The claimant was a sports coach and had undertaken work with the respondent in coaching hockey.  This had been from 2010 until it came to an end in 2018.   The claimant alleged that he was unfairly dismissed in 2018, yet the respondent argued that Northern Ireland was not the correct jurisdiction and, even if it was, the claimant was not an employee  - therefore could not avail of the right of unfair dismissal within the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996.

The issue with jurisdiction largely arose on the basis that there was a lack of any contemporaneous of written documentation that formalised the relationship between the parties.  Therefore, it was not fully known the extent to which the claimant coached in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere.  The Tribunal referred to Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] in which Lord Hoffman stated that whilst the legislative enactments do not contain limits on the territorial scope for unfair dismissal it cannot have world-wide effect. This was dealt with in a more substantive way in the recent case of Jeffery v British Council [2019] where the Court of Appeal stated that it is the general intention of Parliament that a worker is to be subject to the laws of where they carry out their work, rather than the law of GB [or, in this case, Northern Ireland].

To determine whether it was in a particular jurisdiction, the question is whether there is a sufficient connection to that jurisdiction which may relate to an employer in one jurisdiction requiring the individual to work in another jurisdiction but based on that employer's work in the original jurisdiction.  This position has also been formalised within EU Regulation 1215/2012, which states that an employer can be sued in the area they are domiciled or where the employee habitually carries out their work.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had its offices in Dublin, the senior and U21 hockey teams were based in Dublin and the meetings it held were conducted in Dublin.  In analysing the work pattern of the claimant, there was a lack of credibility considering that there were figures of 30 or 40% in relation to work carried out at home in performance analysis.  This was disputed by the Tribunal and there was also a figure of 30% of international work which would have meant more than 3 months was spent away from Ireland.  As there was a lack of clarity as to where the work was fully carried out, the Tribunal found that the claimant did not principally carry out his obligations in Northern Ireland and, as a result, there was no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Interestingly, the Tribunal tackled the point of the claimant’s employment status, stating that he was an independent contractor.  This was based upon numerous factors but especially the fact that the claimant billed the respondent through a limited company that he established in the Republic of Ireland.  Therefore, the claimant would not have succeeded even if there was no territorial jurisdiction point.

Practical Lessons

This case shows the importance of getting the right jurisdiction in bringing a claim.  With individuals working and living on either side of the border, it means that employment laws and how they are enforced will differ.  This has been given some certainty through the decision of the Court of Appeal in Jeffery, as well as EU Regulations.

This means that the Tribunal will look at where any claimant principally carries out their obligations and whether there is a sufficient connection to the jurisdiction in their work.  For cases involving cross-border work, this may require further analysis by a claimant before bringing their claim in the Industrial Tribunal in Northern Ireland or the WRC in Dublin.