Euro religious ruling could prove a headache for bosses

The guidelines follow the court’s support for Ms Nadia Eweida who was reprimanded by British Airways for wearing a necklace crucifix, which she declined to conceal under clothing. British Airways’ uniform policy was to portray a particular brand image, and non-essential jewellery did not comply. The European Court decided that British Airways had infringed the basic entitlement of freedom to religion for Ms Eweida, who lost a British employment tribunal.

Louise Connacher, a Leeds-based director at Lupton Fawcett Lee & Priestley’s employment law department, said the guidelines mean that businesses can no longer favour their branding over one of their staff’s religious or philosophical requests. However, bosses will need to be careful, she added.

She said: “Employers must now try to accommodate a staff request to modify their dress code policy, such as wearing a crucifix at work, unless there are ‘cogent or compelling’ reasons not to. In doing so, the employer should consider factors such as the impact of the change on other staff, the operation of the business and health and safety issues. Previously, religious practices tended to be protected only when required by a particular religion. For example, whereas wearing a cross is not required by Christianity, a turban is stipulated for Sikhs. The previous European Court of Human Rights view was that where employees wished to observe their religion or belief at work in a way which was not proscribed, they should resign and work somewhere with fewer restrictions.”

However, the new guidelines mean that any requests linked to a religious or other belief cannot be rejected because they interfere with company branding. Ms Connacher added: “Unless there is a compelling reason not to permit these requests, they should be allowed. For example, a Muslim woman working in a hospital may wish to cover her head with a headscarf. This presents a health and safety risk if the headscarf is loose and could be grabbed by a patient.

“However, the employer could accommodate this request by allowing the employee to wear a closely-fitting balaclava-style head dress which would meet the needs of both parties.”

But the factor which will give UK employers “complex and difficult” decisions will be that the guidelines require bosses to consider not only religious rights but more philosophical lifestyle beliefs covering issues such as vegetarianism and animal rights. She said: “This means that employers need to think very carefully about all requests that they receive within the guidelines and cannot marginalise them purely because they do not share them or consider them unimportant if they are truly held by the individual.”

Stephen Elliott, of York-based Langleys Solicitors, added: “If employers are going to place restrictions that could impact on employee’s religious beliefs, they should ensure that such actions can be justified by a clearly identifiable and legitimate business need.”