ECtHR not in favour of discrimination on grounds of political opinion
A bus driver sacked from his job of ferrying mainly Asian passengers after he became a BNP councillor has won his case at the European Court of Human Rights.
The court ruled 4-3 this week that the UK breached Arthur Redfearn’s Art 11 right to freedom of association (Redfearn v UK (App No 47335/06)).
It noted that Redfearn had no right to claim unfair dismissal, as he had been employed for less than a year, but accepted his legal team’s argument that “fundamental rights must be effective and available from the first day of employment”.
The court also appeared to suggest the UK should amend its discrimination law to treat political belief and affiliation in the same way as race, sex, age and disability.
Its judgment stated that Art 11 applied to “those whose views offend, shock or disturb” and “it was incumbent on the respondent state to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect employees, including those with less than one year’s service, from dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation, either through the creation of a further exception to the one-year qualifying period or through a free-standing claim for unlawful discrimination on grounds of political opinion or affiliation.”
Three dissenting judges—Nicolas Bratza, Päivi Hirvelä and George Nicolaou—ruled in favour of the UK.
They stated: “We are unable to accept the argument that, having created certain exceptions to the requirement of employment for the qualifying period, the state was obliged to create a further exception in the case of dismissal on grounds of political opinion, still less that the Convention imposes a positive obligation to create a free-standing cause of action, without any temporal limitation.
“This, in our view, is to press the positive obligation too far.”
Serco, which had a transport contract with Bradford City Council, dismissed Redfearn in 2004, citing health and safety risks, since his continued employment could cause anxiety among his passengers, and expressing concerns about reputational damage and the potential loss of their contract with the council. Redfearn appealed, arguing indirect racial discrimination.
.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=9a8f1ea9_1)
