header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 March 2013 / Sarah Johnson
Issue: 7553 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

The balancing act

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll