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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll