Sacked For Being A Christian

Originally Posted by thebirdman

...If you are thinking of boycotting any product, please make sure that the alterative is better in all standards that you are anti the other product, in this case overall workplace rules and conditions.

Originally Posted by EoinC

Carrera, the rule on not employee's not being allowed to have exposed jewelry hanging around their necks has presumably been in place for some time. Your suggestion on a breakaway Cross is not very far-sighted. BA, as with any employer, has responsibilities for duty of care. Why should they, as an employer, have to go through the complicated, expensive and unnecessary process of testing and setting a standard for breakaway jewelry that is allowed to be worn exposed around the neck, and then ensuring that all jewelry worn in such a manner is compliant? Remember that, what you allow for one employee, you must allow for all, meaning that such a standard would have to be tested for every form of adornment that anyone came up with. They would then become liable should such jewelry fail to breakaway when caught in a conveyor etc. Why would they want to take on such a burden when the simple, and easily enforcable solution is already in place?
We have similar rules on our worksites (Check-in Counters are worksites, remember). Anyone who does not comply with the rules on one of our worksites is stopped and asked to remove the offending item/s. If they refuse to remove the offending items, then they are, themselves, removed instead. If they do not feel they can comply with the applicable workplace rules, then they cannot work in that workplace. Simple and effective - no testing required.
I can't count how many boycott's you've called for on this forum, Carrera, and all the ones that I can recall, have come to nought. It seems to be your standing solution for all problems. Why is it so? There are very clear legal paths for this employee to follow in seeking arbitration, and the people who watch over such arbitration are much better versed in the applicable legal interpretations and precedents than you, I or she are likely to be. If her case has merit, she will get the result she is after. Relying on public opinion to sway such arbitration decisions may suggest that the argument does not contain sufficient merit to stand on its own.
Advocating a boycott as a means of getting what you want reminds me of a child stamping his / her foot to demand a change of decision. If BA were to back down from their compliance with their own rules because of a threat of boycott, I would think much worse of them.
Seeing Politicians boycott something is about the last reason in the World I think of for complying with such a boycott - Not exactly the professional demographic that I tend to turn to for moral guidance.
I fly long-haul Singapore Airlines and Air France every month. If BA flew the same routings, I would have no qualms with flying with them. It looks like you're not flying with them because they won't allow exposed plastic breakaway jewelry in a workplace exposed to moving machinery, and I'm not flying with them because their flights involve too many transfers (and Heathrow is a crappy Airport to get stuck in) - It would appear that, between the two of us, Carrera, we've really got them buggered. Incidentally, how many times per year do you fly with BA, Carrera? - just so we can see what kind of a financial impact the two of us are going to cause to BA. As I fly through Paris next month (CDG is another crappy Airport to get stuck in), I shall get a warm fuzzy feeling, having played my small part in seeking the introduction of plastic breakaway exposed jewelry (PBEJ) into the workplace. Aaaah, I shall sleep well that night. All for one, and one for all...

Originally Posted by thebirdman

Before anybody goes boycotting any an airline on the basis of religious, or any, discrimination please ask yourselves a few questions.

Where are the airlines that are rushing to Nadias' door offering her a job at their airline check-in, where she is allowed to wear her small chain and cross?

I would suggest that others have similar rules, regarding jewellery, and they are keeping out of the firing lines and thanking their deity that they were not the company caught up in this case of legal semantics.

If you fly with an airline because of its anti-discimination policies please go the whole way and see what all work conditions and practices are.

As you may have noticed I have got off my OH&S high horse. It has been shot from underneath me.

Nadia Eweida may be morally correct from a religious symbols point of veiw. Unfortunately written laws, rules and directives outweigh morallity and justice in legal systems.

At Australian airlines, when we received our uniforms, or when they changed styles we had to sign an acceptance document stating that we would abide by the company uniform dress code. When we opened the box, at the top, was always a rule book directing us how we were to wear that uniform in public. After the paragraphs about ownership of the uniform and keeping it in good repair and clean came the clauses about minimal jewellery. It also rules that men have to be clean shaven or neatly trimmed beard. If a man has 5 o'clock shadow problems (fast growing dark stubble) during his shift he has to shave, if need be, 2 or 3 times in his own time, to keep that 'smooth as a babies bottom' look. In practice the only time we could grow a beard was if we had a 4 week holiday. These rule books dictated all soughts of grooming and presentation standards.

All the uniforms, specially womens, have always been issued with head-dress (hats). This meant that the uniform designers could easily incorporate hijabs and turbans

The visible cross on a chain, the hijab and the turban are religious symbols. The hijab and the turban is, also, a head-dress and the visible cross on a chain is more than minimal jewellery.

Then, there is the clause in most Work Contracts that list all duties to be carried out and then as a final catch all, are the words,' or as directed'.

Nadia would have been asked to either remove the chain or cover it up. Since she still wore the chain and cross she was not working as directed. The company lawyer would have used this, if the breach of uniform code didn't stand up.

If you are thinking of boycotting any product, please make sure that the alterative is better in all standards that you are anti the other product, in this case overall workplace rules and conditions.

Originally Posted by Carrera

The truth is the case has nothing to do with jewelry. The jewelry jargon was simply an excuse for the real motive that lies behind the policy. British Airways hasn't legislated against crosses for the fun of it and they also outlawed the Star Of David symbol...

Originally Posted by Carrera

...I know a guy who's ex army and he said he had been turned away from a public shopping centre for wearing a cross and he wasn't a Christian either...

Originally Posted by Carrera

As I heard one clergyman say the other day, the B.A. line has its roots in a more widespread feeing of discrimination...

Originally Posted by Carrera

...At any rate, B.A. has now been forced to back down which was on the news last night. They were facing a major boycott.

Originally Posted by davidmc

I say throw her in jail & sort it out later Workplace-safety precedes moralistic advertising Problem solved.
What did Jesus say Oh yes-Don't pray in public. If one has to scream one's good-work's from the rooftops then they are probably attempting to over-compensate for shortcomings in this regard

Originally Posted by Carrera

Either all religious symbols should be banned on "health and safety" grounds or all of them should be catered to within reason.

Originally Posted by EoinC

I think I'm going to call your bluff on this one Carrera. As I understand it, the reference is to exposed jewelry worn around the neck, not to a Cross / Star / Crescent / McDonald M, nor any other particular symbol. Please provide proof that BA are specifically saying "No Crosses or Stars of David", rather than "No exposed jewelry".I didn't realise BA have such powers over shopping centres.There's a clergyman over here in the town where I am now (in West Africa) who likes to get drunk and turns somewhat violent when he does so (I see your clergyman and raise you one). Why should we be any more convinced by the thoughts of one clergyman than we are by anyone else?
I'm very disappointed if they backed down due to ranting by an uninformed public. That suggests that your system of arbitration is not worth a rat's arse. It also suggests to me that maybe I shouldn't fly BA when their sense of Duty of Care can be so easily compromised by public opinion.

Originally Posted by Carrera

"I can't count how many boycott's you've called for on this forum, Carrera, and all the ones that I can recall, have come to nought."

I'm sorry, guys, but what I'm hearing so far is a whole list of excuses that just make it easier to avoid a conflict. When you make excuses for those who discriminate and "try to be reasonable", the net result is nothing ever gets done. Had women taken the same line a few decades ago, I figure they'd still not have the vote today...

Originally Posted by Carrera

...As for the boycott, British Airways has now backed down and been forced to address the issue - after the case was to be discussed by the U.N. and after even Jack Straw got involved...

Originally Posted by Carrera

...They backed down because well over 50 MP's joined the boycott...

Originally Posted by Carrera

...the U.N. was getting involved and the public was furious. The BBC siad last night it had been swamped by angry letters on the discussion boards.

Originally Posted by davidmc

Agreed. However don't forget what happened in France. Apparently there is in Britain(?), it would appear, a double-standard. Burka-fine. Habjib-fine. Veil-fine. Cross- Hey you're out of line missy Got to hand it to Jack Straw calling attention to this seperateness/apartness I wouldn't speak to someone wearing a veil, period. It say's, essentially-"I'm someone's (husbands) slave" Too bad they don't question this oddity present in their mythology/religion It may have been appropriate in the year...say...1200 A.D. but it is significantly less appropriate now in 1st world countries. Granted my country has plenty of blokes w/ simian characteristics but, the law is enforced so that tom-foolery will not be tolerated in most places.

Originally Posted by EoinC

Take it back to basics, Carerra.
(1) Did the employee work in a position that had a ruling that did not allow for the wearing of exposed jewelry? (A="Yes")
(2) Was the employee aware of the rule? (A="I don't know. You have been following this and may have the information")
(3) Did the employee contravene the rule? (A="Yes")
(4) Was the Company entitled / obliged to take action on the contravention? (A="Yes")
(5) Was the action appropriate? (A="I don't know. You have been following this and may have the information")
(6) Was it discriminatory to stop a contravention of the rules? (A="No, it would be discriminatory if contraventions were allowed by some")
(7) Was the action taken discriminatory? (A="I don't know. You have been following this and may have the information").
Basics - It was correct for BA to stop an infraction of the rules relating to that position. I can't comment on whether the action taken by BA was correct or not, as I am not aware of their counseling procedures (nor, I suspect, are you). If they allowed other personnel in the same position to contravene the rule, I would see that as being conceivably discriminatory.
That is a truly pathetic state of affairs. My view of the rôle of the UN in the World has sunk like a leaking canal boat. My view of Kack Straw has not changed - I couldn't give two tosses about him.These MP's would be paying for their own flights, would they? They are boycotting a National Airline and using your money to do so. Oh, well, at least it means better profits for the Airlines of other Nations (who, as has been pointed out before, possibly have the same rules in place for their employees).That sows it up - People are angry, therefore they must be correct. People are angry because media have fed them a story (or part thereof) and stirred them up. Again, Carrera, how many BA flights were you planning on not taking this year? That'll certainly help the BA employees achieve justice when they all get laid off. They'll be able to use their redundancy pay-outs to buy necklaces.