header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 December 2007 / Joanna Wort , Hilary Aldred
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Christmas crackers

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Employers need to tread carefully when sorting out
their Christmas holiday rotas, say Hilary Aldred and Joanna Wort

The UK has historically operated working practices which take account of Christian festivals. The make-up of Britain has, however, changed; both in relation to multi-cultural issues and consumer expectation of 24/7 service. Workplaces have had to change too.

In 2003, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations (SI 2003/1660) (the regulations) made discrimination at work based on grounds of religion or belief unlawful.

Before this there was no specific protection against discrimination on the grounds of religion. Claimants tried to gain protection by “shoe horning” certain religions into the race discrimination legislation. This worked for some religious groups that also qualified as “ethnic groups” under the Race Relations Act 1976, but not others. Jews and Sikhs were protected, but Muslims were not.

The basic position under the regulations is that direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation based on religion or belief are unlawful. While direct discrimination is obvious, indirect discrimination is not. It

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

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