> We know the law meant the last two things as separate anyway, though, because there's no "or" The judgment by the appeals court covers that too. Interestingl

> We know the law meant the last two things as separate anyway, though, because there's no "or" The judgment by the appeals court covers that too. Interestingly they don't side one way or the other on what the text means, instead they simply conclude that it is ambiguous. Having concluded that, they follow a separate rule which says that if there is ambiguity, then the judgment should favour the employees.