Landmark decision for employees under foreign contracts

In a landmark case that will help thousands of employees working in Britain under foreign contracts, four flight attendants have won a legal battle against one of the world’s biggest airlines.

The four flight attendants, Jane Collins (39), Lindsay Cox (34), Patricia Mulcahy (32), and Sylvie Gayler (31), who had all worked for United Airlines for around 11 years, claimed that they had been denied basic maternity rights during the time they lived in London and worked out of Heathrow.

When they became pregnant, the four women were suspended after they followed their doctor’s advice and refused to work on long-distance flights. The four were forced to take time from an accrued “bank” of sick leave. United Airlines argued that, under American law, it could lay them off when they reached 31 weeks of pregnancy. But the women’s lawyers argued that they should be treated under British law, and counter-claimed that they were being discriminated against on grounds of their gender.

An employment tribunal in London rejected United’s claim that the flight attendants were employed under American law and agreed that the four women were entitled under British law to take their grievance action against United Airlines.

The Tribunal accepted that British Law applied to the women despite the fact that they did not habitually work in Britain, were hired in the USA, and employed under a predominantly American contract. The Tribunal took the view that the employment relationship as a whole was much more closely connected to Britain. Having accepted that the women may rely on British law, the Tribunal will now go on to consider the merits of their claim.

Barry Clarke of Russell Jones & Walker, who represented the women, said: “This is a groundbreaking case that will have a major impact on a number of employees working in different sectors. As a result of developments in European legislation, UK law has recently been amended. This case is the first to reflect the changes to the law. It confirms that it is more difficult for an employer to avoid the implications of British employment law, including maternity rights, for example requiring staff to be interviewed and recruited overseas and then to work in this country under a foreign contract.”

Mr Clarke said that even those who spend a small percentage of their working time in Great Britain would now be able to present discrimination claims in the UK. (SP)