A NHS Nurse with over 40-years experience has been sacked after he suggested two "patients" might go to Church to relieve stress during a role play session on a training course.

Committed Christian, Anand Rao, aged 71, was taking part in simulated situations as part of an exercise in palliative care. He advised two persons playing the roles of husband and wife patients they might like to try going to church to relieve stress. He was then sacked.

Mr. Rao has recently instructed the Christian Legal Centre to advise him and is considering taking legal action for religious discrimination against his former employer.

Okay, two things. First, there are a number of clinical studies which indicate that church attendance does, indeed, have positive health benefits - here is one example: "Keeping the faith: UC Berkeley researcher links weekly church attendance to longer, healthier life". So his advice had a sound clinical basis. Second, the advice was given on a training course to fictional characters. What kind of training course dismisses those who get the "wrong" answers anyway - was it designed by Endemol?

Posted on Absolvitor: Scots Law Online.

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

16-year-old Kim Swann went on facebook and took the opportunity to describe her job as "boring". She cannot be alone in having done this and, as she was working in the office of a logistics company, it was almost certainly true.

What marks her out though, is the response of her employers, which was to fire her after only three weeks in the job.

Her mother has been quoted as saying: "I think she's been treated totally unfairly. She didn't mention the company's name. This is a 16-year-old child we're talking about. She says Clacton is boring but we're not going to throw her out of the house for it."

Kim herself added "You shouldn't really be hassled outside work. It was only a throw-away comment. "

The employers in question are Ivell a marketing and logistics firm. I note that the "contact us " page on their site has now been taken down - presumably due to abusive e-mails which have been sent to them. I noticed this when I visited the site to not send an amusing message.

When the site is up and running again, perhaps I can ask them (as marketing experts) whether all publicity really is good publicity?

Muppets.

Labels: Employment Law, News, Privacy

Earlier this week, we reported on the case of Caroline Petrie, a nurse from Weston-super-Mare who was suspended without pay for asking a patient whether she would like to be prayed for. Following keen interest from the media, she has been reinstated by North Somerset Primary Care Trust.

Mrs Petrie, a Christian and mother of two, was suspended after her employers discovered that she had asked a patient whether she would like to be prayed for. Mrs Petrie had been told that she could face disciplinary action. On 28th January she attended a disciplinary hearing on the basis that she had failed to demonstrate a "personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity" by offering to pray for the patient.

North Somerset Primary Care Trust, in a statement issued on 5th February, said that they recognised that Mrs Petrie had been acting in the "best interests of her patients" and that nurses did not have to "set aside their faith" in the workplace, and could "continue to offer high quality care for patients while remaining committed to their beliefs". The Trust also said that for some people, prayer is recognised as an "integral part of health care and the healing process".

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

News from the Christian Legal Centre that a nurse from Weston-super-Mare has been suspended from her work for offering to pray for an elderly patient.

Caroline Petrie, a community nurse and a Christian, is facing dismissal for an alleged breach of her code of conduct on equality and diversity.

Mrs Petrie, who is married mother of two, has been accused by her employers of failing to demonstrate a "personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity" because of her offer of prayer.

She was suspended, without pay, on 17th December 2008 and will find out the outcome of her disciplinary meeting this week. She says she has been left shocked and upset by the action taken against her.

Meanwhile, the elderly patient in question (said to have been taken aback by the offer, which she declined) said: "Mrs Petrie was a nice lady, did the job properly and was quietly spoken. Personally I wouldn't want to see her sacked for something like that."

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

News reaches us from the Christian Legal Centre that Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, has won a claim for wrongful dismissal against Relate Avon. He was sacked because his Christian beliefs prevented him giving sex therapy to homosexual couples. The Employment Tribunal was in December and Mr. McFarlane was represented by religious liberties specialist, Barrister, Paul Diamond.

Gary McFarlane had worked for Relate since 2003. He was disappointed with the hostility he had experienced from Relate. Although Mr McFarlane had never had to provide sex therapy to a same sex couple, he thought that if the situation did arise, he would be able to discuss his Christian views with his supervisors so that his position could be discussed and if necessary accommodated. Any such discussions were, however, pre-empted by unexpected meetings between Mr McFarlane and his manager in October 2007 when he was asked to state his views regarding same sex couples. Despite explaining that he would counsel couples in compliance with Relate's Equal Opportunities Policy, and that he would raise any issues with his supervisors and manager, as good practice required, Mr McFarlane was suspended in early January 2008 and then dismissed in March 2008.

However, although he won his wrongful dismissal claim, the Tribunal held that his claim of religious discrimination should fail. The Tribunal recognised powerful arguments on both sides, but held that the provision of non discriminatory services was important.

Andrea Minichiello Williams Director of the Christian Legal Centre said : "The law is in a confused state; in the case of Lillian Ladele, the Islington Registrar, the Court held that Christian belief must give way to the rights of same sex couples; but in the case of Gary McFarlane there is a finding of wrongful dismissal. The courts and public are confused; we call on the Government to recognise the legitimate expression of conscience by Christians in the area of sexual orientation and provide protection where necessary."

She continued: "It is important to note that Mr. McFarlane has never refused to counsel a same sex couple; he merely raised the potential conflict between his Christian faith and homosexual conduct. It is deeply disturbing that the mere expression of religious belief with an inability to give unqualified support to sexual orientation issues means that a Christian can be dismissed with no attempt to provide suitable accommodation for his or her beliefs. The law preventing religious discrimination against Christians is in danger of becoming a dead letter".

McFarlane v. Relate Avon Limted ET 1401179/08 (Bristol)

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

The Court of Appeal has ruled that workplace harrassment "on the grounds of" sexual orientation may be unlawful regardless of whether the victim is (or is thought to be) of the sexuality in question.

A Mr. English was married with children and was not gay. His colleagues knew he was not gay. However, since he had gone to boarding school and lived in Brighton, he was called "faggott" and lurid comments regarding him were published in the works' magazine.

His case for harassment was rejected by the Employment Tribunal - as he was not, in fact, gay.

However, the Court of Appeal held that the behaviour complained of did offend against the Sexual Orientation Regulations. The court stated: "If, as is common ground, tormenting a man who is believed to be gay but is not amounts to unlawful harassment, the distance from there to tormenting a man who is being treated as if he were gay when he is not is barely perceptible."

Sedley LJ opined that the application of anti-discrimination laws should not be dependent on an individual identifying themselves as belonging to one or other strict definition of their sexuality - sexuality being "a nuanced" issue.

School playgrounds up and down the country - take note!

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, News

So, other than Gavin Henson's return to first team rugby with the Ospreys, what else has caught my eye today?

Well, Mark Irvine of Action 4 Equality has discovered that the cost to Glasgow City Council of all the "independent" lawyers advising equal pay claimants on their compromise agreements back in 2005 was a hefty £347,477.76 - quite a pay packet. Fortunately, the Council made doubly sure that they were paying the female lawyers the same rate as their male colleagues.

I also came across an equal pay campaign initiated by the Conservative party (sic) which reveals that over a lifetime the cost of being female in lost wages alone is £300,000! (And that's before you add in the price of killer heels and matching handbag for the interview.) The campaign's slogan, "Women - Like men, only cheaper." is a good one in that it's not at all open to misinterpretation or innuendo.

Labels: Discrimination, Employment Law, Glasgow, Tax

Tech blawg, Naked Law features some interesting questions on recent cases which have given guidance on who has the rights to a profile on social networking sites.

In some cases, it seems, your profile if used in the course of your employment might not belong to you but to your employer. You (and Facebook) have been warned!

Labels: Employment Law, News

Graham Spiers, writing for the Times Online, reports that Rangers Football Club may soon settle an employment law dispute with 20 former employees over redundancy packages. The case will be heard by an employment tribunal in September, and concerns the agreement that Rangers entered into in March 2006 with JJB Sports over Rangers replica strips and other merchandising, resulting in nearly 200 club employees losing their jobs.

The deal meant the closure of 18 Rangers shops and the redundancy of almost 200 employees. The case appears to turn on how much information Rangers shared with their employees - under employment law, employers are required to consult timeously with their staff about collective redundancies.

One of the staff affected described the redundancy deal offered at the time as "derisory". The anonymous former employee is further quoted as saying: "It was totally insulting, what happened to us. I'm a huge Rangers fan, I'd worked for the club for many years, and I was astounded by the way the JJB deal was handled by the club. Like others, I felt angry at the way Rangers treated those of us who had helped to make their retail arm such a success."

The 20 former Rangers employees who are suing the club are represented by the GMB in Scotland.

Labels: Employment Law, News, Sports Law