header-logo header-logo

09 October 2008
Issue: 7340 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Employment
printer mail-detail

Difficult choices

Employment

The Department for Children, Schools and Family (DCSF) must decide whether to breach its European or domestic obligations after an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling for the employment of teachers at European schools.

In Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families v Fletcher the EAT considered the applicability of the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable) Treatment Regulations 2002 (FTER) to teachers employed in the European schools pursuant to staff regulations.

It was found that the existence of a nine-year fixed term rule in the staff regulations was not capable of constituting objective justification under the Fixed-term Work Directive 1999/70/EC, where the underlying rule itself was found not to be objectively justified.

Sian Reeves, pupil barrister at 1 Temple Gardens, says: “As the rejection of the factual justifications for the nine-year rule was not appealed, it is likely that the department’s appeal will proceed on the basis that the EAT erred in rejecting the primacy of its obligations under the staff regulations over those arising under the Directive and FTER.”

She continues: “It is difficult, however, to see how the appeal can succeed in light of the Vienna Convention and other international authority as to the primacy of Community Acts such as Directives over earlier incompatible legislation.”

Reeves says that the refusal of the European Schools’ Board of Governors to suspend the nine-year rule leaves the DCSF with a difficult decision to make.

“It is unlikely that the EAT decision will cause the other 27 board members to shift from that position leaving the DCSF stuck between a rock and a very hard place as to which obligations to breach. The appeal suggests that the DCSF want the Court of Appeal to decide for it,” she adds.
 

Issue: 7340 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll