Employment law

摘要

The jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal to hear claims brought by employees based overseas has been examined in two recent cases by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). In Bleuse v (1) MBT Transport Ltd (2) Mr F Tiefenbacher, the claimant, a lorry driver, worked mainly in Austria and Germany, but had a contract of employment with a company registered in England. The contract identified English law as the proper law and sought to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts. The claimant lodged a number of claims in the Employment Tribunal for constructive unfair dismissal, failure to pay holiday pay, unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract. At a preliminary hearing, the issue arose as to whether the territorial scope of the statutory provisions extended to the claimant. The tribunal concluded that they did not, principally by applying the approach adopted by the House of Lords in Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] ICR 250 in which it was held that where the employee was based outside the UK, unless there were exceptional circumstances the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The claimant appealed. The EAT confirmed that the mere fact that the employer was a UK company was not sufficient to establish the claimant was based in the UK. The fact that the contract expressly stated that it was subject to English law also did not make any difference. Therefore the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions.