COMPANIES considering making employees redundant are being urged to check the law before starting the process.

In a ruling by the Employment Tribunal, all employers are being advised to contact the Jersey Advisory and Conciliation Service before laying off staff.

The fear is that companies are not following the correct redundancy procedures and ultimately finding themselves in breach of the law and liable for a possible fine.

The warning has come in the judgment against Stuart Banks (Carpenters & Builders) Ltd, who was taken to the tribunal by former employee Vivian Goguelin.

Mr Goguelin was the most experienced carpenter at the company but there was not enough high-skilled work available for him.

The lack of work was partly due to Mr Goguelin refusing to work on a property renovation in St Brelade to repair some windows and doors which had been incorrectly ordered.

Mr Goguelin told the company directors that he did not want to work on the windows and doors as he felt it compromised his reputation as a craftsman and that the problem should be resolved by the third party which fitted them.

The company were eventually left with little option but to let Mr Goguelin go in February this year as there was no more work for him.

The tribunal ruled: ‘When dealing with Mr Goguelin, the company failed to follow four ordinary principles of fairness which should always be considered in situations of redundancy: The duty to consult with the employee The duty to warn of redundancy The duty to establish fair criteria for selection of employees for redundancy The duty to explore alternatives to redundancy ‘Mr Banks should have been explicit in his warnings of the work drying up and that such situation would affect Mr Goguelin directly and could result in his redundancy.

The reasons for Mr Goguelin’s selection for redundancy should have been discussed between the two of them and Mr Goguelin given a chance to respond.

‘Finally, alternatives to Mr Goguelin’s dismissal should have been looked at by the company and in consultation with Mr Goguelin, such as a cut in wages, a return to the windows at the St Brelade job etc.

These consultations may have resulted in Mr Goguelin keeping his job, even if it was at the expense of another employee who had been there less time than him.

‘It was Mr Goguelin’s right as the employee of longer standing, to remain in work as a carpenter with the company if he wished to do so.

The Tribunal would have anticipated a number of these meetings to have taken place and minuted so each party had time to reflect on the matters discussed before the next meeting and a decision given.

Such meetings allow the employee to be warned, informed, work with the employer on the issues and if necessary move seamlessly into new employment.

‘In the absence of these conditions it is not surprising that Mr Goguelin thought he had been sacked, he had no reason to know why he had been chosen to lose his particular job in the company.

‘For all these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the company did not act fairly in dismissing Mr Goguelin from his job and accordingly that Mr Goguelin was unfairly dismissed.’ Mr Goguelin, who was judged to have been unfairly dismissed, was awarded £7,416.