header-logo header-logo

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

Christmas crackers

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

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