Deductions from wages that are made on account of workers taking part in strike action cannot be heard in the Employment Tribunal but must be pursued through the Court system, the Isle of Man Employment Tribunal has found.

In a preliminary hearing involving twenty three claim forms, the Isle of Man Employment Tribunal construed section 21(6)(e) of the Employment Act 2006 of Tynwald and concluded that it agreed with the interpretation of the same statutory wording as proposed in both English and Scottish case law. The issue arose after some bus drivers who had been taking lawful strike action were then not permitted to complete certain shifts because of the disruption to the normal bus timetables that had been caused by the strikes. As a result, some bus drivers suffered deductions from salary not only in respect of the period during the strike but also for the period immediately after the strike when certain of the drivers could not resume their duties.

The claimants' claim forms pleaded an unlawful deduction from wages and the Department of Community, Culture & Leisure in response argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claims by virtue of the statutory exemption. Sharing wording from parallel British statutes, section 21(6)(e) provides an exception to the general restriction on employers making deductions from wages of employees. It states that nothing in the section applies to "any deduction from a worker's wages made by his or her employer, or any payment received from a worker by his or her employer, where the worker has taken part in a strike or other industrial action and the deduction is made, or the payment has been required, by the employer on account of the workers having taken part in that strike or other action".

The Isle of Man Tribunal heard submissions on the way the English judiciary had handled this type of issue. Originally in Home Office v Ayres [1992] IRLR 59 EAT, there had been a suggestion that words should be implied into the statute so that the exception only assists a respondent if the deduction made was lawful. However, Sunderland Polytechnic v Evans [1993] IRLR 196 EAT decided this was not the correct construction because, having viewed the Hansard reports of Parliamentary debates, it was clear that when Parliament had enacted the relevant section (section 1(5)(e) of the Wages Act 1986 of Parliament) it had clearly been intended to be a complete bar on the Tribunal hearing any wage deduction claims resulting from strike action. Parliament clearly intended such claims to be heard by the Courts.

The Manx Tribunal heard that the Sunderland Polytechnic approach had been approved in SIP (Industrial Products) Limited v Swinn [1994] IRLR 323 and then also by the Scottish Employment Appeal Tribunal in Scott v Strathclyde Fire Board [2004] EATS.

After reviewing the relevant case law and text authorities the Isle of Man Tribunal concluded that the construction adopted by the Sunderland Polytechnic case was correct for the Isle of Man legislation and therefore the cases brought by the claimant bus drivers could not be heard in the Isle of Man Tribunal as there was no jurisdiction because of the section 21(6)(e) statutory exception.

Accordingly, these twenty three claim forms were dismissed while noting that the claimants still had a potential remedy in the Isle of Man High Court Small Claims Procedure.

Comment

This Tribunal decision illustrates the Manx judiciary's willingness to review British case law where appropriate and, in the absence of distinguishing local factors, follow such decisions. The Manx judiciary remains independent, however, and will plough its own furrow according to its own law and customs where appropriate.

John T Aycock

Joint Managing Director

Back to top