2020 (the Dispute).

The 2001 Agreement was entered into on 1 June 2001 and the parties to that agreement were the Harbours and Airport Committee and the Association of Clerical, Technical and Supervisory Staff Branch of the Transport and General Workers Union.  The pertinent terms of the 2001 Agreement are as follows:

• Section 1 contained detailed of the terms and conditions of service applicable to JARFFS. In the event of any change to these sections, they will be changed by negotiated agreement.
• Section 2 contained details of operations issues relating to the effective operations of JARFFS. In the event of any changes to these sections, they will be subject to consultation with the employees but will not be subject to a negotiated outcome.  Section 2 deals with the retirement of JARFFS
• Section 3 contained Appendix E. This detailed various procedures to apply to disputes over future terms and conditions.

Ports’ position was that Prospect was required to adhere to the terms of the 2001 Agreement.  Prospect, by contrast, argued that the terms of the 2015 Agreement took precedence and in fact had superseded the 2001 Agreement.  Prospect further noted that Prospect was not a signatory to the 2001 Agreement.

As both parties agreed that the Dispute was a collective dispute, the Employment Relations Law applied.  As neither party consented to the other’s application, the Employment Relations Law only permitted the Tribunal to make a declaration.

The parties agreed that, in line with the law of England and Wales, collective agreements should be interpreted in the same way as commercial contracts even though they are generally said to be not legally binding.

The Tribunal concluded having review the factual matrix that:

• The 2001 Agreement had been superseded by the 2015 Agreement.
• The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction in relation to Ports’ claim because there was no unreasonable behaviour by Prospect in refusing to apply the Appendix E procedure and taking an indicative ballot
• As the 2015 Agreement did not contain a procedure for resolving disputes over future pay, terms and conditions, the only procedures available within the meaning of Article 22 of the Employment Relations Law were the procedures in the JACS Codes.

Full Judgement Here