Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Davidson v OVE ARUP Partnership [1998] UKEAT 1376_97_2002 (20 February 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/1376_97_2002.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 1376_97_2002
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
MR L D COWAN
MR G H WRIGHT MBE
MR D DAVIDSON APPELLANT
OVE ARUP PARTNERSHIP RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
JUDGE PETER CLARK: This appeal raises the issue of overseas working, both under Section 196(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Section 8(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The learning on this topic has been recently reviewed by the President, Morison, J, in Carver v Saudi Arabian Airlines (EAT/341/97 Unreported). It is a difficult area, as the President pointed out, on which further guidance is sought from the Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal was granted in that case.
In this case the Appellant was represented by Solicitors, Hodge Jones and Allen, who faxed this Tribunal yesterday to state that they no longer had instructions from the Appellant, who is currently believed to be in Russia. In these circumstances we have considered the matter on the papers.
The particular feature of this case which strikes us that the Appellant was employed by the Respondent exclusively within Great Britain from 1984 until he entered into a written contract of employment dated 7 November 1994, appointing him to a post as Senior Electrical Engineer to work in Russia for a period of one year commencing on 1 November 1994. That appointment was subsequently extended for a further year. During that extended period, while still working in Russia, as a result of an incident at a social function involving a fellow employee, he was dismissed. The written agreement provided for his reassignment to duties in the United Kingdom on completion of his period of employment in Russia.
It follows that this case raises the question of temporary posting abroad. It is this aspect which we think requires further argument at a full appeal hearing. In addition, we think that consideration should be given to the different wording of Section 196(2) and Section 8(1) of the 1996 and 1976 Acts respectively.
In these circumstances we shall allow the matter to proceed to a full hearing listed for half a day; Category B. In view of the Solicitors ceasing to act for the Appellant he is required to notify this Tribunal, within 21 days of the promulgation of this judgment, whether or not he intends to proceed with or withdraw his appeal.