Online Solicitor

Anybody that has ever picked up a tabloid, or had one thrust into their hand outside a tube station, will have read about extreme cases of religious discrimination in the workplace. Oftentimes these stories are deliberately picked for their controversial nature, yet written as if events of this magnitude are commonplace example of religious discrimination. This is not the case; religious discrimination is a genuine concern for employers because it is not always as obvious as the cases we hear about in the news – most the time it is subtler and difficult to resolve without an understanding of what it is and what should be done about it. In the next couple of posts I hope to clarify some issues relating to this type of discrimination in the workplace, in the hope that it will be of some use to employers and employees alike.

Religious discrimination poses a problem for employers; they cannot make employment decisions based on an employee’s religion, but yet they must take employee’s religious beliefs into account when making business decisions. Cases of religious discrimination often occur when a workplace rule directly contradicts a religious practice, putting religious employees at a detriment to other workers. In cases like these, the employer has limited options; they can change the business practice to accommodate religious rules, or they can refuse to change the business practice on the grounds that it is a proportionate way of achieving a business goal. Both options require detailed consideration as well as insight into what the law demands from employers and employees.

In my next post I will examine these issues by giving some examples of how employers are expected to deal with religious practices that can conflict with business rules, without getting on the wrong side of employment solicitors.

Last time I explained that religious discrimination is a real concern for employers because it is often hard to detect and solve, yet often results in employment solicitors being called and large tribunals being awarded. For example, although employers must be prepared to interview candidates from a range of faiths and religions when recruiting, they cannot directly ask candidates about their faith or the manner in which they practice their religion. This often results in employers being unaware of contradictions between their company’s rules and an employee’s religious practices until the problem manifests itself. When this occurs, the employer can change the business rules to accommodate the religious practice, or they can claim that the company practice is a proportionate way of achieving a business goal that cannot be changed. Here are a couple of examples of how employers and employees are expected to deal with commonplace contradictions of company rules and religious practice:

In cases of rules relating to dress and uniform, employers are usually expected to make changes to their dress codes to accommodate compulsory religious clothing. This is because most uniforms can accommodate items like turbans and burkhas with no detriment to the performance or safety of the employee. However, should the religious clothing contradict health and safety legislation, the employer may have a legitimate argument to refuse to change their dress code to accept items of clothing that will put the employee or company at risk.

A similar common-sense guideline is followed for cases when employees ask for time off for religious observance. Whilst it is deemed unreasonable for employers to refuse to give a religious employee time off for religious festivals or prayer, they are not expected to provide paid leave for religious observance and can request that employees make up any missed working hours.

The next post will be my last on religious discrimination and will serve to outline to purpose of religious discrimination laws and what it considered a “religion” in this day and age.