What employment rights do Isle of Man remote workers have?

Following the Covid-19 pandemic, “remote working” where employees undertake all or a portion of their employment outside of the traditional work setting (e.g. from home or in co-working spaces) has dramatically increased. The increased use of video conferencing and cloud-based communication platforms has delivered a working environment where geography is no longer a barrier to work.

Whilst remote working has been a liberation for many employees, allowing more autonomy and flexibility in balancing work and family life, it has left entrenched questions about the Isle of Man employment rights of employees who either work remotely from the Isle of Man for employers outside of the Island, or who work remotely for employers in the Isle of Man whilst being physically located elsewhere.

In this article, litigation advocate Andrew Langan-Newton considers the generation of Isle of Man employment rights and how that may be impacted for remote workers by a judgment of the Isle of Man Employment and Equality Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal

The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from statute, to adjudicate on and enforce the rights of qualifying employees and workers. Whilst rights are generated under other statutes, the principal statute for employment rights under Isle of Man law is the Employment Act 2006, granting (amongst many others) rights not to be unfairly dismissed, rights to make protected disclosures, and rights to request flexible working.

The employees and workers who may use the Tribunal to vindicate their rights are defined by a negative jurisdiction, defining those employees and workers who do not qualify rather than expressly defining those who do qualify.

Save for a limited exception for certain defined seafarers, employees and workers do not obtain rights under the Employment Act 2006 to raise in the Tribunal if they are “engaged in work wholly or mainly outside the Island”.

Defining “outside the Island”

There has been very little judicial interpretation of the statutory exclusion of the Tribunal under the Employment Act 2006.

In the Tribunal’s judgment in Bixter v BP, in dealing with a seafarer case the Tribunal concluded that the worker qualified under the Employment Act 2006 as at the time the breach of rights arose the worker was physically in the Isle of Man and “was not working wholly or substantially outside of this jurisdiction”. The Tribunal noted that it could take jurisdiction under the statutory provisions notwithstanding the governing law or jurisdiction of the employment contract.

Similarly, in the Tribunal’s judgment in Mirhadi v Air (IOM), in the case of a pilot the Tribunal noted that it was a question of fact where the work was carried out, to be determined by admission or on the balance of the evidence. Upon it being acknowledged that the pilot’s work was carried out wholly or mainly outside of the Isle of Man, the Tribunal declined jurisdiction. It was noted that a contract of employment could not extend the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, for example via a governing law or exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Tribunal.

In their limited interpretation, the Tribunal judgments have apparently supported an interpretation of “outside the Island” in respect of the physical location of the worker.

In the context of remote working, that would seem to support the generation rights under the Employment Act 2006 where remote working was carried out mainly from the Isle of Man but the refusal of rights where the remote worker was mainly located outside of the Isle of Man although for the benefit of an Isle of Man employer.

The Tribunal’s judgment in Gomes

However, in the Tribunal’s judgment in Gomes v Leetent of 19 February 2025, the Tribunal decided it did not have jurisdiction under the Employment Act 2006 in the context of a remote worker carrying out their work physically from the Isle of Man but “working remotely on matters involving the gaming sector beyond the Isle of Man”.

In Gomes, the Tribunal placed weight on the worker’s employment contract having an exclusive jurisdiction clause and governing law clause in favour of the law and jurisdiction of England and Wales.

The decision in Gomes appears surprising in view of previous judgments focusing on the physical location of the worker. It is noteworthy that the brief judgment does not contain a full summary of the relevant law nor reference to the Tribunal judgments in Bixter or Mirhadi. However, it does now create uncertainty in how the Tribunal will determine its jurisdiction in respect of remote workers, as to whether the physical location of the worker will be prioritised or whether it will be the substance of the work carried out.

If you have any questions on the issues raised in this article, please contact Andrew Langan-Newton.