In Sutton v Eagle Eye Security CI Ltd (2009) Sutton claimed he was not a "trainee" as described under the Employment (Minimum Wage) (Jersey) Regulations 2004 (the "Regulations"). Accordingly, he claimed that he was entitled to be paid the full minimum wage. The Tribunal directed that, in order to qualify as a trainee for the purposes of Article 1 of the Regulations, Sutton must have agreed with the Respondent, in writing, to undergo accredited training in the first year of his employment and that such training would relate to the particular job for which he was being trained.
The Tribunal held that Sutton was not undergoing accredited training and had been employed for more than one year. Therefore, in accordance with Article 26 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, the Respondent was ordered to pay Sutton the outstanding balance of wages due, on the basis of the difference between the trainee minimum wage and the full minimum wage.