This decision reflects a change in the legal position following the introduction of the Act. Previously, victimisation was defined as a form of discrimination and was prohibited post- employment. Nonetheless, it remains open to claimants to seek to rely upon the decision of the House of Lords in Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc [2003] IRLR 484 to argue that section 39(4) of the EqA 2010, which concerns victimisation in employment, should be interpreted as protecting former employees.
EMPLOYEE WORKING ABROAD COULD BRING UNFAIR DISMISSAL CLAIM
22 February 2012 The Supreme Court ruled that an employee who was working in Libya at the moment of his dismissal, but had employment links to Great Britain, would be protected under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA) and therefore able to bring an unfair dismissal claim. Pinsent Mason reports: In this case (Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd.) the employee, a British citizen, worked for the employer which had its registered head office in Scotland. In 2003 the employee transferred to a German co-subsidiary of the employer and his role involved working on a rotational basis, involving 28 days in Libya and 28 days in the UK. R’s salary was paid in sterling and he was taxed in the UK. The employee tried to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. The Court held the employee was protected against unfair dismissal because he still had a “sufficiently strong connection with Great Britain”. When assessing the facts the Court noted that the employee’s home was in Great Britain; his contract was stated to be governed by UK law; human resource matters were handled in Great Britain and he was treated as a commuter. Therefore, the question for tribunals to decide is whether the connection to Great Britain is strong enough, to displace the normal rule that the place of work is decisive. 1 March 2012 Can a worker enforce employment rights dependent on a contract of employment if the contract was illegal from the outset? Daniel Barnett’s Employment Law Bulletin reports: The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) (Langstaff P) has ruled against the claimant in the case of Zarkasi v Anandita . The claimant was an Indonesian domestic worker recruited from Indonesia to work for a family in the UK. To enter the UK she obtained an identity card, passport and visa from a passport office in Jakarta using a false identity. Ultimately she left her employer in the UK and brought a number of employment claims dependent on a contract of employment. It was held by an employment tribunal that she had freely and voluntarily participated in an arrangement to enter the UK by pretending to be someone else in order to work for her employer. That made the contract unlawful as being proscribed by law when it was first entered into. As such it was unenforceable, as were any statutory rights dependent on it. Notwithstanding this, the claimant asserted she had been the victim of human trafficking and that the tribunal should, in the spirit of the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, provide her with a remedy. The tribunal rejected this - it had no jurisdiction EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS WHEN CONTRACT ILLEGAL
CIPP Policy News Journal
09/10/2012, Page 66 of 234
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker