Author Greg Jones

Issue January 2010

Pub EADT

The hot political and scientific issue of climate change has made its way into the employment law reports, following the much-publicised case about an employee being able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal based on his belief in climate change.

Mr Nicholson (“N”) was dismissed on grounds of redundancy. He brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, alleging that his selection for redundancy was unfair and he was discriminated against because of his strong philosophical belief in climate change and the environment.

Before the claim could be heard in full, a preliminary hearing was held to determine whether N’s belief was capable of being a ‘philosophical belief’ and therefore protected under the Religion or Belief Regulations 2003 (“Regulations”). The Tribunal found that N's beliefs did and Grainger plc appealed. The EAT agreed that N’s belief could qualify as a ‘philosophical belief’ and the case can now go to a full hearing.

The EAT made it clear that if and when the case comes before a Tribunal to be heard on its merits, N will need to prove the genuineness of his belief; that it is a belief rather than "an opinion or viewpoint" and that his dismissal was on the grounds of that belief. This position is unlike a religious belief where a claimant need only show that they adhere to a particular religion.

The EAT also held that an employee must prove his belief is one concerning "a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour" which attains "a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance" and which is "worthy of respect in a democratic society, be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others".

On this basis, support for a political party would not qualify, but a belief in a political philosophy or doctrine (e.g. Socialism, Marxism, Communism or free-market Capitalism) would. However, such an approach would not protect objectionable homophobic or racist political philosophies, as these would not meet the criterion of being worthy of respect in a democratic society.

This case has potentially extended the scope of protection under the Regulations, For example, following the EAT’s decision above, a police trainer who believed that psychics could help solve criminal investigations was also held to have “philosophical belief” capable of protection.

We may not see a sudden influx of successful claims, but with uncapped compensation, in a difficult job market, employers should carefully consider what may or may not amount to a religion or belief before taking any steps which could fall foul of the Regulations.

Greg Jones, Solicitor

Employment Department

Tel: 01473 232425

Published with kind permission of the EADT.

Other articles