header-logo header-logo

16 September 2010 / Sam Burnett
Issue: 7433 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employment protection

Sam Burnett considers the territorial reach of UK dismissal & discrimination protection

Two wives of servicemen, who were employed by the MOD at international schools situated in NATO headquarters in the Netherlands and Belgium, were dismissed when their husbands left the armed forces to become civilian employees of NATO. They brought claims of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination in the Watford employment tribunal. Did the tribunal have jurisdiction to hear their claims? The tribunal decided it did, and the EAT (see MOD v Wallis and Grocott (UKEAT/0546/08/ZT)) agreed.

Unfair dismissal

The right not to be unfairly dismissed generally applies to employees who are working in Great Britain at the time of their dismissal. However, some employees working abroad will have an employment relationship the characteristics of which are sufficiently exceptional that the right will also apply to them. Applying the principles laid down by the House of Lords by Lord Hoffmann in Lawson v Serco [2006] IRLR 289, the EAT in Wallis decided that there was a sufficiently special link between the wives’

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll