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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll