HSBC European Works Council v HSBC Continental Europe
[2024] EAT 104
easyJet PLC v easyJet European Works Council
4 November 2022
[2022] EAT 162
Employment Appeal Tribunal
EasyJet argued that after Brexit, a UK-based company couldn't be subject to EU worker consultation rules. The court disagreed, saying the rules still apply if the company's main office is in the UK, or if it's considered to be in the UK based on its operations.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) decision on jurisdiction.
- •Dispute between easyJet PLC (employer) and easyJet European Works Council (EWC).
- •CAC held jurisdiction under Regulations 21 and 21A of amended Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 (amended TICER).
- •Employer argued amended TICER no longer applies where central management is in the UK (post-Brexit).
- •Key provisions at issue: Regulations 4 and 5 of amended TICER.
- •Employer's interpretation: "in accordance with" in Regulation 4 means "as defined by" Regulation 5, excluding actual UK central management.
- •EWC's interpretation: "in accordance with" means in agreement or conformity with, including deemed UK central management.
- •EWC argued that the regulations should apply to both actual and deemed UK central management to avoid nonsensical results and maintain existing EWCs established before Brexit.
Legal Principles
Statutory interpretation starts with the natural and ordinary meaning of words in context and common sense.
Lambeth London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and others [2019] UKSC 33
Amended statutes should be construed as free-standing legislation.
Inco Europe Ltd. and Others v First Choice Distribution [1999] 1 W.L.R. 270 CA
If the ordinary meaning leads to extraordinary results, re-examine words to see if Parliament intended a different meaning.
In re British Concrete Pipe Association’s Agreement [1983] I.C.R. 215
Parliamentary intent is an objective concept, based on reasonable imputation, not subjective intentions.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349
Amendments generally don't alter the meaning of unamended provisions unless a definition is changed.
Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd [2008] UKHL 5
Courts can correct drafting errors only in plain cases, with clear purpose, inadvertent failure to give effect to that purpose, and certainty about Parliament's intended provision.
Inco Europe Ltd. and Others v First Choice Distribution (a firm) and Others [2000] 1 W.L.R. 586
Explanatory Notes are admissible aids to construction if they cast light on the statute's objective setting, context, and mischief.
Regina (Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The CAC did not err in law. The natural and ordinary meaning of "in accordance with Regulation 5" in Regulation 4 includes situations where central management is deemed by Regulation 5 to be situated in the UK, in addition to where it is actually situated there. This interpretation avoids nonsensical results and aligns with the likely parliamentary intent to maintain existing EWCs after Brexit.