header-logo header-logo

14 February 2014
Issue: 7594 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment

United States of America v Nolan [2014] EWCA Civ 71, [2014] All ER (D) 36 (Feb)

In proceedings concerning an employee of a US military base in the UK, the employer argued that the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 did not apply to the case of workers employed by any public administrative body and establishment governed by public law (PAB) within the meaning of Art 1.2 of Council Directive (EC) 98/59 (on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to collective redundancies). The court held that, in transposing the Directive into domestic legislation, the draftsman had made what had to have been a deliberate choice not to reproduce in terms the general exclusion contained in the Directive for PAB workers. Instead, an exclusion had been made for “Crown employment”. It was clear that the concept of a PAB in Community law was wider than Crown employment. That had to have been apparent to the draftsman and there was no warrant for assuming that he nonetheless had intended, but incompetently

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll