Power v Greater Manchester Police Authority
17/02/2011
By Nick Hobden, Partner and Head of Employment.
In the case of Power v Greater Manchester Police Authority, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) tackled the issue of drawing a distinction between discriminating against someone because of their protected beliefs and discriminating against someone because of the way that they inappropriately manifest their beliefs. It is a distinction that it is very important for employers to understand.
Facts
The case concerned a man who was a member of the Spiritualist Church; he was a keen believer in spiritualism, life after death and the use of mediums and psychics to contact the dead. Mr Power was employed by the Greater Manchester Police Authority (GMPA), but his employment was terminated after less than three weeks.
At a pre-hearing review, an Employment Tribunal (ET) found that Mr Power's beliefs amounted to religious and/or philosophical beliefs capable of being protected under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 ('the Regulations'). However, the ET decided that Mr Power had not been discriminated against on the grounds of those protected beliefs. It found that he had in fact been dismissed for two reasons:
- the first was his previous conduct when he was a volunteer, the details of which highlighted that he was not a suitable candidate to train young police officers; this did not come to light until after GMPA appointed him; and
- the second was that he had been distributing posters and CD-ROMs around the police station, advertising spiritualism and his beliefs.
Mr Power appealed the decision.
Decision
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It noted the important distinction between treating someone less favourably because of the beliefs they hold on the one hand and, more generally, because of the unacceptable way that they express those beliefs on the other. The Employment Tribunal had correctly identified this distinction and Mr Power had not been unlawfully discriminated against.
Comment
This case illustrates the point that employees dismissed or treated less favourably because of the way in which they manifest their religious or philosophical beliefs (rather than the beliefs themselves) may find it difficult to bring claims under the Regulations. It is a common sense approach to note the difference in treating someone less favourably because they believe in spiritualism and because they persist in putting up posters and distributing CD-ROMS and other materials advertising their beliefs. Posters and CD-ROMS related to one's religion may be inappropriate material for distribution at work; it is highly arguable that they are of personal interest only and should not cross into the workplace.
Despite the logical outcome to this case, issues of religion and belief remain very sensitive. So where such issues arise, careful thought must still be given to the handling of these matters in order to avoid directly or indirectly discriminating against your employees.