Sacked For Being A Christian

[EoinC]

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.

I think Carrera may have been branching into the hypothetical here, BM. Correct me if I'm wrong, Carrera, but I haven't seen any Sikh's carrying knives at Check-In counters at Heathrow, Gatwick or Aberdeen (the 3 UK Airports I've been to on a few occassions lately).

 

[EoinC]

Nope, she wouldn't have been aware of these rules...

That is fact, or your supposition? Birdman was apparently aware of the rules when accepting uniforms. Has she made it clear that these rules were not made available to her?

...She had apparently been weaing her cross for some time....

Aaah, a repeat offender, Sergeant Boyd. She'll be looking at 5 years of porridge, I shouldn't wonder.

She could have chosen to be a third-rate worker...

Some people are third-rate workers. Breaking a rule, rather than appealing for a change of the rule, suggests to me that (if she was aware of the rule, or made aware of it and continued to transgress) she was not being a first-rate worker.

...She got things changed as the public was behind her...

Also known as mob-rule. Remember, the public has been behind many things that are not necessarily "right". Slavery, public floggings and the Spice Girls are three abhorrent acts that come to mind.

...I would support an atheist the same way if he (or she) was being denied the same rights as religious co-workers.

Glad to hear it, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that she wasn't given the same rights as others when it came to wearing exposed jewelry around her neck.

 

[thebirdman]

I can not believe that BA did not advise Nadia about these uniform rules when she was issued with her uniform.

As I stated in an earlier post, Ansett and QANTAS issued comprehensive instructions on their uniform dos' and don'ts' that we all signed for. A bit like the softwear aggreements we rush through and all sign, that most of us wouldn't have a clue what what the fine print was. If a document has been signed the onus falls on the signer to understand what they have signed for.

What was the quality of her company induction, did she actually get one or was she just told this is your workstation, this is what you do and then left for her to her own devices to sink or swim?

Part of my duties with both AN and QF was induction training for new starters. If someone did not know such basics as uniform standards and the extracting of information from operations manuals, I would have failed miserably in my duties.

 

[limerickman]

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.

100% correct, Eoin.

The fact that the BA stipulation applies to all adornments worn round employees necks - doesn't make this case a case of discrimination.
The BA rule applies to all employees.

Don't be fooled by Carrera's lies - the woman wasn't sacked or fired by BA.
She's suspended on full pay.

 

[limerickman]

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.

What it boils down to is that you're the one that has a problem.

Before the multicultural experiment, it would have been unthinkable for any woman to lose her job in this country due to wearing a cross. .

She hasn't lost her job - she's been suspended, on full pay.

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.

Health and Safety is rightly regarded as being politically correct.

This is why people rushed to this lady's defence................

Well the employment tribunal didn't rush to her defence - they threw out her claim for discrimination against BA!

 

[Eldrack]

There are other ways than a cross necklace (something that is often worn by secular people) to express your faith. How about she wears a WWJD (what would Jesus do?) bracelet (though I have no idea if that would be banned by regulations as well).

 

[Carrera]

What about the ceremonial swords? How's about the risk of veils being caught up in a conveyer belt?
Why has the lady in question not been taught about Christianity during her cultural awareness training during her time with the airline?
Either ban religious insignia totally or cater for all, I figure.
Who made the rules and on what basis? Anyone can make rules to suit their own prejudices.

Are you guessing there?
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.

 

[Carrera]

"What it boils down to is that you're the one that has a problem."

Not wanting to go over old ground repeatedly, but maybe you should watch the movie Ali that's on this evening on TV.
Here is a man who stood up for his beliefs and who would most certainly have supported this lady's current struggle, seeing as Ali surrounded himself with close friends who were also Christians or Jews. After all, he went so far as to praise Floyd Patterson for standing his ground as a Catholic when he and Ali fought their grudge match.
My position is I admire anyone who has the guts to make a stand regardless of whether I agree with their religion, philosophy or point of view.
Apart from Wolfix, thus far I've seen a whole lot of people making a whole lot of excuses to accommodate a case of clear discrimination, fabricated by a B.A. manager in an office somewhere who, I would guess, has a chip on his shoulder.
"Well the employment tribunal didn't rush to her defence - they threw out her claim for discrimination against BA!"
I find it strange you don't seem to support her stand. I'm not religious in any way although one of my girlfriends is a strong Catholic. My take is simply that she has the same rights as those folks who are given a ceremonial sword e.t.c.
There's something in life called principle. In my book if you go through life appeasing discrimination and allowing people in power to walk all over you, we're in a sorry state.
What about cyclists who swear by the cross round their neck as a good luck symbol? Or the vials of salt? Would they all just take them off, I wonder, if some manager in an office had a brainwave?
I mean, Muhammad Ali could have made a number of excuses why he should continue to call himself Cassius Clay seeing as the mainstream public disapproved of his beliefs. Excuses are always the easy way out and provide an easy way out of making that stand.

What it boils down to is that you're the one that has a problem.




She hasn't lost her job - she's been suspended, on full pay.

Well the employment tribunal didn't rush to her defence - they threw out her claim for discrimination against BA![/


Health and Safety is rightly regarded as being politically correct.




QUOTE]

 

[Carrera]

Health and safety?

"Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery - while Muslim workers are also allowed prayer breaks during work time."

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/bldefkirpan.htm

"The Kirpan is the ceremonial sword carried by Khalsa Sikhs, as a reminder to fight for justice and against oppression. One of the five khalsas, or dress rituals observed by baptised Sikhs. Kirpans range in size from large ceremonial swords, to tiny knives small enough to be worn about the neck. All Khalsa Sikhs are required towear the kirpan."

 

[limerickman]

Apart from Wolfix, thus far I've seen a whole lot of people making a whole lot of excuses to accommodate a case of clear discrimination, fabricated by a B.A. manager in an office somewhere who, I would guess, has a chip on his shoulder.
"Well the employment tribunal didn't rush to her defence - they threw out her claim for discrimination against BA!"

The employment tribunal would be independent of the "BA manager" and the lady in question.

The fact of the matter is that an independent tribunal did not support her claim for discrimination.

I find it strange you don't seem to support her stand. I'm not religious in any way although one of my girlfriends is a strong Catholic. My take is simply that she has the same rights as those folks who are given a ceremonial sword e.t.c.

Why are you surprised that I don't support her? Because I'm Catholic???

I don't support this case because the lady in question is not being discriminated against. Pure and simple.
If she was the only employee to be suspended on full pay - when all the other employees have jewellery around their necks and are allowed work - then I would support her.
My view is that she's not being discriminated against by BA.

In addition, I've always stated that religion is a personal matter and it shouldn't be mixed with politics etc.

There's something in life called principle. In my book if you go through life appeasing discrimination and allowing people in power to walk all over you, we're in a sorry state.

......but there is no principle at stake in the BA case.

If there was a principle, then your views might receive wider support.

 

[EoinC]

Health and safety?

"Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery - while Muslim workers are also allowed prayer breaks during work time."

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/bldefkirpan.htm

"The Kirpan is the ceremonial sword carried by Khalsa Sikhs, as a reminder to fight for justice and against oppression. One of the five khalsas, or dress rituals observed by baptised Sikhs. Kirpans range in size from large ceremonial swords, to tiny knives small enough to be worn about the neck. All Khalsa Sikhs are required towear the kirpan."

Don't try to throw in furphies, Carrera. The employee was not pulled up for wearing jewelry around her neck (religious or otherwise). She was pulled up for wearing exposed jewelry around her neck (religious or otherwise). As has been pointed out to you already (and you have thus far failed to address), it would be discrimination if others in the same position (ie having to conform to the same set of rules) were not pulled up for wearing exposed jewelry around their respective necks. Please indicate where this has happened so that we can apologise to you for being incorrect.

 

[davidmc]

There are other ways than a cross necklace (something that is often worn by secular people) to express your faith. How about she wears a WWJD (what would Jesus do?) bracelet (though I have no idea if that would be banned by regulations as well).

Or how about---"WWJB---(Who Would Jesus Bomb)?"
http://www.bant-shirts.com/wwjb-ringer-t-shirt.htm

 

[Carrera]

"The fact of the matter is that an independent tribunal did not support her claim for discrimination."

The fact of the matter is the independent tribunal is now irrelevant. They lost and so did B.A.
What I see here is a kind of union between churches and nationalists who objected for different reasons. The churches objected as they felt discriminated against as a global religion and the nationalists objected because they viewed this case as another example of loss of personal freedom. Secular people have been wearing crosses for centuries, not just Christians.
"In addition, I've always stated that religion is a personal matter and it shouldn't be mixed with politics etc."
Then Ali, for example, was wrong to base his struggle for civil rights on his membership of the Nation Of Islam and the teachings of Malcolm X? People who become social outcasts because they happen to be Communists, Christians or Moslems are wrong to make a stand because it's a personal matter?
Nope, we don't agree.

The employment tribunal would be independent of the "BA manager" and the lady in question.

The fact of the matter is that an independent tribunal did not support her claim for discrimination.




Why are you surprised that I don't support her? Because I'm Catholic???

I don't support this case because the lady in question is not being discriminated against. Pure and simple.
If she was the only employee to be suspended on full pay - when all the other employees have jewellery around their necks and are allowed work - then I would support her.
My view is that she's not being discriminated against by BA.

In addition, I've always stated that religion is a personal matter and it shouldn't be mixed with politics etc.




......but there is no principle at stake in the BA case.

If there was a principle, then your views might receive wider support.

 

[Carrera]

My stance is shared my many legal people, possibly the U.N. as well, Jack Straw and many others (including over 50 M.P.'s).
This from a barrister:

"If female Muslim staff in BA are allowed to wear the hijab, then it is unlawful discrimination for BA to prevent Christian staff from wearing a cross. (Reg 3 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003).In law, the hijab is a religious symbol just as much as the cross, therefore if Muslim staff are permitted to wear a Muslim religious symbol then Christian staff must also be allowed to wear the Christian religious symbol of the cross.
Because of the international nature of its work I, as a barrister, believe that BA could justifiably prohibit all its staff from wearing any religious symbol. What it cannot do is impose different, and therefore discriminatory, rules on Muslim and Christian staff members.Neil Addison (Author, Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law ), Liverpool"

Don't try to throw in furphies, Carrera. The employee was not pulled up for wearing jewelry around her neck (religious or otherwise). She was pulled up for wearing exposed jewelry around her neck (religious or otherwise). As has been pointed out to you already (and you have thus far failed to address), it would be discrimination if others in the same position (ie having to conform to the same set of rules) were not pulled up for wearing exposed jewelry around their respective necks. Please indicate where this has happened so that we can apologise to you for being incorrect.

 

[Carrera]

I think there's a tendency to make excuses to justify all the problems you will inevitably get by making a stand - so making a stand takes a lot of strength of character does it not?
The lady who made this stand has gained nothing from it personally. In a certain sense she caused a lot of problems for B.A. and catapulted the company into the media news.
Let's be clear when she returns to work she'll have to face a certain amount of cold shouldering, the odd snigger and possible exclusion because she took this stand.
However, she's also got the comfort of not being a third rate employee anymore.

Don't try to throw in furphies, Carrera. The employee was not pulled up for wearing jewelry around her neck (religious or otherwise). She was pulled up for wearing exposed jewelry around her neck (religious or otherwise). As has been pointed out to you already (and you have thus far failed to address), it would be discrimination if others in the same position (ie having to conform to the same set of rules) were not pulled up for wearing exposed jewelry around their respective necks. Please indicate where this has happened so that we can apologise to you for being incorrect.

 

[Carrera]

"Why are you surprised that I don't support her? Because I'm Catholic???"

Your position does seem a bit odd. I heard on the news last night that the Catholic Church has become aware of this case and doesn't approve the discrimination involved. I very much doubt Benedict would agree with you or B.A. with regard to this case.
So, it would seem you disagree with me, disagree with the Vatican, disagree with Jack Straw and disagree with the millions of people worldwide and U.N. legal experts who share my views on the issue.
That's the way the land lies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=418498&in_page_id=1770
"The Vatican also made its displeasure known. Cardinal Walter Kasper, Pope Benedict's aide in charge of relations with other churches, said: 'I find it very surprising that in a country of such rich traditions and religious freedom such a thing should be considered."

The employment tribunal would be independent of the "BA manager" and the lady in question.

The fact of the matter is that an independent tribunal did not support her claim for discrimination.




Why are you surprised that I don't support her? Because I'm Catholic???

I don't support this case because the lady in question is not being discriminated against. Pure and simple.
If she was the only employee to be suspended on full pay - when all the other employees have jewellery around their necks and are allowed work - then I would support her.
My view is that she's not being discriminated against by BA.

In addition, I've always stated that religion is a personal matter and it shouldn't be mixed with politics etc.




......but there is no principle at stake in the BA case.

If there was a principle, then your views might receive wider support.

 

[EoinC]

...Cardinal Walter Kasper, Pope Benedict's aide in charge of relations with other churches, said: 'I find it very surprising that in a country of such rich traditions and religious freedom such a thing should be considered."

Cardinal Walter Kasper possibly doesn't spend a lot of time working around conveyor belts.

 

[limerickman]

The fact of the matter is the independent tribunal is now irrelevant. They lost and so did B.A.

The employment appeals tribunal threw the case of discrimination out.
That ruling is relevant.
The lady lost the case.

BA didn't lose the case - BA's action (in suspending the worker) was upheld.

"In addition, I've always stated that religion is a personal matter and it shouldn't be mixed with politics etc."
Then Ali, for example, was wrong to base his struggle for civil rights on his membership of the Nation Of Islam and the teachings of Malcolm X? People who become social outcasts because they happen to be Communists, Christians or Moslems are wrong to make a stand because it's a personal matter?
Nope, we don't agree.

All I said was the politics and religion should remain separate.

Your diatribe about Ali, Communists, etc, is your view

"The fact of the matter is that an independent tribunal did not support her claim for discrimination."

The fact of the matter is the independent tribunal is now irrelevant. They lost and so did B.A.
What I see here is a kind of union between churches and nationalists who objected for different reasons. The churches objected as they felt discriminated against as a global religion and the nationalists objected because they viewed this case as another example of loss of personal freedom. Secular people have been wearing crosses for centuries, not just Christians.
"In addition, I've always stated that religion is a personal matter and it shouldn't be mixed with politics etc."
Then Ali, for example, was wrong to base his struggle for civil rights on his membership of the Nation Of Islam and the teachings of Malcolm X? People who become social outcasts because they happen to be Communists, Christians or Moslems are wrong to make a stand because it's a personal matter?
Nope, we don't agree.

 

[limerickman]

My stance is shared my many legal people, possibly the U.N. as well, Jack Straw and many others (including over 50 M.P.'s).
This from a barrister:

"If female Muslim staff in BA are allowed to wear the hijab, then it is unlawful discrimination for BA to prevent Christian staff from wearing a cross. (Reg 3 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003).In law, the hijab is a religious symbol just as much as the cross, therefore if Muslim staff are permitted to wear a Muslim religious symbol then Christian staff must also be allowed to wear the Christian religious symbol of the cross.
Because of the international nature of its work I, as a barrister, believe that BA could justifiably prohibit all its staff from wearing any religious symbol. What it cannot do is impose different, and therefore discriminatory, rules on Muslim and Christian staff members.Neil Addison (Author, Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law ), Liverpool"

If the barrister's view (above) holds any substance - the independent tribunal would have concurred with the view that you posted above.

In addition, the lady's counsel at the employment tribunal would have had precedence on which to base the lady's case.

The fact of the matter is that the employment tribunal found in favour of BA.
I wouldn't rush to have your barrister represent me at court!

 

[davidmc]

"Why are you surprised that I don't support her? Because I'm Catholic???"

Your position does seem a bit odd. I heard on the news last night that the Catholic Church has become aware of this case and doesn't approve the discrimination involved. I very much doubt Benedict would agree with you or B.A. with regard to this case.
So, it would seem you disagree with me, disagree with the Vatican, disagree with Jack Straw and disagree with the millions of people worldwide and U.N. legal experts who share my views on the issue.
That's the way the land lies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=418498&in_page_id=1770
"The Vatican also made its displeasure known. Cardinal Walter Kasper, Pope Benedict's aide in charge of relations with other churches, said: 'I find it very surprising that in a country of such rich traditions and religious freedom such a thing should be considered."

Why doesn't she have a cross embroidered on all of her uniforms The wearing of chains is inadvisable @ machinery.