Barrister and writer Tim Kevan has withdrawn the BabyBarista Blog from The Times in reaction to their plans to hide it away behind a subscription-based paywall. He commented: “I didn’t start this blog for it to be the exclusive preserve of a limited few subscribers. I wrote it to entertain whosoever wishes to read it.” The re-launched site is at www.babybarista.com and includes numerous cartoons of the blog’s characters by Times cartoonist Alex Williams.

By way of background, BabyBarista is a fictional account of a junior barrister at the English Bar. The stories he tells appeared on The Times for over three years and they also led to him getting two book deals with Harry Potter’s publisherBloomsbury. BabyBarista and the Art of War was published as a trade paperback last year and was described by broadcaster Jeremy Vine as “a wonderful racing read – well-drawn, smartly plotted and laugh out loud” and by The Times as “a cross between the talented Mr Ripley, Rumpole and Bridget Jones’s Diary”. A mass market edition with the new title Law and Disorder is due out in August. Book Two of the BabyBarista Files will also be published by Bloomsbury. The provisional title is Law and Peace and although a date hasn’t been finalised it is likely to be published in 2011.

Related posts:

1. What are Lawyers really like?

Baby Barista Resigns from The Times over their Decision to Charge originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 28/05/2010.

It's the one in Iceland, I can't spell it either

Now that the drama of the election is over and the novelty of the Coalition government is fading and before the whole country shuts down for the World Cup, it’s time for a brief reminder of the event that brought Europe to a standstill, Kenyan flower growers to the brink of bankruptcy and led to people having extended holidays all over the world.  Yes: the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull  volcano (it’s only marginally easier to spell than to pronounce), which won’t quite go away (although The  Guardian reported on 23rd May that it may now be dormant) and which caused almost as much pain to news broadcasters as to those stranded in airport departure lounges.

Although there was a marked “spirit of Dunkirk” at the time, with Royal Navy ships being dispatched to the coast of Portugal, it seems many employers didn’t quite see it the same way according to a survey commissioned by recruitment consultants Badenoch & Clark. It reported that 43% of employees caught up in the chaos had their pay docked or their annual leave entitlement reduced.  Approximately one-quarter of employers were prepared to allow staff to work remotely, whilst 32% allowed staff to take the days off as additional leave.

The press release quotes Andy Powell, a Director at Badenoch & Clark, saying

“Employers cannot be expected to give out additional paid leave because of acts of God; however, it is important for employers to set a standard policy on this, so that everyone understands the consequences of any delays returning to work.  While remote working is a good solution in some cases, for many people it will not be a viable option. As such, although ensuring you are contactable by mobile or smart phone where possible is a sensible precaution, both employers and employees need to understand that the risk of disruption should be shared.”

One day you'll look back on all this and laugh ...

I think Powell has it right.  If there’s one thing everyone knows about “Eyja” it is that the last time it erupted it did so for two years.  Now is the time for employers to develop their policies on this in case it happens again.  If an employee fails to attend work without a good excuse that will usually be treated as unauthorised absence and thus a disciplinary matter.  It would be a harsh (and probably imprudent) employer that disciplined an employee who had been stranded abroad.  Employers need to make it clear what steps they will take in this situation, whether to make employees take it as unpaid leave or to reduce annual holiday entitlement and very few employers will want (or be able to afford) to grant it as additional paid leave now that the risk is known.  What is most important is that employers have a policy and adhere to it consistently, to avoid the risk of claims arising.  An employee may try and claim for breach of contract or unlawful deduction of wages if they have their pay or holiday entitlement docked, but provided an employer can show it had a policy and adhered to it, the risk of being held liable for such a claim should be much reduced.

Badenoch & Clark have created a Facebook page called CareerTalkUK   where you can get career tips and useful information, or you can follow them @CareerTalkUK.  It’s got a nice orange logo as well.

If you require any assistance on this or any other employment law issue please do get in contact with me, either on 0207 464 8433 or at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

Related posts:

1. Stuff on Maternity leave
2. More on Redundancy v Pay Cuts
3. Redundancy & Redeployment

Has the Dust Settled on the Ash Cloud? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 27/05/2010.

I admit I had to laugh and wondered whether it was an April Fool’s joke come early.  I’m referring to the story in The Sun a few days ago about Chris Jarvis, the hoodie, who was refused entry to Southend Job Centre for refusing to take his hood down.  He complained.  Why?  Because he claimed that his religious beliefs had been infringed, on account of him being a member of the International Church of Jediism – i.e he believed he was a Jedi Knight.  The job centre subsequently apologised for offending him.  He is quoted as saying “Muslims can walk around in whatever religious gear they like, so why can’t I?” ignoring the obvious fact that Islam is one of the world’s great religions dating back to the 600s, as opposed to a science fiction film by George Lucas in 1977.  The clue, Chris, might be in the word “fiction”.   I would have had more sympathy with him had he argued about the increasing tendency of organisations to cite “security” with glib abandon where there is little risk posed.

Anyway, I digress.  What has this to do with employment law?  The answer lies in the Employment Equality (Religion and Philosophical Belief) Regulations 2006, which don’t apply to service provision of this sort, but do in the workplace. Should employers be getting nervous about these type of cases? Those regulations prohibit less favourable treatment or harassment to an employee or worker on the basis of their religion or belief.  The case of Grainger v Nicholson, decided last year that a belief in global warming could amount to a philosophical belief for the purpose of those regulations, meaning that (in that case) Mr Nicholson was able to claim that his selection for redundancy was a manifestation of discrimination. The court in Grainger set out a five part test for deciding what should constitute a “philosophical belief”;

1. The belief must be genuinely held

2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint

3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour

4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance

5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

Could an employee claim that he had been discriminated against on the basis that his rights as a Jedi had been infringed?  Yes, but the better question is would the claim be successful?  Would an Employment Tribunal hold that Jediism was a religion deserving of protection under the Regs? I doubt it: the bar for what qualifies is set high, as can be seen from the above five points.  The third and fourth criteria probably end  Jediism’s pretensions to recognition.  Even in the unlikely event that a Tribunal did decide that Jediism did qualify, the employee still has to show that the reason for their treatment was because of their adherence to that religion and not for some unconnected reason. But, if the religion or belief claimed was more orthodox – say a refusal to undergo conventional medical treatment because of a belief in holistic therapies – that could be a very interesting situation and one quite likely to attratc protection under the Regs, in my view.

One story which was an April Fool’s was posted by Personnel Today last week. Apparently a last minute amendment to the Equality Bill bans wedding rings from the workplace to avoid offending divorcees.  Good story.  Has anyone else seen any good employment law April Fool jokes?

Related posts:

1. Climate change can be a philosophical belief
2. Climate change – the new religion?
3. Case Round Up Friday 6th November 2009

Should employers be scared of Jedism? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 06/04/2010.

Happy New (Financial) Year! April 6^th marks the new fiscal year as well as the start of the long-awaited General Election.  It also marks the first of the two semi-annual dates on which the government introduces new legislation and alters allowances; which Herbert Smith call “Red Tape” day.  I’ve already written about the most high-profile new measure coming into force: the new “fit note” system.  Melanie Hatton at the “Law Donut” blog comments that it is too early to say whether fit notes will benefit employers or not, but makes the very useful point that employers should keep written records of reasons for  those occasions when they don’t follow the G.Ps recommendations.

Contingency Fee Agreements in Employment Tribunals are finally put on a statutory basis from today with the Damages-Based Agreement Regulations 2010 coming into force.  Contingency Fees have been allowed in ETs for years (but not in litigation in the courts) and are now regulated.   A contingency fee is a type of “no win no fee” agreement whereby the representative charges a simple percentage of the compensation awarded to the client employee.  It is a much neater, simpler and totally different solution from the “conditional fee agreements” used by lawyers in personal injury, commercial, defamation and other court based disputes.  Usefully Employed produced a very helpful summary of the provisions of the regulations.  The main points to note are that the agreement must be in writing, must specify the claim or proceedings to which it relates, have a maximum recovery fee of 35% including VAT and say why the recovery fee has been set at the level it has and state the circumstances in whichthe client is deemed to have won.  Furthermore the agreement can only be terminated (1) by the representative if the client is behaving or has behaved unreasonably, and (2) the client cannot terminate the agreement when liability has been admitted, a settlement has been agreed or it is less than seven days before the ET hearing.   Usefully Employed identifies a potential glaring omission from the Regs: what happens when the client requests the lawyer to act in a way that would breach professional obligations and rules of conduct?  Surely that would allow the lawyer to terminate?  It isn’t specifically mentioned in the Regs but I would have thought that the lawyer could rely on the “unreasonable behaviour” provision.

With a nod to the brave new world of Alternative Business Structures shortly to emerge from its legislative cocoon the Regs. apply to all persons “providing the advocacy services, litigation services or claims management services to which the damages-based agreement relates” – in other words not just lawyers but all representatives. Usefully Employed reminds us that barristers are prevented from charging contingency fees on the work they do by their own professional rules.

Employees with at least 26 weeks service at businesses with more than 250 staff today acquire the right to request time off for training or study.  Next year the right will be extended to all employees.   According to the Business Link website “Employees’ requests can be to undertake accredited programmes leading to a qualification, or for unaccredited training to help them develop specific skills relevant to their job, workplace or business.”

Down to the nitty gritty: SSP stays at £79.15 per week, Statutory Maternity/Paternity/Adoption Pay goes up to £124.88 per week.     SMP remains payable for only 39 weeks, not the 52 the government has talked about, although that remains its aim. The next Red Tape day will be 1^st October.

As ever please contact me (via Dale Langley & Co) if you need further assistance: 0207 464 8433 or michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

Related posts:

1. Happy New Year!
2. Sir Fred Goodwin's pension
3. Happy Christmas

Happy “Red Tape” Day! originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 06/04/2010.

I haven’t blogged much on here recently, partly because of being busy at work but also because I have been setting up two other blogs and a podcast.

The first blog – ukblawgroundup – I’ve mentioned on here before.  This is the name of the blog carnival for UK Lawyers which reviews the UK legal blogging scene.  The next edition is published on the 31^st March, with submissions due by 17^th.  Peninsulawyer will be hosting it.

The other new blog I am starting is one that focuses on the Legal Services Act 2007 and the whole debate over Tesco Law.  I’ve lectured on this recently and I’ve due to start a series of lectures (to solicitors) for MBL Seminars the week after next. Much of my time over the last couple of weeks has been spent preparing the notes.  Whilst doing that it occurred to me that it would be a good plan to start a blog specifically devoted to legal deregulation, rather than putting it up on this blog as I have been to date.  I have created a blog called “There may be trouble ahead” and it will go live shortly.  URL details will be posted here.

I plan to kick off with a post on the issue of who would actually want to buy a law firm and then a guest post from Mark Greenhouse of Resq on the application of “Lean” principles in law firms.   I’ll be looking for guest bloggers to give their take on Tesco Law – please contact me if you would be interested in contributing. Other projects include a series of slidecasts (slideshare presentations but with added sound) on the basic aspects of the LSA, to give some background on the basics.   I’m hoping people will contribute and that we can have,  as Mrs Merton used to say on her show “a heated debate”.

When I’m not blogging on Tesco law I’m still going to be writing on employment issues here at Jobsworth.

Finally, I recorded a podcast with Brian Inkster of Inksters Solicitors Glasgow.  That will be up very shortly – hopefully this weekend.

Have a good weekend.

Related posts:

1. Friday waffle

News from Jobsworth originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 12/03/2010.

Truly I can see the future. A few weeks ago I wrote on this blog about a website run by Gordon Turner and Damien McCarthy, the two employment lawyers who set up www.serial-litigants.com, designed to keep a check on those claimants who repeatedly bring claims against different employers (or potential employers) for the same thing – usually discrimination claims.  I welcomed the scheme but thought that it might hit problems with the Data Protection Act, which governs what information can be held on people and how it can be used.  Then, lo and behold, I received this email from Gordon Turner a few days ago;

Dear Michael

 ALL GOOD IDEAS MUST BE SHOT DOWN

 …or so it seems. As you predicted, our service is to be challenged, although it is not clear why because (a) we have no database and (b) have already taken and implemented advice from the ICO.

 We are meeting an MP on Monday to see if a helpful EDM can be set down in response, namely to properly debate the degree to which serial litigants are (or may be) a ‘big problem’.

 With one claimant alone having brought well in excess of 50 claims (without ever showing up to hearings) our concern is that the problem or serious threat of a problem by serial litigants is neither audited or monitored in any way.

 There must be a way of striking a balance between the policy issues of dispensing with the Register and the needs of the public and employers.

 Regards,

Gordon Turner

 The EDM (Early Day Motion) will probably not be debated; most aren’t.  EDMs are a mechanism whereby backbench MPs can promote issues and raise awareness.  Although this EDM does criticise the abuse of the system by serial litigants, it does not suggest a practical alternative and that is regrettable.  This is the text of it;

I don’t think the reputation of the Oracle at Delphi is in too much danger as it was always likely that a challenge to this website would arise.  Serial-Litigants.com works by searching the Register of Decisions held by the Employment Tribunal.  If the same person keeps cropping up time after time this is then material for cross-examination at the final hearing or, more likely, for a strike out application early on. The idea is that when a Claimant is faced with evidence that he/she has been submitting multiple clams his credibility will be so badly damaged that no Tribunal would give the allegations credence. In my earlier post I said that this scheme deserves to succeed and I still think that. Some sort of safeguard is necessary for preventing vexatious litigants from making a fast buck out of the justice system – in the worst cases putting in multiple claims with the aim of forcing the employer into making a financial settlement is no better than extortion.  What is missing from this debate so far is any sort of statistical analysis on how significant a problem it is.  The EDM states that it “does not accept that these individuals are a big problem”:  does anyone know of any figures out there? Perhaps Gordon Turner or Damian McCarthy could respond on that?

Where the EDM might be on stronger ground is in saying that the website could be used by employers for screening out job candidates who had previously taken legitimate claims against their previous employers.  That is a concern in just the same way as the blacklist maintained by The Consulting Association on construction workers and the Retail Consortium’s register on shop-workers was.  I can see that the website could be misused in this fashion but, in the bigger picture, how many employers are going to pay the fee (currently £99 per search, although temporarily reduced to £50) each time they employ someone?  I think it unlikely that many employers will do that. Which is the bigger risk: serial litigants ripping off innocent businesses or honest employees being screened out by unscrupulous employers?    How else can this problem be tackled if not by a search based system?

Well, I can think of two options. One way would be to introduce Tribunal fees upon issuing proceedings, in the same way that is required when commencing a claim before the County or High Court.  The level of fees can be swingeing though, especially in the bigger claims and that is because (laughable) government policy for some years now has been to make the court system self-financing by its users.  Hence you have to pay a large fee even if you want to cough in court.  Employment Tribunals do not require a fee to be paid and the system is “free” at point of delivery.  Introducing large issue fees might stop the scamsters but it would also prevent genuine claimants from getting access to justice and would be a political non-starter.

The second option would be to introduce “costs-shifting” in the ET.  This occurs in the civil courts and means that the winner gets his costs paid by the losing party. In ETs it is very unusual for the Employment Judge to award costs against a party, so the general rule is that each party bears its own legal costs win or lose.  It is this rule that makes it attractive for serial litigants to “try it on” because they know many employers will pay up a “nuisance settlement” sooner or later to avoid the case going to a full hearing because they won’t want to incur legal expenses that they won’t recover from the Claimant.  That is why serial litigants are performing a type of extortion, in my view. 

The problem is in identifying the serial litigants. Someone who has brought fifty claims against fifty different employers ought to be a surefire candidate; but what about someone with ten, or five, or (worryingly) two claims?  An employee who has had the misfortune to be involved in previous ET proceedings is not prevented from bringing his/her claim by this website.  It is for the Respondent (the employer) to adduce the evidence and make of it what it will: similarly the employee can give evidence to explain.  Most employers would probably be keen for costs shifting to be introduced into the ET system, but I can’t see it happening any time soon.  Instead the serial-litigants search system offers a practical option accessible by all.  I don’t have shares in it, I don’t know Gordon Turner or Damian McCarthy (although I do instruct other barristers in his chambers) but I do think it deserves to succeed.  No one is well served by allowing serial litigants to abuse the system, least of all genuine employees with honest claims.  In his email to me Gordon Turner  writes that he is seeking to drum up support from a sympathetic MP to place an EDM in response.  I look forward to news of developments.

 I would be very interested to hear from anyone – lawyer, employer, or MP – who has any information on how widespread this problem is, or any anecdotes on serial litigants (on an anonymised basis please).  

Related posts:

Serial Litigants Beware

Blacklists to be blacklisted?

A Rant about Data Protection

Related posts:

1. How to Deter a Serial Litigant
2. Serial Litigants beware!
3. Do Employees Have it All Their Own Way?

Truly I can see the Future originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 29/01/2010.

Wot, no snowman?

I’m not referring to the five inches of snow outside as I write this, and the inevitable disruption caused to roads and railways for the next week,  but instead I am considering what the main statutory changes affecting employment law issues in 2010 will be.

January  

Not much will happen this month while everyone looks in astonishment at their credit card bills, but just a reminder that the Vento guidelines on awards to be made in cases of injury to feelings in discrimination cases look to have been increased late last year in the case of Da’Bell v NSPCC. The Court of Appeal case in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police in 2002 set three main bands for ETs to consider when making awards for injury to feelings; 

Lower – £500 – 5,000                       – for one-off or isolated incidents 

Mid     - £5,000 – 15,000 – for more serious incidents but not of the most serious nature 

Upper -£15,000 – 25,000               – for the worst examples of discriminatory behaviour, such as where there has been a campaign of bullying and harassment.  Only exceptionally should awards be made in excess of the upper figure. 

Since 2002 these bands have not changed.  It is now anticipated that the new bands will be 

Lower:  £? – 6,000 

Mid – £6,000 – 18,000 

Upper – £18,000 – 30,000 

For a fuller and very helpful discussion see Usefully Employed’s post on the subject.  

February 

This month will see something that hasn’t occurred before.  The maximum compensatory award that can be made by an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal will actually decrease. The Employment Rights (Revision of Limits) Order 2009 states that the maximum award will decrease from its current £66,200 to £65,300 for all claims where the event giving rise to the claim  occurred on or after 1^st February 2010.  This is because the maximum amount is linked to the Retail Prices Index (RPI) and that fell by 1.4% in the year from 1^st September 2008. 

The MINIMUM AWARD that can be made to an employee excluded/expelled from a Union and not re-admitted by the time the case reaches an ET falls from £7,300 to £7,200 

The maximum guarantee payment to an employee under s.31(1) ERA 1996 decreases to £21.20 per day. 

Each February also sees various other rates and limits amended – usually upward.  This time though the maximum weekly award, used for Statutory Redundancy Pay purposes and calculating the Basic Award in Unfair Dismissal cases will remain at £380, but only because it was increased to that figure last October.   

April – other notable increases, will be 

Statutory Adoption         } 

Paternity                            }                          all increase from £123.06 to £124.88 per week 

Maternity Pay                   } 

Maternity Allowance      } 

But, Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) will remain unchanged at £79.15 p.w 

This month will also see employees at employers with at least 250 employees acquire the right to request time off for studying or training relevant to the business.  The right is simply to request time off NOT for the employer to fund the training. 

Income Tax will rise to 50% for those earning more than £150,000 p.a 

October 

Legislative developments tend to occur in April and October now.  In October it is expected that the Equality Bill will come into force to hopefully bring some order to the convoluted and confusing plethora of anti-discrimination laws currently on the statute book. It won’t just tackle discrimination in the employment arena, but will be wider ranging. Contractual provisions that prevent employees discussing their pay with workers are expected to be made illegal and the government will acquire the power to force privatre companies to disclose gender-pay details.  More on all this in due course, assuming that it survives a change of government 

Throughout the year there will be new cases being decided that will make the headlines, or appeals considering cases that caused a stir in 2009.  I will cover these as they come up so please subscribe to the RSS feed or to the email updates for “breaking news”. 

If you need advice on any employment law issues please call me on 0207 464 8433 or email me at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk.

Related posts:

1. There may be trouble ahead …
2. Will SRP be increased?
3. Case Round Up 25th January 2010

What lies ahead in 2010? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 06/01/2010.

Take a look at this article from The Daily Telegraph.  A good idea in principle but I’m wondering about the Data Protection issues involved, as well as the subsequent satellite litigation that would undoubtedly result.  Does anyone remember the blacklist of “difficult” employees compiled by The Consulting Association (see my previous post on the subject here)?  Or the National Staff Dismissal Register (see here) ? 

I can accept that there is a world of difference between a register kept by employers and passed on to others to identify those employees who stand up for their rigths and those people who bring many different (and fabricated) claims – but how do you differentiate between the two in practice?  I suppose we should bear in mind Oscar Wilde’s aphorism (albeit paraphrased) “To have one Discrimination claim is unfortunate, to have 34 is downright suspicious”.  Preventing someone from asserting their legal rights is not something to be undertaken lightly. 

It’s interesting that the Employment Tribunal isn’t keen to get involved and I can see why.  These serial litigants might turn their hand to defamation or judicial review instead of discrimination claims. Tribunals are wary of awarding costs against litigants and they certainly aren’t going to relish banning individuals from bringing claims. Since 1993 they have had the power to make a “restriction of proceedings order”, but they are very rare.   The way forward is shown  by Her Majesty’s Courts Service, which runs all the civil and criminal courts (but not the Tribunals) in the country and which maintains a list of vexatious litigants on its website (www.hmcourtsservice.gov.uk).  However, the people listed on there will have been declared a vexatious litigant in proceedings and thus there has been a judicial finding.  If Mr Turner’s idea is to get off the ground (and it deserves to) he will need the ET to be more robust in making  “restriction of proceedings orders” and then publishing that list. 

Related posts:

1. How to Deter a Serial Litigant
2. Truly I can see the Future
3. Beware Festive Cheer (or what not to do at the Office Christmas Party)

Serial Litigants beware! originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 25/11/2009.

For those of you on Twitter I am being twitterviewed tonight by 22Twts. If you haven’t come across one yet, a Twitterview is a series of (22) questions posed by Lance Godard and my responses, in real time, on Twitter.  Lance asks some really interesting and high-profile people to do his Twitterviews so I’m delighted to be asked to take part and be in such august company.

It starts at 20.00 GMT and please take a look when I will be revealing my deepest darkest secrets, or something, as well as talking about Dale Langley & Co and employment law.  I don’t think Hello or Ok magazines will be terribly interested though.

 You can follow me  = @michaelscutt  and the  twitterview can be found at @22twts and #22twts 

Related posts:

1. Read my Twitterview

Twitterview tonight originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 05/11/2009.

The case of Grainger PLC v Nicholson UKEAT/0219/09/ZT gained lots of media coverage, including the front page of today’s The Independent (“Green beliefs win legal protection”).  I covered the case when it was before the Employment Tribunal and Mr Nicholson initially won.  The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has rejected the company’s appeal and held that Mr Nicholson’s belief in climate change is capable of qualifying as a philosophical belief within the meaning of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. These regulations protect workers with religious or philosophical beliefs from being discriminated against because of their religion or belief.  This was a preliminary hearing on whether belief in climate change could qualify within the meaning of those Regulations.  Mr Nicholson still needs to return to the ET for the case on its facts to be decided.  That will include cross-examination of his beliefs to establish to what extent they govern his life.

It is predicted that this decision will lead to employees being able to claim that they have been discriminated against on the ground of any spurious or loony belief that they might have or pretend to hold.  Undoubtedly employers are going to face some interesting assertions of belief over time.  To assist in considering what factors should be taken into account when considering the nature of the asserted belief, the EAT set out some guidelines for deciding whether a “philosophical belief” should qualify;

1. The belief must be genuinely held
2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on current information
3. It must be a belief as to a weight and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others   

The judgment notes that political beliefs could qualify for protection and, given the furore over Nick Griffin’s recent appearance on BBC’s Question Time and subsequent media concern that the BNP is on the rise, it is interesting to consider whether a member of the BNP  who is dismissed from his/her job because of support for the BNP could qualify under these Regulations for protection.  This was raised in Grainger and the Court pointed to (5) above as the limitation which should prevent “racist or homophobic political philosophy” from gaining protection.  On the face of it, therefore, the hypothetical BNP member would not be able to claim under these Regulations.  This is, of course, a fairly new area of law and that particular issue has not yet been tested.   

Please contact me with any comments or details of any other cases that take this point further, or if you simply need advice on your own position.  I can be contacted on 0207 464 8433 or via email at michaelscutt@dalelangley.co.uk

Related posts:

1. Climate change – the new religion?
2. Should employers be scared of Jedism?
3. What is a reasonable belief?

Climate change can be a philosophical belief originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 04/11/2009.