08.06.2017 Views

Newcastle News June 2017

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Employment Law and Court <strong>News</strong><br />

Employment Law Update<br />

It has been widely reported that the case of Achbita and another v<br />

G4S Secure Solutions NV has given employers carte blanche to ban<br />

Muslim headscarves in the work place without facing claims of<br />

discrimination. Indeed, right wing political parties throughout<br />

Europe hailed and appropriated the result with French presidential<br />

candidate Francois Fillon declaring the judgement an ‘’immense<br />

relief’’ while the German AFD leader stated it ‘’sends out the right<br />

message’’. In actual fact, this was a much more nuanced judgement<br />

than these statements would suggest and certainly isn’t the ‘greenlight’<br />

for banning headscarves that has been suggested.<br />

Ms Achbita was employed by the Belgian branch of security company<br />

G4S as a receptionist. After three years of working for the firm, she<br />

decided she wanted to begin wearing a headscarf. She was dismissed<br />

when she refused to remove it and the company claimed she had broken<br />

an unwritten rule that prohibited religious symbols. The court held that<br />

where an employer had a policy of maintaining religious, political or<br />

philosophical neutrality in customer-facing roles, this must be regarded<br />

as a legitimate aim and the dismissal was therefore deemed fair. What is<br />

absolutely crucial and what many of the headlines decided to ignore was<br />

that this was a ban on all religious, political and philosophical symbols.<br />

The policy would have to have applied to the wearing of a cross, a turban<br />

or a Star of David, for example. This does, however, somewhat contradict<br />

the European Court of Human Right’s decision in 2013 which held that<br />

British Airways should not have required a Christian check-in employee to<br />

remove the cross they wore round their neck. The fact that this case was<br />

not referred to in Achbita has not gone unnoticed and it has been<br />

pointed out that this decision poses a potential conflict between the<br />

concepts of freedom of religion and non- discrimination.<br />

However, it was noted that national courts should decide in each instance<br />

whether such a policy is appropriate or necessary. Much of the reporting<br />

on the case omitted the fact that the policy was only considered<br />

legitimate because it related solely to customer-facing roles. The decision<br />

had no bearing on the wearing of headscarves or other religious symbols<br />

in public or indeed in non-customer facing roles. Furthermore, the<br />

question of whether the employee could have been re-deployed in a<br />

non-customer facing position was not considered but would certainly be<br />

a relevant factor for any employer considering adopting such a policy or<br />

for any court determining whether the policy was fair. The ambit of this<br />

decision was therefore significantly more limited than was suggested by<br />

the media.<br />

It is crucial, therefore, that employers do not see this judgement as an<br />

opportunity to impose similar bans on the wearing of headscarves or any<br />

other kind of religious or political symbols. Such a policy requires careful<br />

consideration and the onus is on every employer to ensure they can<br />

justify their dress codes from a discrimination perspective.<br />

By Tom Clarke<br />

National JLD Representative for the <strong>Newcastle</strong> and North East JLD<br />

and Trainee Solicitor at Hay & Kilner<br />

Interesting Fact:<br />

Tom used to be in a band and once played a headline show at the O2<br />

Academy in <strong>Newcastle</strong> to 1000 people.<br />

Letter<br />

JUDGE BRIAN DOYLE<br />

PRESIDENT<br />

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (ENGLAND & WALES)<br />

To:<br />

All Employment Judges and members in these regions All relevant<br />

Regional User Groups<br />

Dear colleagues,<br />

Judicial changes at North Shields, Leeds and<br />

Manchester<br />

I write to advise you of judicial changes that will occur within the<br />

Employment Tribunal regions centred on North Shields, Leeds and<br />

Manchester this summer.<br />

The Regional Employment Judge for Yorkshire & Humber (Leeds, Hull and<br />

Sheffield), Judge Christine Lee, will retire on 31 July <strong>2017</strong> and will be on<br />

final leave from 1 July <strong>2017</strong>.<br />

The Regional Employment Judge for <strong>Newcastle</strong> (North Shields and<br />

Middlesbrough), Judge David Reed, will retire on 30 September <strong>2017</strong>.<br />

On 1 July <strong>2017</strong>, with his agreement, I shall transfer Regional Employment<br />

Judge Stuart Robertson from the North West region (Manchester,<br />

Liverpool and Cumbria hearing centres) to the Yorkshire & Humber region<br />

(to be based at Leeds). He will work with REJ Reed to create a newly<br />

merged North East ET region, coterminous with the HMCTS North East<br />

region, with effect from 1 October <strong>2017</strong>. Then on 1 October <strong>2017</strong> REJ<br />

Robertson will assume responsibility as the REJ for the newly merged<br />

North East ET region.<br />

I will nominate an Acting REJ for up to 12 months to lead the ET North<br />

West region. I am also seeking agreement for a JAC competition to<br />

appoint a new REJ for the ET North West region as soon as possible after 1<br />

July <strong>2017</strong>.<br />

I should stress that these changes are entirely judicial. There is no present<br />

intention to merge the ET administrative centres currently based at Leeds<br />

and North Shields. Judges, members and users should see little or no<br />

difference to the administrative arrangements that are in place at the<br />

moment so far as casework, bookings, listings and hearings are<br />

concerned. Of course, I cannot rule out administrative or estates changes<br />

anywhere within the ET system in the future, whether as part of the<br />

HMCTS Reform Programme or otherwise, but the changes I am describing<br />

here are judicial changes only. It also remains the intention that the ET<br />

will return to <strong>Newcastle</strong> city centre as soon as estates reform can provide.<br />

REJ Lee and REJ Reed informed their salaried judicial colleagues of their<br />

retirement plans yesterday. HMCTS staff will be informed of these judicial<br />

changes today. It is appropriate that the staff should hear of these<br />

changes from HMCTS management rather than from other sources. I<br />

envisage that the judicial changes will be the subject of discussion<br />

among judges and members and with the user groups. I shall be very<br />

happy to respond to any questions, comments or concerns. Do not<br />

hesitate to contact me.<br />

With best wishes<br />

Yours sincerely,<br />

Judge Brian Doyle<br />

President<br />

Note:<br />

An article from Angela Narey, Barrister<br />

Representative for the <strong>Newcastle</strong> and North East<br />

JLD, will appear in the next edition.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!