This month Quentin Colborn turns his attention to two recent law cases which highlight the dilemma faced when work and personal morals clash.

This week has seen two newsworthy employment law cases in the press. Both relate to the legislation that protects employees from discrimination on the grounds of a deeply held religious or philosophical belief. In one case, a registrar within a local authority was apparently disciplined for refusing, on the basis of her deeply held religious beliefs, to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples. In the other, a dismissed manager is claiming that his deeply held views on climate change were protected under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. This month Colborn’s Corner looks at these two cases and wonders what impact, if any, they will have on HR professionals.

The case of Lillian Ladele involves a lady who was a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages since 2002 at the London Borough of Islington. One of the aspects of her role was to officiate at Civil Partnerships. Ms Ladele is a committed Christian who does not believe that same sex partnerships are right in God’s sight and so sought to be excused from officiating at such ceremonies on the grounds that to do so went against her religious beliefs. Ultimately she was dismissed by the Borough on the grounds that conducting such ceremonies was a part of her role.  She took her employer to Tribunal and won her claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. The employer won an appeal at EAT and Ms Ladele has now taken her case to the Court of Appeal.

So what does at case at Court of Appeal mean for HR people in their day to day lives? Firstly, we have to remember that this case involves a local authority, which as one of its aims seeks to promote equality of all groupings. Few, if any, commercial enterprises will have such an objective. Most businesses will seek to have equality of opportunity, some more actively than others, but few will see it as an overriding objective. So how far can or do personal beliefs conflict with the law? And if there is conflict can there be compromise?

I doubt that there will ever be a time when all citizens agree with all the laws and actions of the state. Over the years we have seen conscientious objectors during wartime who have objected to conscription, on occasions we have seen some who refuse to pay all their taxes on the grounds that some of the money has been used to fuel the arms race. So what about objections to conducting partnerships of same-sex couples? This is not an issue unique to Christians, many Muslims and Jews may also have objections on the grounds of their religious beliefs. So are we to ignore deeply held religious convictions or are we to say that they always have to be subject to the requirements of the employer? I suspect that in a case like this enabling Ms Ladele to not conduct same-sex partnership ceremonies, perhaps by altering the rota, was not against the law; although it appears to be against the principles of the employer.

Two other pieces of information to throw into this pot. Firstly apparently Ms Ladele started work prior to the Civil partnership rules coming into place and secondly other local authorities have apparently overcome these concerns in other cases. So what does the reader make of the situation? Should personal views always be secondary to those of the employer, or could there be a role for sitting down and talking and looking for a constructive way out of the situation? 

The other case in the news addresses the issue of what constitutes a deeply held philosophical belief. An individual had brought a claim for unfair dismissal, claiming that his views on climate change were a factor in the dismissal. At a pre-hearing review a Tribunal Judge has apparently ruled that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations. It should be noted that this judgement is not binding (being an ET case only) and the full merits of the case are yet to be addressed, however, the message for employers is that the boundary of philosophical belief are being extended all the time.

Have you ever had to deal with the potential conflict between deeply held religious or philosophical beliefs and an organisation’s requirements? Have you been placed in this position personally? If so, please let us have your story and experience – anonymously if necessary.

Quentin Colborn is an independent HR consultant based in Essex who advises management teams on operational and strategic HR issues. Quentin can be contacted on 01376 571360, www.qcpeoplemanagement.co.uk or via [email protected]