This Is Guernsey

By Simon Tostevin

PROPERTY professional Nigel Jones should find out in three weeks just who employed him. The letter that he took to be his dismissal arrived last summer on CI Traders headed paper.

But whether he had ever actually transferred from developers ComProp to CIT will be decided by an industrial tribunal.

The unfair dismissal hearing between Mr Jones and ComProp, or alternatively CIT, closed yesterday with its decision expected in around 21 days.

Mr Jones, the ComProp chief executive, claims his contract had moved from being under the control of ComProp to CIT in August 2005.

But Advocate Elaine Gray, for ComProp, said there was no evidence of any signed contract reflecting this change and that his contract with the company she represented remained the same as the one he had signed in 2001.

Advocate Paul Richardson, for Mr Jones, countered that while there appeared to be no signed agreement to show a change, there had been correspondence and a draft prepared to illustrate this taking effect.

Advocate Richardson said all the key indicators were that CIT was now Mr Jones’s employer and that he held responsibility for ComProp.

He added that his pay slips were from CIT and his salary appeared to go into his account straight from the company and not via ComProp.

A letter dated 25 July 2007 from former CIT chief executive Martin Bralsford, which Mr Jones took to be his dismissal letter, was also sent on CIT headed paper.

He took it that his dismissal would be triggered by the date of the takeover of CIT by Sandpiper, which turned out to be 3 August.

But Advocate Gray said that had never been the case.

She said that in the drawing up of the sales and purchase agreement for the Sandpiper deal and that of the employment transfers, Mr Jones had never expressed any unhappiness about the transactions.

Everyone involved had assumed Mr Jones was happy with the transfer of ComProp staff to the newly-formed ComProp CI, which was established as part of former CIT chairman Tom Scott buying back a portfolio of Guernsey properties.

It was Mr Scott’s intention that Mr Jones would run these properties for him in much the same way as he had done before.

‘He was aware of the proposed transfer of employees and the secondment and redundancy proposals being arranged,’ said Advocate Gray.

‘He had said to no one that he would not be going with ComProp.

‘The letter of 25 July was one minor step along that chain.’

She said the letter proceeded on the assumption that Mr Jones was transferring across and dealt with matters arising out of that transfer.

She wondered why, if Mr Jones had believed he had been dismissed by the letter, he had continued working at ComProp until his holiday on 13 August.

He had also telephoned his colleague, Stephen Down, ComProp finance director, on 3 August to say the Sandpiper deal had been finalised and had still made no reference to his being sacked.

Advocate Richardson said that his client’s ‘dismissal’ had been handled very poorly and at no time did it comply with the employment code of practice.

‘This was a redundancy issue brewing as far back as October 2006.’

He added that no human resource staff were ever utilised in the process and that there was no attempt to engage with Mr Jones, which would have been the responsibility of the employer.