header-logo header-logo

Losing your religion

Is promoting faith in the workplace a no-go area? asks Charles Pigott

Up to now, decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660) have tended to focus either on dress codes, or on a clash between orthodox Christian and secular attitudes to homosexuality. Chondol v Liverpool City Council UKEAT/0298/08, [2009] All ER (D) 155 (Feb) is the first case at appellate level to touch on the broader question of whether the regulations confer any protection on employees who express their religious views in the workplace without overtly attacking other people's beliefs or values.

A social worker in Liverpool

Mr Chondol was a social worker against whom disciplinary proceedings were brought on a number of grounds. The main group of charges related to his failure to adhere to the council's guidelines about safety and the need for professional boundaries. But it was also alleged that he had been guilty of “inappropriate promotion” of his religious beliefs. In the end the council

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll