header-logo header-logo

22 March 2013 / Sarah Johnson
Issue: 7553 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

The balancing act

Sarah Johnson reviews recent guidance on how to balance the competing interests of employees

Balancing employees’ sometimes competing interests has always been difficult. Recent cases on religion and belief in the workplace have led to helpful new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (the Commission).

Religion or belief in the workplace: A guide for employers following recent European Court of Human Rights judgments (the guidance) was published following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in four combined cases; Eweida and others v UK (App Nos 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10). These cases were brought by Christians, but the judgment impacts employees with any, or without any, religion or belief.

Facts

The claimants argued that UK law had failed to protect their right to manifest religion under (among other things) Arts 9 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention). 

Ms Eweida and Ms Chaplin both wanted to wear a visible cross in breach of their employers’ uniform policies.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll