Comments for Mrs Markleham

Comment on Red tape by Beecroft report was inspired by ‘hopeless’ HR director, says Telegraph | XpertHR - Employment Intelligence

Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:45:36 +0000

[...] Red Tape An excellent post from Mrs Markleham’s blog. [...]

Comment on Eweida: what it all means by UK Blawg Roundup #13 « Work/Life/Law Work/Life/Law

UK Blawg Roundup #13 « Work/Life/Law Work/Life/Law — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:52:15 +0000

[...] the specialist employment law bloggers, the mysterious Mrs Markleham was quick off the mark, as was Darren [...]

Comment on Actually, Eweida has a point but she’ll still lose today by Mrs Markleham

Mrs Markleham — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:15:29 +0000

Difficult to answer such a general question in this forum. Essentially, it would depend on why the employer had laid down the requirement, whether the requirement could reasonably be said to put the employee to any disadvantage, and why the employee was objecting to it (specifically whether their objection was related to a religious or philosophical belief).

Comment on Eweida: what it all means by Mrs Markleham

Mrs Markleham — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:30:47 +0000

Manifesting would certainly include time of for prayers and anything else that has a sufficiently strong "nexus" with a religious belief (and provided the belief itself passes the previously set-down tests as to being cogent and worthy of respect in a democratic society etc). Of course the business case in relation to disallowing (or at any rate placing reasonable limitations on) prayer breaks is in many cases rather stronger than the "corporate image" arguments that the court found so unpersuasive in Eweida. For example, see Cherfi v G4S an indirect religious discrimination case involving a Muslim security guard asking to be able to leave the site to go to Mosque.

Comment on Eweida: what it all means by Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:33:35 +0000

@Rick

I believe the upshot of the Eweida case is that employers must make “reasonable accommodation”, and that is all.

You will no doubt be relieved that unreasonable demands by troublesome employees are unlikely to be successful in the courts. If there is a business case for not allowing “manifesting a religion” then neither Strasbourg nor the UK courts will find an employer in breach. Is that not what the other three cases, which were lost by the applicants, affirms?

Eweida stands out, at least the way I see it, because it was an example of an exercise of arbitrary power by an over bearing employer seeking to suppress diversity and personal expression. Employers behaving in these ways is becoming increasingly common as jobs become scarcer and power increasingly shifts to employers.

Eweida’s desire to manifest produced no discernible or material detriment to her employer. The business case for suppressing Eweida was just about non-existent. In these circumstances, Eweida’s (qualified) right to manifest must trump BA’s ability to exercise arbitrary power. And so I am very glad that Strasbourg thought the same

Comment on Eweida: what it all means by Rick

Rick — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:37:18 +0000

Does ‘manifesting a religion’ stop at religious symbols and clothing? Might it include other things like time off for prayer breaks? If manifesting my religion is whatever I say it is and employers have to justify why they won’t let me do it, if I were a troublemaker, that would give me huge scope for making all sorts of claims.

Comment on Eweida: what it all means by Eweida victory is a significant extension of religious rights | Flip Chart Fairy Tales

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:57:18 +0000

[...] Mrs Markleham agrees: [...]

Comment on Red tape by Eweida: what it all means | Mrs Markleham

Eweida: what it all means | Mrs Markleham — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:59:37 +0000

[...] say that they won’t do this. Largely because it would go contrary to their current war on “red tape” but also because I think they would prefer to see what the courts do, and then blame the [...]

Comment on Eweida: what it all means by Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:46:33 +0000

As a non-lawyer, I am pleased to hear that the ECtHR is likely to change the way the UK courts should approach such cases. In my view, Eweida’s case was always clear, there being no legitimate reason to bar her cross wearing. The UK courts, bless ‘em, could not see it and the degree of consensus among the legal and HR commentariat that Eweida would lose in Strasbourg was remarkable, although I suspect some of this consensus was wishful thinking

I suggest the UK courts too easily produce (morally) incorrect decisions because they hold process and precedent to be more important than outcome. From time to time, the UK courts need the external shock provided by Strasbourg to jolt them out of their lazy, complacent dogmatism.

Gaskin v UK 1989 is another ECtHR judgement that overturned the lazy complacent thinking of establishment judges (Lord Denning, no less). That case too has changed the way UK courts approach related cases. And society is healthier for it.

Perhaps I speak from extreme ignorance, but I venture to suggest that UK courts should favour justice and fairness,in cases where these two qualities conflict with precedents and procedures .If Strasbourg can, then why can’t our own courts?

Comment on Eweida: what it all means by European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): Eweida, Chaplin, Ladele, McFarlane – Judgement Published | eChurch Blog

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:42:57 +0000

[...] Mrs Markleham - Eweida: what it all means [...]

Comment on Making sense of the EHRC’s stance on religion by Eweida: what it all means | Mrs Markleham

Eweida: what it all means | Mrs Markleham — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:15:05 +0000

[...] have previously argued that the way the Court of Appeal assessed group disadvantage in Eweida was wrong. However, following [...]

Comment on Actually, Eweida has a point but she’ll still lose today by Eweida: what it all means | Mrs Markleham

Eweida: what it all means | Mrs Markleham — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:51:27 +0000

[...] ← Actually, Eweida has a point but she’ll still lose today [...]

Comment on Actually, Eweida has a point but she’ll still lose today by Mrs Markleham

Mrs Markleham — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:43:44 +0000

I don’t think BA were prejudiced against her. They just took the view – wrongly it now appears – that their desire to maintain a uniform “corporate image” for several thousand employees was more important than one employee’s personal decision to wear a faith symbol. Lessons appear to have been learned in the process.

Comment on Actually, Eweida has a point but she’ll still lose today by Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:17:27 +0000

Yeah, well clearly in the Eweida case there was no reason to ban her other than illiberal prejudice.

Comment on Actually, Eweida has a point but she’ll still lose today by Mrs Markleham

Mrs Markleham — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:11:38 +0000

There may be good reasons for many of those things. In Chaplin v Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, a Christian nurse was asked to remove her necklace (which had a crucifix on it) as necklaces presented a safety risk when working with disturbed patients. She was offered a compromise such as wearing a crucifix on her badge, but would not accept this. In Azmi v Kirklees Borough Council, a school asked a Muslim teaching assistant to remove her veil when teaching children as it made communication easier. In Dhinsa v Serco a Sikh prison officer was forbidden from wearing a kirpan under his clothes as it created a security risk. In all these cases the tribunals found the employer’s actions to be justified. Cases must be assessed on their facts, and a blanket rule that employees must always be permitted to wear whatever articles of faith they choose is simply not workable.