Time off for Eid

ceridwen

Jarndyce wrote: »

Jarndyce has never said whether he/she was a solicitor/lawyer or not. But in any case that does not mean he/she cannot have views which are not legal advice or opinion.



Again, obviously, the employer needs to treat the employee fairly and lawfully, and take care not to treat them less favourably on the grounds of their religion. Would they treat someone who asked for time off for a christening, for example, in the same way?

Equally, if having met the terms of the law in these areas, the employer cannot grant the leave and the employee, having been made aware of the genuine business reasons why they cannot, takes the leave anyway, then that is clearly unauthorised absence and can be dealt with as such, again, providing that is how the employer would deal with the christening situation, for example.

.

Agreed that ANY employee has to be treated "fairly and lawfully". It does also need pointing out that no-one's reason for wanting time off at short notice is MORE or less valid than anyone else's (be it for a religious reason or no).

The employer will be making a rod for their own back if they treat one employee more favourably than the others - for WHATEVER reason. The only way the employer could manage to not have other employees queueing for the same degree of "bending over backwards" that this one would have if an exception was made for them - would be to tell all the other employees (preferably at the same time together) the exact facts as to why "positive discrimination" was exercised for this employee. Facts and facts only - no opinions/no subjective words - just "X came to me on this date and his exact words he said were. In view of that - I decided to give him 3 days leave at y days notice" and then walk straight out of the room and leave them to form their own judgements - because the employer won't have given any. Presumably - this employee would like to continue getting on reasonably with his colleagues - and might withdraw his leave application at that point if he had only gotten the leave because of "positive discrimination".

****************************

It would be interesting to have a link to the legal case mentioned above if anyone has it. If the employer is to be totally fair to ALL her staff - then she needs all the information she can get to protect herself from any unwarranted claims of discrimination.

Oldernotwiser

ACAS guidelines for religious observance in the workplace.

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/f/l/religion_1.pdf

ceridwen

hawk30 wrote: »

The idea that there can be no discrimination just because everyone is treated the same is a very dangerous one to propose. You CAN discriminate against someone even if you treat everyone the same. It's called indirect discrimination - if you apply a practice to everyone that puts an employee at a particular disadvantage because of his/her protected characteristic (race, religion, sex, etc) and you cannot justify it, then there is discrimination.

My understanding of "indirect discrimination" is that it would only apply to things an employee couldnt help - eg the sex they are, any disability they have, their race. If we are going to say its "indirect discrimination" not to go in for "positive discrimination" because of someones religion - then we might as well go the whole hog and ask what political party they vote for as well (also a matter of personal choice) and say "We'd better positively discriminate in favour of those who voted for the political party currently in power".

But for matters of personal choice - then I wouldnt have thought that applied. Religion is a matter of personal choice - and nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else (employers included).

scheming_gypsy

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

ACAS guidelines for religious observance in the workplace.

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/f/l/religion_1.pdf

it's a bit rubbish though, just looking through the Muslim section it just says what they might ask for but nothing about if they're entitled to take the time off. Although it does say that most Muslims will only seek the first day off.

hawk30

ceridwen wrote: »

My understanding of "indirect discrimination" is that it would only apply to things an employee couldnt help - eg the sex they are, any disability they have, their race. If we are going to say its "indirect discrimination" not to go in for "positive discrimination" because of someones religion - then we might as well go the whole hog and ask what political party they vote for as well (also a matter of personal choice) and say "We'd better positively discriminate in favour of those who voted for the political party currently in power".

But for matters of personal choice - then I wouldnt have thought that applied. Religion is a matter of personal choice - and nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else (employers included).

Indirect discrimination applies to any of the protected characteristics listed in s19(3) of the Equality Act, which are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation. I'm not saying that there is indirect discrimination here, but it is something that employers need to be aware of.

Law is not common sense. It is a body of rules that must be followed.

scheming_gypsy

An example of Indirect Discrimination as taken from Muslims in the workplace, A good practice guide for Employers and Employees

3.5 Indirect discrimination can be justified where employers can show that they are pursuing a
legitimate aim and acting proportionately. A legitimate aim is where employers have a real business
need. Action will be considered 'proportionate' where it is within the limits of what is necessary to
achieve the business need in question.

Example
A small toy shop employs four staff. Two Muslim employees request time off for Eid-ul-Fitr in the
busy pre-Christmas period. However, the toy shop requires all four staff to work during that
period. It would be justifiable to refuse such a request if the shop could not cope without them.


So if the OP needs the member of staff to work, then they're well within their rights to refuse the request.

ceridwen

hawk30 wrote: »

Indirect discrimination applies to any of the protected characteristics listed in s19(3) of the Equality Act, which are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation. I'm not saying that there is indirect discrimination here, but it is something that employers need to be aware of.

Law is not common sense. It is a body of rules that must be followed.

Fine - in that case - I'm a Jeddi Warrior and Jeddis HAVE to have every Thursday of and if we dont get that bit of positive discrimination I'll create....

(only joking about the Jedi Warrior I hasten to add - but not about the general principle in this case).

Crikey - if its this much trouble to employ someone who doesnt wish to adapt to our ways - then....mental note made in case I'm ever self-employed and need an employee about factors I need to take into account (ie as regards who to select in the first place...).

lizzielondon

'adapt to our ways'??? what ways would you like british muslims to adapt to exactly?? different religions observe different holidays and therefore need different times off work

to the OP, the issue here I see is that he should have told you further in advance and has obviously put you in a difficult position

Sambucus_Nigra

ceridwen wrote: »

Crikey - if its this much trouble to employ someone who doesnt wish to adapt to our ways - then....mental note made in case I'm ever self-employed and need an employee about factors I need to take into account (ie as regards who to select in the first place...).

Our ways? What ways? People have leave at short notice for all sorts of reasons...not just religious.

It's not that much trouble though is it - anyone new might ask for days off if their relatives [for example] were getting married in a surprise wedding in a few weeks, or someone's OH surprised them with a weekend away. Just juggle the rota...and ask a few people if they can swap. If they can't then the leave won't be granted. Simples.

ceridwen

The fact that this is a nominally Christian/but basically secular country.

We dont even allow for Christians (ie the stated religion this country is) to be able to demand Sundays off - so if we cant adapt for our own faith, then why would we adapt for someone else's?