This site might not work as expected.
You're using an old browser that isn't supported by this site. Please upgrade or download one of these free and excellent browsers: https://browser-update.org/update.html

European Judgment on Displays of Religious Faith in the Workplace Doesn't Offer Clear cut Guidance to Employers

Decisions in the case of Eweida & Others vs UK today shows a must balance between sensitive limits and an employee's wish to display religious beliefs

​​With the European Court of Human Rights ruling in favour of British Airways worker Nadia Eweida, HR expert Croner ( www.cronersolutions.co.uk) is warning bosses to have robust, justifiable reasons for restricting the wearing of displays of religious faith such as crosses.

Four cases of religious discrimination were heard at the European Court of Human Rights yesterday. Of the four, three were found not to be violating the rights of the employee. The fourth however was deemed to have had her rights violated under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Liz Iles, Senior Employment Consultant at Croner says: The decisions in the case of Eweida & Others v UK today shows that there must be a balance between an employee's wish to display their religious beliefs and a sound rationale why they might be restricted.

What this means in practice is that employers must have good justifiable reasons why, for example, employees can't wear a cross at work. A good example of this is demonstrated by a connected case heard at the ECHR today. Nurse Shirley Chaplin was told by her employer that she couldn't wear her cross around her neck as it posed a health and safety risk. This was held to be a legitimate justifiable reason.

The ECHR decision in the case of Nadia Eweida was based on special circumstances, including the fact that a discreet cross would not have adversely affected British Airways' public image.

While these court judgements may be hard for bosses to interpret when making controversial decisions, for many employers it will make it easier to agree to employee requests rather than risk a complaint. However, employers are advised to explore all options available to them as alternatives when faced with an objection from an employee, especially as sensitive as one related to their religion or belief.

What is not apparent in the ECHR decision is the position in relation to third parties. For example, it may be that a member of the public or a colleague might be offended by the display of religious faith and may themselves make complaints.

About Croner
Croner, a Wolters Kluwer business, is the UK’s largest provider of workplace information, software and services. It has served HR, health & safety and business professionals since 1948. Wolters Kluwer is a market-leading global information services company with annual revenues (2011) of €3.4 billion and maintains operations in over 40 countries across Europe, North America, Asia Pacific and Latin America. Wolters Kluwer is headquartered in Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands. Its shares are quoted on Euronext Amsterdam (WKL) and are included in the AEX and Euronext 100 indices.
You can follow Croner and Wolters Kluwer UK on Twitter: @cronervoice, @wolterskluweruk