Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Grocott
Employees who work abroad and bring claims in a British tribunal have to show a "connection" with an establishment in Great Britain in order to succeed. In Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Grocott, the Court of Appeal said that wives of service personnel working in Europe could satisfy the "special connection" requirement for unfair dismissal; and could also rely on the directly-effective rights under the Equal Treatment Directive to claim sex discrimination.
Basic facts
Mrs Wallis and Mrs Grocott, wives of serving members of the British forces at NATO bases in Europe, worked at schools attached to NATO but were dismissed when their husbands left the armed forces.
Mrs Wallis claimed unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and breach of contract; while Mrs Grocott brought a claim for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
The Ministry of Defence accepted that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claims but not the unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims on the basis that the women could not identify a "connection" with an establishment in Great Britain.
Tribunal and EAT decisions
However, the tribunal disagreed and found in favour of the two women.
The judge said that as both lived and worked in what was essentially an "international enclave" on English terms and conditions (rather than host state terms) and their employment was so closely connected with Britain, they were protected by the 1996 Employment Rights Act regarding unfair dismissal.
As for the sex discrimination claim, the judge said that the rights conferred by the Equal Treatment Directive were directly enforceable because they were clear enough not to need further elaboration by EC or domestic legislation.
And the EAT agreed. It said there was no reason why the "special connection" to Britain (a requirement following the 2006 House of Lords case of Serco v Lawson) had to be some inherent feature of their work and the women could establish the connection through the "personal" feature that they qualified for employment because their husbands worked for Nato.
Applying the case of Bleuse v MBT Transport Ltd, the appeal tribunal was satisfied that UK legislation had to be read in such a way to give effect to the directive which meant that it could also hear the sex discrimination claim.
Court of Appeal decision
The Court of Appeal also agreed with both tribunals, saying that the women had a connection to Great Britain as they had been recruited and employed by the Ministry of Defence; their terms of employment were governed by English law; and the "related reason for dismissal" was because their husbands no longer served in the British armed forces.
The tribunal had been entitled to find that their employment connection with Great Britain was just as strong as if they had been posted by the MoD to work at the schools as members of the civilian component, or if their posts were in a British enclave.
As for the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal was also correct to apply Bleuse and decide that Mrs Wallis had directly enforceable rights under the Equal Treatment directive, which were "clear and precise in its terms for her to invoke its direct effect against the MoD as an emanation of the State".