EUPillar Robert Romain v. Symbol Technologies E.M.E.A. - 45/924

Summary

The employment contract between Mr. R. Romain and Symbol technologies international Inc. took effect on 24 June 1985. On 31 August 1999, the Belgian subsidiary where Mr. Romain worked, closed its doors. The complete staff was laid off, except for three people, including Mr. Romain, who was offered a 2-year contract with Symbol Technologies E.M.E.A. as sales director within the distribution operations of E.M.E.A., based in Dubai and responsible for the Middle East and Indian subcontinent. The contract provided that at its expiration, the company would try to find a different role for the employee, offering another function which would not necessarily be based in Belgium or, if no such function could be found, the employer would terminate the contract according to Belgian law. On 26 March 2002, the employer terminated Mr. Romain’s contract with a notice period of 1 month and a severance package equalling 15 months’ pay. The termination letter was sent to Mr. Romain’s address in Dubai. The first judge had dismissed the action brought by Mr. Romain, finding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Labour Court of Appeal considers that the initial contract with Mr. Romain’s American employer was substituted by novation by a new contract with an English employer. The UK and Belgium are bound by the Brussels I Regulation. The Court first refers to Art. 19 Brussels I Regulation. However, the Court also notes that when interpreting Art. 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, the European Court of Justice found that “when a court finds that claims made before it are based on obligations arising from a contract of employment and that the employee' s obligation to carry out the agreed work was and must be fulfilled outside the territory of the Contracting States, it has no choice but to conclude that the place provided for in Article 5(1) of the Convention cannot serve as a basis for attributing jurisdiction to a court within that territory and that Article 5(1) cannot therefore be applicable” (ECJ 15 February 1989, case no. 32/88, Six constructions, OJ 1989, 341). Therefore, since the employer is domiciled in the United Kingdom, only the English courts have jurisdiction. The fact that Mr. Romain worked in Belgium from 1985 until 1999 is not relevant since at the time he was working for a different employer.