R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Equal Opport...

Facts

• The case concerned the UK's employment rules which treated part-time workers less favorably than full-time workers in relation to unfair dismissal and redundancy rights.
• The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) challenged these rules, arguing that they disproportionately impacted women, who formed the majority of part-time workers, and that such treatment violated the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC).
• The government argued that the rules were not designed to discriminate, serving other purportedly legitimate purposes.
• At issue was the UK's obligation under the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972) to ensure that domestic law conformed to EU directives, particularly through Section 2(4), which directed courts to interpret UK legislation to achieve EU directive objectives.

Issues

1. Whether the UK employment rules concerning part-time workers conflicted with the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC).
2. Whether Section 2(4) of the ECA 1972 required courts to interpret domestic law to fulfill the objectives of relevant EU directives, even if this altered the usual reading of UK statutes.
3. Whether Parliament, by enacting the ECA 1972, had limited its own legislative sovereignty in favour of EU law priority where conflicts arose.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that the UK employment rules did not comply with the Equal Treatment Directive.
• It was determined that Section 2(4) of the ECA 1972 required UK courts to interpret and, if necessary, modify the meaning of domestic law to achieve compatibility with EU directives.
• The court confirmed that Parliament had agreed by virtue of the ECA 1972 to the priority of EU law over conflicting UK statutes.
• As a result, the employment rules in question had to be read so as to fulfil the objectives of the Equal Treatment Directive.

Legal Principles

• Section 2(4) of the ECA 1972 obliges UK courts to interpret national law in conformity with EU directives.
• EU law, where the ECA 1972 applies, has priority over conflicting national statutes.
• Parliamentary sovereignty is limited as long as the ECA 1972 remains in force; Parliament has voluntarily accepted these limitations as a condition of membership in the EU.

Conclusion

The House of Lords affirmed that UK courts must give effect to EU law via the ECA 1972, ensuring domestic law aligns with EU directives even where this limits parliamentary sovereignty. This case is central to understanding the primacy of EU law over UK legislation during the UK's EU membership.