In Maidment v The European Commission, the EAT holds that the European Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction in employment disputes relating to candidates for employment with, and employees of, institutions of the European Community, including the Commission.
The question of whether or not an employee "ordinarily works outside Great Britain" for the purposes of determining employment tribunal jurisdiction over unfair dismissal complaints must be determined by reference to the relevant terms of his or her contract of employment, express or implied, confirms the Court of Appeal in Carver (nee Mascarenhas) v Saudi Arabian Airlines.
In Hutchings v London Borough of Islington, the Court of Appeal holds that a county court had jurisdiction to consider a retired council caretaker's complaint that he had suffered underpayment of his pension.
In Adekeye v The Post Office (No.2) (13 November 1996) EOR71B, the Court of Appeal rules that the Race Relations Act 1976 does not cover discrimination against those who are no longer employed at the time of the act complained of.
In Howard v Ministry of Defence (13 July 1995) EOR64E, the EAT holds that the exclusion from the temporal limitation imposed by the European Court on the Barber decision for those who had made a claim "equivalent" to legal proceedings, is restricted to where a dispute has been raised before an independent third party with power to determine the dispute conclusively, such as an administrative or arbitration tribunal, and does not extend to a person who only asserts a claim.
In Methilhill Bowling Club v Hunter (6 February 1995) EOR61C, the EAT rules that a part-time worker whose unfair dismissal claim was rejected on grounds that she did not have the five years' service then necessary for an employee working between eight and 16 hours per week to be able to bring a complaint, was entitled to bring a fresh complaint directly under Article 119 of the EC Treaty.
A caterer on an overseas-registered ship, who was abroad at sea for 72 days out of each 87-day tour of duty, "ordinarily" worked outside Great Britain, and so was excluded from bringing unfair dismissal proceedings, holds the EAT in Geest Line v Wright.
In Chapman and another v Simon (26 November 1993) EOR54C, the Court of Appeal holds that an industrial tribunal is only entitled to rule upon acts of discrimination which were the subject of complaint in the originating application.
In Secretary of State for Scotland and Greater Glasgow Health Board v Wright and Hannah (11 March 1991) EOR38C, the EAT rules that an industrial tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a claim brought directly under EEC law in circumstances where the applicant has no remedy under domestic legislation.
In Ashmore v British Coal Corporation (27 February 1990) EOR31G, the Court of Appeal upholds an industrial tribunal's decision to strike out an equal pay claim where the claimant sought to have it relisted after it had been stayed, where the issues in the case had been determined in sample cases.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to the jurisidiction of the employment tribunals and courts.