Sacked For Being A Christian

[Carrera]

Here is how the situation is progressing and, by the way, seeing as Richard Branson is a fellow boater, I figure I'll fly Virgin myself. Let's just hope the Yanks join the boycott:

"BA officials were silent in the face of an unexpectedly harsh response to the decision from politicians of all parties and the prospect that the adverse reaction might lead to a leakage of passengers to rival carriers.
Environment Minister Mr Bradshaw travelled to Brussels for a meeting yesterday - by train.
He praised the boycott of the airline begun by Tory MP Ann Widdecombe and added: "I don't often agree with Ann Widdecombe but on this she is right and BA is wrong. I hope they will see sense and reconsider their policy."
Mr Bradshaw said: "BA's stance has and will affect my choice of airlines." The Northern Ireland Secretary called on the airline to rethink and added: "The rights of those with religious beliefs to express themselves is something we should strongly defend."
Another senior MP, Tory opposition defence spokesman Gerald Howarth, said: "I am incensed by this. I am writing to the airline to express my dismay and I will consider very seriously whether to fly BA in future."

 

[limerickman]

Where I'm coming from is I don't accept B.A. is being motivated by health and safety. I just don't buy that argument. If it was to do with health and safety, then how come Fiona Bruce has had problems over her cross as a BBC broadcaster?

BBC Fiona Bruce is a news reader.
The BBC is not BA : they're different companies.

The lady at BA isn't a news reader.
The lady at BA, her employment terms and conditions stipulate that she cannot wear jewellery around her neck.
That clause of BA's employment contracts, presumably, is inserted for a specific reason and it applies to all employees regardless.

If BA were only applying this rule to parts of the organisation - then there might well be a case of discrimination.
BA applies this rule to all their employees.

................... as I said, I admire anyone who has grit and the determination to be true to their principles.

I admire people who stand up and fight their corner too.
But this lady's employment contract is explicit and the terms and conditions of BA's dresscode apply across the board.

If they allowed certain members to flout the rule about adornments - then this lady might have a case.
Fact is - the rule applies across their 34,000 employees,

 

[11ring]

I think you make the case pretty well that she was under fire for breaking regulations, not being christian (as is christians are persecuted in britain- bollocks)

BBC Fiona Bruce is a news reader.
The BBC is not BA : they're different companies.

The lady at BA isn't a news reader.
The lady at BA, her employment terms and conditions stipulate that she cannot wear jewellery around her neck.
That clause of BA's employment contracts, presumably, is inserted for a specific reason and it applies to all employees regardless.

If BA were only applying this rule to parts of the organisation - then there might well be a case of discrimination.
BA applies this rule to all their employees.




I admire people who stand up and fight their corner too.
But this lady's employment contract is explicit and the terms and conditions of BA's dresscode apply across the board.

If they allowed certain members to flout the rule about adornments - then this lady might have a case.
Fact is - the rule applies across their 34,000 employees,

 

[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...

 

[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.

 

[EoinC]

...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.

Good point, Birdman. I hope that all those who would advocate boycotting BA on the basis that the worker's 'right' to wear exposed jewelry is more important than the employer's duty of care to ensure adequate OHS&E rules and procedures are in place (and complied with), would adequately investigate the alternative Airlines' stance on the same.
I would also hope that they would remain patient at the Check-In counter as the Airline staff, excercising their 'right to wear', are extracated from the conveyor belts they have become entangled in.
These rules are put in place to protect the employee, not to attack them. As you have indicated, there have been accidents at Check-In counters. The rules compiled are general and universal because (a) it makes them easier to understand and comply with, and (b) it makes them easier to enforce.

 

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

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...

 

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

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.

 

[EoinC]

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...

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 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...

I didn't realise BA have such powers over shopping centres.

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

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?

...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.

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 ****. 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.

 

[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

 

[Carrera]

The thing to bear in mind is that if this had been a case of a Muslim or Sikh or a member of any other belief system being ordered to remove turbans and veils e.t.c. while Christians at B.A. were wearing big wooden crosses, I think you'd see every U.K. poster on this forum up in arms and protesting. That's what I can't figure out.
More to the point, if you're stressing that B.A. have a right to run a secular airline, I don't take issue with you. However, if you're defending the right of some religious groups while applying another set of rules to Christians and Jews, I guess we don't agree.
Either all religious symbols should be banned on "health and safety" grounds or all of them should be catered to within reason.
Sikhs at B.A. actually encouraged to carry ceremonial swords yet a miniscule cross is a health and safety risk?
Please!!!
My line has nothing to do with religion. I don't share this lady's view about the resurrection, miraculous birth and the Bible as a whole but I do believe in the basic human right to not be marginalised for what you believe.
If you, as an atheist, found you were being discriminated against by a Christian majority at work and denied the same rights as they have, I'd defend your right to be an atheist and be true to your own values. I defend the right of women in the U.S. to have abortions and not be penalised by Christians so it works in many ways.

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

 

[thebirdman]

Carrera-lets play hypotheticals here. My employer is now the RAF. This organisation has strict uniform codes. If I were to wear an article that was not company issue and ignored warnings to not wear offending item, what would happen to me and would the public support any adverse action taken against me? I don't think there would be much support for me, no matter how strong my beliefs were.

 

[davidmc]

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

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.

 

[thebirdman]

Well, what can I say, please totally disregard that last smart ass posting of mine. If this is true about the sikhs ceremonial weapon then that makes all the contradictions that exist in the British 'for show' airport security even more laughable than it is out here at Australia Airports.

 

[Carrera]

"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 ****. 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."

What it boils down to is many people have had their fill of minority groups being given preferential treatment in this so-called multicultural society of ours.
Too many people are likewise becoming increasingly irritated as a result of not being able to fly a flag, wear a cross, express views openly or, in some cases, criticize religion.
Before the multicultural experiment, it would have been unthinkable for any woman to lose her job in this country due to wearing a cross. However, this cross was, more than likely, viewed by the politically correct as offensive to minorities, the same as flags, terms of speech, traditional festivities and the list goes on.
This is why people rushed to this lady's defence, not because they (the public) were Christians. Also, if you read the full story, you'll find there wasn't an issue of health and safety and the management used it as an excuse.

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 ****. 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.

 

[thebirdman]

Christianity didn't have the good sense to have standard head-dress across all denomintions like other religions.

 

[EoinC]

"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...

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.

...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...

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.

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

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).

...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.

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.

 

[Carrera]

You've got it. That's what I've been trying to get across.
People who know me by now on this forum should be aware I'm not religious in any way.
Why support a Christian? I know in the U.S. Christians are often intolerant, anti-abortion, pro-Bush and anti-socialist.
Well, I support this lady because this is double standards. If B.A. wants to ban "all" religious symbols, then that means this lady in question will have to follow the same rules as her colleagues.
However, what has been taking place in this scenario is she's had to put up with seeing Sikhs carrying their ceremonial swords and women dressed in a specially designed B.A. veil while not even being able to wear a tiny cross round her neck. According to her testimony, she was sometimes shunned by management, spied upon, warned and winded up financially worse off.
To me, this is the same situation as people in my area being told not to fly a flag e.t.c.
It's a bit like the case not too long ago of a university ordering students to take down their football flags as it would supposedly upset the multicultural harmony in the institution (i.e. offend minorities).
Or U.S. schooldchildren being told to take down their U.S. flag in one State?
P.S. This lady in question came here from Egypt where she became a Christian and her faith is genuine. It's what she herself believes so she just wants to be accepted as she is.

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.

 

[Carrera]

Nope, she wouldn't have been aware of these rules. She had apparently been weaing her cross for some time and later became targeted.
She could have chosen to be a third-rate worker with less rights than everybody else but she chose to stand up for herself.
She got things changed as the public was behind her.
I would support an atheist the same way if he (or she) was being denied the same rights as religious co-workers.

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.

 

[EoinC]

...However, this cross was, more than likely, viewed by the politically correct as offensive to minorities, the same as flags, terms of speech, traditional festivities and the list goes on....

Are you guessing there?

...This is why people rushed to this lady's defence, not because they (the public) were Christians. Also, if you read the full story, you'll find there wasn't an issue of health and safety and the management used it as an excuse.

The story you submitted didn't suggest that. Where do you get the information that the management used it as an excuse? It was a pre-existing rule, was it not? If it is a rule, it is not an excuse for action, it is a reason for action.
Let me help you (and the employee) prove your argument. Go and find a BA employee filling the same position who has been contravening the same rule (wearing exposed jewelry around his / her respective neck), and has not been requested to remove it or cover it, and you will, indeed, have provided a case for action by BA being discriminatory.