The court considered whether a teacher employed by the Secretary of State to teach in one of its European Schools was entitled to protection against unfair dismissal.
Held: The claimants’ appeals were allowed and the cases remitted to the Employment Tribunals. The employments fell within the exeptions governing employment abroad identified in Lawsn -v- Serco. Section 94(1) could not apply to all employment anywhere in the world.
Lady Hale said: ‘these cases do form another example of an exceptional case where the employment has such an overwhelmingly closer connection with Britain and with British employment law than with any other system of law that it is right to conclude that Parliament must have intended that the employees should enjoy protection from unfair dismissal. This depends upon a combination of factors. First, as a sine qua non, their employer was based in Britain; and not just based here but the Government of the United Kingdom. This is the closest connection with Great Britain that any employer can have, for it cannot be based anywhere else. Second, they were employed under contracts governed by English law; the terms and conditions were either entirely those of English law or a combination of those of English law and the international institutions for which they worked. Although this factor is not mentioned in Lawson v Serco, it must be relevant to the expectation of each party as to the protection which the employees would enjoy. The law of unfair dismissal does not form part of the contractual terms and conditions of employment, but it was devised by Parliament in order to fill a well-known gap in the protection offered by the common law to those whose contracts of employment were ended. Third, they were employed in international enclaves, having no particular connection with the countries in which they happened to be situated and governed by international agreements between the participating states.’
Lord Rodger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Collins, Lord Clarke
[2011] UKSC 36, UKSC 2010/0025, [2011] ICR 1312, [2011] 4 All ER 1020, [2011] IRLR 840
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2034), Council Directive 1999/70/EC, Employment Rights Act 1996 94(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
At EAT – Duncombe and others v Department for Education and Skills EAT 24-Apr-2008
Duncombe_desEAT2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points – Working outside the jurisdiction
Fixed Term Regulations
Extra-territorial jurisdiction. Teachers working abroad. Breach of contract claim within ET jurisdiction. Whether . .
Appeal From – Duncombe and Others v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families CA 14-Dec-2009
The court considered the workings of fixed term employment contracts under which the claimants taught in Europe. The Secretary of State argued that the contracts validly limited the claimants’ employment to nine years. The claimants said the 2002 . .
Cited – Duncombe and Others v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families SC 29-Mar-2011
The government operated European Schools catering for children of staff of the European Community. The school staff challenged as unlawful, the contracts restricting their terms of employment with the schools to a maximum of nine years.
Held: . .
SC Part 1 – Duncombe and Others v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families SC 29-Mar-2011
The government operated European Schools catering for children of staff of the European Community. The school staff challenged as unlawful, the contracts restricting their terms of employment with the schools to a maximum of nine years.
Held: . .
Cited – Bryant v The Foreign and Commnonwealth Office EAT 10-Mar-2003
Section 94(1) of the 1996 Act did not apply to protect a British national locally engaged to work in the British Embassy in Rome. . .
Cited – Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited HL 26-Jan-2006
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Grocott CA 8-Mar-2011
Mrs Wallis was employed by the Ministry of Defence at the international school attached to SHAPE in Belgium. Mrs Grocott was employed by the Ministry in the British section of the Armed Forces North International School in the Netherlands. Both . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd SC 8-Feb-2012
The respondent was employed by the appellant. He was resident in GB, and was based here, but much work was overseas. At the time of his dismissal he was working in Libya. The company denied that UK law applied. He alleged unfair dismissal.
Cited – Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Bates van Winkelhof CA 26-Sep-2012
The claimant was a solicitor partner with the appellant limited liability partnership at their offices in Tanzania. She disclosed what she believed to be money laundering by a local partner. She was dismissed. She had just disclosed her pregnancy . .
Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag SC 2-Apr-2014
The deceased army officer serving in Germany died while cycling when hit by a driver insured under German law. His widow, the claimant, being domiciled in England brought her action here, claiming for bereavement and loss of dependency. The Court . .
Cited – Cox v Ergo Versicherung Ag SC 2-Apr-2014
The deceased army officer serving in Germany died while cycling when hit by a driver insured under German law. His widow, the claimant, being domiciled in England brought her action here, claiming for bereavement and loss of dependency. The Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, European
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.441866