A Christian registrar who was threatened with the sack after refusing to carry out gay weddings “as a matter of religious conscience” has lost an appeal against discrimination.

Lillian Ladele, who became a registrar in 2002, claims she was bullied and harassed by Islington Council in North London as a result of her stance.

She was backed by Christian groups but opposed by gay rights campaigners.

In July last year, an employment tribunal found that the council had unlawfully discriminated against her, but the ruling was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which said there was no basis for concluding that any discrimination had been established.

Ladele then took her case to appeal.

Last month, her counsel, James Dingemans, told three Appeal Court judges that she had never wanted to undermine the human rights or respect due to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities.

“But human rights laws must also be there to protect people with committed views about marriage”, he said.

“She believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others.

“Modern human rights jurisprudence was not intended to obliterate religious beliefs held for millennia,” he added.

But the Appeal court dismissed her case, the Press Association reported on Tuesday.

Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, said: “The legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions.”

Stephen Addison, Tuesday 15 December, 2009

The EAT (Silber J) has handed down it’s decision in Prison Officers Association v Gough, re-affirming that an individual can at the same time have two jobs with two different employers, provided the jobs are compatible with each other.

Silber J upheld the decision of the employment judge that the individuals concerned could be employees of both the Prison Service and the Prison Officers Association.

It was proper to apply the test as set out in 102 Social Club & Institute Ltd v Bickerton 1977 ICR 911 to the individuals work as officials with the POA, examining such factors as the nature of the payment made to them and what functions are being exercised, and the employment judge had made no error of law in finding the individuals to be employees of the POA, as well as of the Prison Service.

Daniel Barnett, 6th January, 2010

A relationship counsellor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples has lost his unfair dismissal appeal.

Gary MacFarlane, 47, from Bristol, was sacked by marriage guidance service Relate after he said he could not do anything to promote gay sex.

He alleged Relate had refused to accommodate his Christian beliefs.

The service’s Chief Executive Claire Tyler said: “The appeal judgement validates Relate’s commitment to equality of access to our services.”

Mr MacFarlane, a former church elder, was appealing on the grounds of religious discrimination at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Bristol.

‘Homophobe’ label
He started training with Relate in May 2003 and said he enjoyed good relationships with clients and colleagues.

Mr MacFarlane was suspended in October 2007 after meetings with his manager, in which he claimed he was asked to state his views regarding same-sex couples.

After the suspension was lifted he said he was labelled a “homophobe” and, following a further disciplinary hearing, was dismissed on 18 March.

The tribunal, chaired by employment Judge Toomer, dismissed Mr MacFarlane’s claims of harassment.

Ms Tyler, from Relate, added: “Relate’s trusted service, both in Avon and across the country, relies on making sure that all members of society, regardless of their gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation or relationship status, are able to access respectful and professional counselling and sex therapy.

“Relate is committed to supporting all religious beliefs working within Relate.

“However, our primary consideration is to our clients who often need complex advice and assistance.

“We cannot allow anything to damage our clients, or to undermine the principle of trust that underpins our work.”

BBC news online, Monday 30 November, 2009

The recession has seen a big increase in bullying at work, the Guardian has learned. One in 10 employees experience workplace bullying and harassment, according to the conciliation service Acas, while a survey by the union Unison reports that more than one-third of workers said they were bullied in the past six months, double the number a decade ago.

“The fact that bullying has doubled in the past decade is shocking,” said Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison.

Fraser Younson, head of employment at the law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner, said: “In the last year or so, as running businesses has become more difficult, the way managers interface with their staff has become more demanding. Managers are chasing things up, being more critical. If they are not trained to deal with increased levels of stress, then we are seeing them do this in a way that makes staff feel bullied.”

Samantha Mangwana, an employment solicitor at Russell Jones & Walker, said: “We are getting a very high level of cases. Most of the people who come to us with a problem at work talk about bullying. It frequently arises in people’s line-manager relationship.”

Employment lawyers say allegations of bullying have become a frequent feature of claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination.

Support groups are struggling to cope with the rise in cases, with one helpline recently forced to close.

“We have been overwhelmed by a huge rise in complaints over the last two years,” said Lyn Witheridge, who ran the Andrea Adams Trust bullying helpline until last year. “We had to close the charity and the helpline because we couldn’t cope with the number of calls – they more than doubled to 70 a day.

“The recession has become a playground for many bullies who know they can get away with it. Under pressure, budgets have got to be met. Managers are bullying people as a way of forcing them out and getting costs down.”

News of the increase comes amid a number of high-profile employment tribunal cases, including a News of the World Sports Reporter, Matt Driscoll, who was awarded almost £800,000 by an East London tribunal after he suffered “a consistent pattern of bullying behaviour” from staff, including Andy Coulson, now David Cameron’s head of communications.

Last month two yeomen were sacked from the Tower of London after an inquiry revealed a campaign of bullying against Moira Cameron, the first female yeoman warder in the tower’s 1,000-year history.

“We see some cases of bullying in discrimination where the employer invokes what we colloquially call the ‘bastard defence’,” said Mangwana. “Their defence is that they were a bastard to everyone, so it’s not discriminatory.”

Academics have long warned of the link between economic conditions and bullying, with studies in the 1980’s and 1990’s predicting that workplace competition and the threat of redundancy were most likely to cause an increase. The decline of trade unions and of collective action has also been cited as a factor.

Experts also believe that press coverage of bullying cases has raised awareness, encouraging more employees to take advantage of what has been described as an “explosion” of individual employment rights over recent years.

Although ‘bullying’ is not a legal term, cases of bullying at work have arisen through employment law, health and safety and protection from harassment legislation. But news of the rise in bullying cases across different jurisdictions, which research suggests contributes to the 13.7m working days lost every year as a result of stress and depression, has prompted criticism that the government has failed to adequately address the problem.

“The increase in tribunal claims this year is part of a lurch towards the American culture of litigation, but that is not necessarily the answer,” said Witheridge. “More should be done to resolve bullying disputes without litigation, and for people to be treated with the dignity they deserve at work, while also being strongly managed.”

The government said it was working to tackle the problem. Lord Young, the employment relations minister, said: “Workplace harassment and violence is unacceptable and the government is committed to addressing these problems.”

Afua Hirsh, The Guardian, Monday 4 January, 2010

The EAT (HHJ Peter Clark) has handed down its decision in Dansie v Metropolitan Police, which is authority for the proposition that requiring a male employee to cut his shoulder-length hair did not amount to discrimination or harassment under the SDA simply because a female employee would not, in similar circumstances, have been required to cut her hair, provided that the overall Dress Code was equally balanced between the sexes.

In upholding the Tribunal’s decision, the EAT confirmed that the correct legal test is whether, applying contemporary standards and conventions, as well as the specific needs of the profession in question, the employer’s dress code as a whole was asking its employees to display an equivalent level of smartness as between the sexes: as per Smith v Safeway Plc 1996 ICR 868 and DWP v Thompson 2004 IRLR 348. Accordingly, as the Dress Code of the Metropolitan Police was, overall, equally balanced between the sexes, they had not discriminated against Mr. Dansie, a trainee, by requiring him to cut his hair.

The EAT was satisfied that the Tribunal had been entitled to find on the evidence that a female recruit who failed to comply with the gender neutral dress/appearance code necessary for the service would have been treated in the same way.

Daniel Barnett, 4th January, 2010

Achim Beck, an investment banker, successfully sued his employer for sacking him because the company wanted a “younger” person to do his job.

The courts have yet to decide what damages he should receive but it is understood it could be hundreds of thousands of pounds, after an employment tribunal ruled he had been unfairly dismissed and that his age had played a part.

He was replaced by 38-year-old.

Lawyers said the ruling was significant and highlighted how age discrimination laws, introduced just 3 years ago, were a “gravy train” for many disgruntled workers who had lost their job.

CIBC is considering the decision and has yet to decide whether to appeal against the ruling.

Damages for unfair dismissal are capped at about £75,000, but if discrimination on the grounds of age, sex, sexual orientation or race can be proved compensation is unlimited.

The employment tribunal found that the bank, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, had been “hopelessly unfair” in how they had treated Mr Beck, ruling they had used a “sham” redundancy process to replace the banker with someone younger.

Mr Beck, a German national who has lived and worked in London for the last decade, was a senior member of CIBC’s derivatives team, earning a basic salary of £125,000 alongside a guaranteed bonus of £775,000.

He had been at the bank for less than a year when he was sacked in May 2008 as the credit crunch hit the City. While it appeared his position was being made redundant as part of a restructuring, the tribunal found that the company was in the processes of hiring head hunters “seeking a younger, more entrepreneurial profile”, according to an internal memo.

Lawyers said age discrimination was often difficult to prove and that it was rare that documentary evidence existed to back up the dismissed employee’s case.

During the tribunal an executive of the bank was asked to explain what ‘younger’ in the memo meant and he replied that it meant less experienced “as opposed to older and staid”.

The judges at the employment tribunal accepted that CIBC did consider hiring many workers in their forties or older when they sought a replacement for Mr Beck, but the company failed to adequately prove that age was not a factor in his dismissal.

Simon Watson, the head of the employment practice at Simmons & Simmons law firm, said that the discrimination laws had become a ‘gravy train’ for sacked employees and their lawyers.

“There is no question that the first thing a lawyer now talks about with a client in an unfair dismissal case is age, sex, or race discrimination. Because discrimination removes the cap on damages, it is very, very advantageous if they can prove they have been discriminated against.”

No records exist documenting the age of people in unfair dismissal cases, but it is understood that Mr Beck will be among the youngest to win a case because he was too old.

Earlier this year Peter Barker, 51, won a case against air traffic control service, NATS because they refused to recruit any employee over the age of 35.

Gareth Brahams, a partner at Lewis Silkin, who represented Mr Beck, said: “Whilst discrimination against people in their forties does not classically fit with the general perception of age discrimination in the workplace, it is a real feature of modern working life, as this case demonstrates.

“Age discrimination legislation does protect people of all ages, not just those at the upper and lower ends of the age spectrum.”

Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Editor, 30 December, 2009

A former drag queen, Dean Awford, who was known as ‘Dean The Queen’ has been awarded £30,000 for unfair dismissal.

But claims that Dean Awford, 42, suffered sexual discrimination and sexual harassment were dismissed despite being called “a faggot” and a “poof” by his boss.

Mr Awford, who used to appear in clubs in Birmingham and Manchester as Scarlett Eclipse, claimed his boss abused him about his sexuality and even told a customer he had “knickers to match” his leather shoes.

He sued David Gray, of the upmarket furniture store Grays At Northwick in Worcester, for unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination.

Mr Awford had earlier told an employment tribunal that Mr Gray continually used derogatory terms relating to his sexuality during his employment as a £16,000-a-year sales manager.

The hearing in Birmingham heard that Mr Awford was called a “faggot” when he turned up in a white suit, “a poof” and was constantly refered to as “she” or “her”.

On Monday, Employment Judge David Kearsley found that Mr Awford had been unfairly dismissed.

He said that comments by Mr Gray: “Call yourself a f***ing manager – you couldn’t organise a p***-up in a brewery” and his later response: “F*** off” constituted unfair dismissal.

He also awarded £118 in unauthorised deductions and a further £67 in holiday pay and in total awarding more than £30,000.

But his further claims for sexual orientation discrimination and sexual harassment were dismissed despite his employer making offensive remarks about his sexuality.

Mr Gray, 56, denied both unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination.

“Many homosexual males would have found the comments made by Mr Gray offensive. The tribunal is not condoning Mr Gray’s behaviour,” Judge Kearsley said.

“Equally many women would have found the comments about their underwear on the chiller offensive.

“But we have considered the character of the claimant and the absence of any complaint during the period of employment.”

He continued: “The tribunal doesn’t accept that Mr Gray made any comments that were particularly capable of constituting harassment.

“He referred to himself as Dean the Queen and would recount details of his sexual activity.

“Mr Awford believed he was working in his dream job.”

After the hearing Mr Awford said: “I am delighted that the unfair dismissal claim was upheld. I’ve known all along that my treatment at work was wrong.

“I only hope Mr Gray will ensure that no other employees are treated so shabbily in future. I hope I have helped improve his employee relations ahead of the festive period.

“I suppose as far as Gray’s At Northwick are concerned then I could be the Christmas fairy.”

Mr Gray, who took the case using his employers insurance policy, said: “I am slightly disappointed – I think the compensation was rather too high.

“But I am very pleased on the result of the sexual harassment.

“There were lies told in that court that were vulgar and disgusting.”

Andrew Hough, www.telegraph.co.uk, 22 December, 2009