In person. For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal amended the respondent’s identity to The United States of America and accepted that the respondent was a sovereign state. It held that the respondent had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal and could rely on state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 and at common law.

The claimant had been employed at RAF Lakenheath, most recently as an Environmental Engineer/Tank Program Manager in the Environmental Element of the 48th Fighter Wing Mission Support Group. The evidence before the tribunal showed that his work involved managing the tank programme, maintaining tank inventories and records, working with Tank Custodians, responding to spills, attending environmental and tank-management meetings, and providing training linked to base operations.

Applying the authorities it cited, including Holland v Lampen-Wolfe, Littrell, Hicks, Sengupta and Benkharbouche, the tribunal asked whether the functions the claimant was employed to perform were part of the respondent’s sovereign or governmental activity. It concluded that they were, because the claimant’s role was integral to the operation and maintenance of the US air base and would require the tribunal to investigate US policies and decisions taken in the exercise of sovereign authority.

The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to determine the complaints. The unfair dismissal and equal pay claims were dismissed without any merits determination or monetary award.