- Are You Looking for Mr Right*?
- Are All Your Balls Up in the Air?
- Should the UK Offer 24/7 Childcare for Working Parents?
- Gone Today, Here Tomorrow?
- How to Create Informal Mentoring Opportunities
- Perception of Disability
- How Managers Can Help Grieving Workers
- Not All Carrots Are the Same! Money and Motivation
- How to Stop Feeling So Stressed
- Can Dilbertian Thinking Improve Results?
- Court of Appeal Rules in New Holiday Pay Calculation Case
- Medical Information and GDPR
- You’re Having a Laugh!
- How to Ask For Help
- Employer’s Knowledge of Disability
- How Should Employers Deal with References Post-GDPR?
- Is It Time to Offer Bone Density Testing?
- Helping Employees Beat Loneliness and Depression Naturally
- Plants, Peace and Productivity
- The Messy Desk Conundrum
- The Pain of Living in Interesting Times
- Sabotaging Success
- Make it Mozart!
- Follow Proper Procedure Even in the Most Blisteringly Obvious Cases
- How to Speed Up Slow Performers
- Simple Belief of Discrimination is Not Enough
- Four Ways to Get More Done
- Abandon the Tyranny of the “To-do” List
- Eugene the Egg Cracks
- Three Conditions to Ensure Training Works
Judge Rules That Environmental Campaigner Religious Discrimination Law to Make a Claim for Unfair Dismissal.
Doing so much employment law training means we have to work constantly to keep on top of developing areas and cases. The case of Tim Nicholson, currently being hailed by some environmentalists as a ‘green martyr’, after being made redundant by Grainger plc, is an interesting one.
Grainger plc is Britain’s biggest residential property investment company. Mr Nicholson was Head of Sustainability. He is claiming that his dismissal on grounds of redundancy from the company was unfair and discriminated against him on grounds of his philosophical belief. Philosophical belief is one of the heads of protection given under the 2003 religion and religious belief legislation. He claims that his strong belief about the importance of the environment contributed to the loss of his job.
At the hearing Mr Nicholson said that the company had good written policies both on the environment and corporate social responsibility, but there was a mismatch between the policies and the way in which the firm was managed. For example, executives would drive highly polluting vehicles.
When he tried to get the company to act in a more environmentally responsible way, he said that senior company executives obstructed him. At a pre-hearing review an employment judge at the Central London Employment Tribunal agreed with Mr Nicholson’s submission that his environmental beliefs could amount to a philosophical belief. This is the first case of its kind. The case will go on to a full hearing in June.
Subscribe to our free monthly HR newsletter. Russell HR Consulting employment law newsletters are emailed automatically to our ever-growing number of subscribers every month.