Unfair Dismissal Rights And Employees Working Overseas

Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Limited [2012] UKSC 1

The Supreme Court has held that an employee who carried out all his work outside the UK could nevertheless bring a claim of unfair dismissal in a UK employment tribunal because his employment had a "substantial connection" to the UK.

Facts

Mr Ravat was a UK national who lived in the UK. He was employed by a UK subsidiary of the Halliburton group. In 2003, he accepted an assignment that involved a rotational working pattern of 28 working days in Libya, followed by 28 days home leave in the UK. His work in Libya was for a German subsidiary of the group and he reported to management based in Cairo, although in relation to his employment situation he dealt with human resources departments in the UK and Libya. His travel costs and overseas accommodation costs were paid by Halliburton, who classified him for internal purposes as a "UK commuter", reflecting the fact that when he took on the assignment he remained employed on his UK salary and benefits package. He was paid in Sterling into his UK bank account and paid UK income tax and national insurance contributions. He was dismissed for redundancy in 2006 and sought to establish his right to bring a claim of unfair dismissal in the UK employment tribunals.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the UK employment tribunals had jurisdiction to hear his claim on the basis that the "substantial connection" in fact between his employment and the UK brought the claim within the scope of the Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA 1996"). There are no longer any provisions in the ERA 1996 which limit its territorial extent. Therefore employees working overseas whose employment has a substantial connection with the UK can be presumed to fall within its scope. The category of employment with a "substantial connection" to the UK exists in addition to the other categories of "expatriate" employees who, in the earlier case of Lawson v Serco Limited [2006] UKHL 3, were identified as also being within the scope of the ERA 1996, namely:

employees posted abroad for the purpose...