In M v London Borough of Merton the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) has upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that a requirement for all full-time staff to work on Sundays in rotation did not indirectly discriminate against a Christian.
M, a Christian, was employed as a children’s care worker under a contract which required her to work on Sundays. After two years of accommodating her wish to abstain from Sunday shifts owing to her Christian beliefs, the Council required M to work as contractually obliged. M refused to do so. Disciplinary action followed and, after being issued with a final written warning, M resigned claiming that the requirement to work Sundays amounted to indirect religious discrimination.
The tribunal found that the Council’s aim, of ensuring an appropriate gender balance on each shift, an appropriate seniority mix, a cost-effective service in the face of budgetary constraints, fair treatment of all its staff and continuity for the children being cared for, to which M’s contractual provisions were directed, was legitimate and a proportionate means of achieving that aim. M appealed.
The EAT rejected M’s assertion that the tribunal had impermissibly adjudicated on what was ‘core’ to Christian belief by stating that M’s belief that Sunday should be a day of rest and worship, while deeply held, was ‘not a core component of the Christian faith’. The tribunal’s judgement had to be viewed as a whole. The EAT held that, when the judgement was read in context, it was clear that the tribunal intended the expression ‘core’ to reflect the witness evidence of an Anglican bishop who stated that ‘some’ Christians will not work on the Sabbath. It was appropriate for the tribunal to have regard to this evidence in weighing the impact of the PCP. The tribunal was commenting on the degree to which Christians generally would be affected, not on what was important to the Christian faith.
Paul Burton, Employment Solicitor, says “The EAT held there was evidence on which the tribunal could reach the conclusions it did and there was nothing to suggest that the tribunal was ‘any less than properly scrupulous’ about those conclusions. Concluding that the Council had acted proportionately, the EAT dismissed M’s appeal.”
For a free initial meeting please call 01202 499255 and Kate or Paul will be happy to discuss any questions you may have.
Comments