It was recently held that an employee working abroad can enter a claim of Unfair Dismissal through an employment tribunal.

Workers are increasing looking for work abroad as unemployment in the UK continues to rise. Globalisation has led to many multinational companies moving across national boundaries regularly.

A contracted employee may be able to bring a claim through an employment tribunal if unfairly dismissed by their employer.

The maximum anyone payout can be is £72 300.

Unhelpfully, the legislation is now silent as to exactly which employees are protected against unfair dismissal and today’s more complex labour market has resulted in confusion about the territorial extent of unfair dismissal law.
The House of Lords in the case of Lawson v Serco formulated the test to be applied by employment tribunal’s to decide if they have jurisdiction to hear Unfair Dismissal Cases.

The House of Lords have labeled the following possible categories:

• Employees who ordinarily work in Great Britain at the time of their dismissal;“peripatetic employees” whose base is in Great Britain e.g. flight crew who work around the world but always return to a UK airport;
• “expatriate employees” who have a strong link to Great Britain e.g. those working in British military bases abroad or the foreign correspondent of a British newspaper who is based abroad.

They also suggested that employees who do not fit any of the above categories but who have an “equally strong connection” with Great Britain may be covered.

In the subsequent case of Duncombe and Others v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the Supreme Court held that teachers who were employed by the British Government to work in European schools abroad were protected because they had sufficiently close connections with Great Britain, more so than with any other jurisdiction.

Lady Hale stated “it is a mistake to try and torture the circumstances of one’s employment to make it fit one of the examples given in Lawson, for they are merely examples of the main principle”.

A Recent Decision.
In Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited the Supreme Court has now revisited Lawson and given helpful insight into how employment tribunals should approach the question of the territorial extent of unfair dismissal protection. Mr Ravat, a British citizen originally employed by a subsidiary of a multinational company in London, he was later posted to Algeria and then to Libya. From 2003 until 2006, when he was made redundant, he job shared working on a “rotational” or “commuter” basis which involved 28 days in Libya followed by 28 days on leave in Great Britain, where he lived. Unlike other employees in the business he was not accorded expatriate status as he worked on a rotational basis and received expenses to cover his commute. The duties he carried out in Libya were for the benefit of a German subsidiary.

The decision
The Supreme Court took the following factors into account to establish that Mr Ravat had a substantial connection with Great Britain in comparison to any other jurisdiction and therefore was entitled to claim unfair dismissal:

He Lived in Preston, Great Britain;
He was paid in sterling after deductions for UK tax and National Insurance contributions;
His employment contract was stated to be subject to UK law and he was repeatedly reassured by his employer that his employment relationship with them was governed by UK law
His termination was handled by an Aberdeen based human resources team.
Although Mr Ravat worked outside of the UK for a German company the Court felt that this was not enough to deflect attention away from the reality of the situation that he was connected to the UK.

The Supreme Court stated that the correct question for tribunals to ask is:

“whether the connection with Great Britain is sufficiently strong to enable it to be said that Parliament would have to regard it appropriate for the Tribunal to deal with the Claim.”
It agreed with Lady Hale that it was not necessary for Mr Ravat to fit neatly into one of the three main categories set out in Lawson.

With more people working abroad it is likely we will see more of these Unfair Dismissal cases go to court.