Work overseas
Case Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1
Statute reference Employment Rights Act 1996, sections 94(1), 230(1).
Employment lawyers in Bristol, and throughout the United Kingdom, need to be aware of this landmark Supreme Court decision.
Facts R was employed as an accounts manager by H. He was dismissed for redundancy in 2006. He complained of unfair dismissal. At the time of his dismissal he was working in Libya. He continued to live in the United Kingdom and travelled to work for short periods overseas. An employment tribunal found that it had jurisdiction over the complaint. That decision was reversed by the EAT. R appealed to the Scottish Inner House of the Court of Session, which allowed his appeal. H appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision 1. The question of fact was whether the connection between the circumstances of the employment in Great Britain and with British employment law was sufficiently strong to enable it to be said that it would be appropriate for the employee to have a claim for unfair dismissal in Great Britain.
2. The vehicles which a multinational corporation uses to conduct its business across international boundaries depend upon a variety of factors which may deflect attention from the reality of the situation in which the employee finds himself.
3. It is notorious that the employees of one company within the group may waft to another without alteration to their essential function in pursuit of the common corporate purpose.
4. H’s business was based in Great Britain. It chose to treat R as a commuter, with a rotational working pattern. All the benefits for which he would have been eligible had he been working in Great Britain were preserved for him.
5. R had been given assurances that his employment relationship with H would be governed by British employment law. Matters relating to R’s dismissal were handled by H’s human resources department in Aberdeen. This all fitted into a pattern which pointed quite strongly to British employment law as the system with which his employment had the closest connection.
6. The fact that R’s home was in Great Britain fitted into a pattern which had a very real bearing on the parties’ employment relationship.
7. Considerable respect must be given to the decision of the employment tribunal as the primary fact finder.
8. The appeal would be dismissed. The matter was remitted to an employment tribunal to decide whether or not R had been dismissed unfairly.