|
| |||
| |||
| | |||
|
22/01/2010 A claim for race and age discrimination was brought by Chinese cabin crew ordinarily resident in Hong Kong. They worked 28 'flight cycles'a year between Hong Kong and London. Not just the proportion of time spent working in Great Britain but the nature of the job performed is important when deciding whether an employee works 'wholly or partly' in the UK for the purposes of section 8(1) of the Race Relations Act (RRA) and Regulation 10(1) of the Age Regulations. Judge Clark of the EAT said that when considering section 8(1) of the Race Relations Act and Regulation 10(1) of the Age Regulations 2006 'partly' means more than 'de minimis' (favoured in MOD v. Ghandiya a case brought by an army chaplain stationed in Germany. He was judged to be working wholly outside Great Britain ). Saggar and others v. Ministry of Defence [2005] was quoted whereby when training in London the Claimants were considered to be engaged in work.
The EAT in upholding the ET's decision that the claimants worked partly at an establishment in Great Britainin found that the claimants work constituted an integral and essential part of each flight cycle; as per Saggar the claimants took part in essential training such as debriefing on landing in the UK and were assigned duties.
|
|||