header-logo header-logo

Christmas crackers

13 December 2007 / Joanna Wort , Hilary Aldred
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

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 happens

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll