The Secretary of State then decided to apply or disapply the whole of Part 5 of the 2010 Act as provided for in regs 3 and 4 of the 2011 Regulations and to disapply part, but not all, of Part 5, in the circumstances provided for in reg 5. However, Parliament chose, in s 81 of the 2010 Act, to empower the Secretary of State to decide whether and to what extent Part 5 of the 2010 Act should apply in relation to work on ships, work on hovercraft and seafarers. UNCLOS imposes no obligation on the United Kingdom to exempt nationals of other States from liability under UK law for discrimination committed in England. The restrictions on States applying their laws to ships registered in a different State only apply where the ship is on the high seas. UNCLOS has nothing to say about recruitment of seafarers that takes place on dry land. It does not follow that because: (i) the 2011 Regulations were enacted with the UK’s obligations under UNCLOS in mind and (ii) the EU is a member or supporter of UNCLOS, the 2011 Regulations are compliant with the UK’s obligations under EU law. The discrimination practised by the first respondent in this case occurred on British soil, ie on the physical territory of an EU and EEA state. However, the Appeal Tribunal doubted whether the 2011 Regulations fully address the rights to equal treatment guaranteed by arts 14 and 17 of Directive 2006/54/EC (the Equal Treatment Directive) and by the equivalent provisions in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Appeal Tribunal also agreed that the solution envisaged in the 2011 Regulations does pay heed to the rights of nationals of EEA and designated States, by extending to them the protection of Part 5 of the 2010 Act where the relevant non-UK registered ship flies the flag of an EEA or designated State. The European Union is itself a party to the UNCLOS: see Council Decision 98/392/EC, 1998 OJ L179. The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the first respondent's arguments that the explanatory memorandum to the 2011 Regulations made it clear that the Regulations were being enacted within the constraints of the UK’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), which restricts the ability of States to apply their legislation to ships flying a different flag (see arts 92 and 94). The appellant argued on appeal that the Tribunal had misinterpreted s 81 of the Equality Act 2010 (UK) (the 2010 Act), read with the Equality Act (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011 (UK) (the 2011 Regulations). However, the Employment Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine her claim. When she complained, she was treated by the first respondent in a way that would amount to victimisation. She was told that she would not be employed on a non-UK flagged ship because she is a woman.
The company would start off with 11 employees.The appellant sought work aboard a foreign-registered cargo ship destined for foreign waters from the first respondent, a Hong Kong-based ship management company, which was recruiting in the UK. Wallem will open an office in Qianhai by June to manage ships from Shenzhen, the world’s fourth-busiest container port, trailing Hong Kong at No.3. “We cannot continue to have margins squeezed by what we pay in rent, and whatever else in our offices, or there is nothing left,” he told Reuters in an interview at Wallem’s headquarters in Quarry Bay, an industrial-turned-commercial district. “We, like most other service providers in Hong Kong, work on very tight profit margins,” said Jim Nelson, managing director of Wallem’s ship management arm. HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong’s 110-year-old Wallem Group, among the world’s top five ship managers, will set up shop in a proposed $45 billion business zone in the southern Chinese port city of Shenzhen as rents in the former British territory soar.īesides using the Qianhai zone as a springboard to opportunities in China’s shipping market, Wallem is also looking to fork out less than a quarter of the rent it pays in Hong Kong, which is just an hour’s drive away by car.
0 kommentar(er)
