Viewpoint: EHRC’s report into religion or belief in the workplace

University researchers comment on the report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into religion or belief in the workplace:

Dr Matt Gibson, Lecturer in the Liverpool Law School  at the University of Liverpool :

 “The conclusion of a report published today by the Equality and Human Rights Commission is that there is widespread public confusion over laws protecting religion or belief.

The report’s findings stem from research undertaken between August 2014 – October 2014 which aimed to capture ‘the direct and personal experiences of employees and service users concerning religion or belief, as well as the views of employers, service providers, relevant organisations and the legal and advice sectors’.

Equality and human rights legislation provides the core legal framework for adjudication of religion or belief issues in the workplace and service delivery. Respondents disagreed on the effectiveness of this current framework. Whilst it has encouraged the positive recognition of religion or belief diversity in society, some individuals felt that it had not gone far enough in protecting minority or non-religious beliefs.

Notably, Christian employees/employers and services users pointed towards a link between the framework and a loss of status for Christianity. Many individuals suggested systems of practical guidance and checklists for employers and service providers which would complement existing laws, enabling religion or belief matters to be determined more transparently and effectively.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has announced that the results of this report will inform a further report, to be published later this year, on the adequacy of laws protecting religion or belief. In addressing religion or belief concerns, it will be intriguing to see whether that second report proposes a continuation of guidance on the law, or whether it will advocate bolder, more substantive, changes to the law.”

 
Daniel Whistler, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy:

“All this is not surprising. The media is full of such stories: employers and service-providers seemingly insist on the privatisation of belief, creating a neutral, secular workplace free from religion. Sometimes this is seen as a bad thing, e.g. ‘The Christian majority is being persecuted by aseptic secularism!’; sometimes, however, it is seen as a good thing, e.g. ‘Those who wear full veils must remove them when being questioned in court!’.

More surprising is the extent to which the courts themselves have jumped through hoops over the last couple of years to become far more sympathetic to believers and far more protective of their right to manifest their religious beliefs (as enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights).

The turning-point was the case of Nadia Eweida, the British Airways employee who was initially required to hide the cross hanging round her neck for the sake of uniform policy. While Eweida’s complaint was repeatedly dismissed by the UK courts, it was surprisingly upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2013.

The European Court thereby instituted a new way of treating complaints about religious freedom. Previously, the courts had been quick to dismiss anyone who could just get another, more obliging job (‘the specific situation rule’) or who was wearing a symbol that was not ‘intimately linked’ to underlying cogent beliefs (‘the Arrowsmith principle’). Eweida’s case marked a watershed: the burden now falls on the employer or government to accommodate the believer as much as is reasonably possible. Indeed, the Council of Europe explicitly signed up to this principle a few weeks ago in a newly-approved resolution.

We have yet to see this post-Eweida aspiration to protect the rights of the believer tested out in the domestic courts; nevertheless, it seems fair to say that the discontent of religious believers – whether they are truly being persecuted or not – has made itself heard across Europe.”

 

Leave a comment