Religious education

Last year, headlines proclaimed that a Christian, Duke Amachree, was 'sacked' by his employer, Wandsworth Borough Council, for saying 'God bless' to a terminally-ill client.

Amachree, like Lillian Ladele and Gary Macfarlane, seemed destined to become a cause célèbre in the ongoing battle for the rights of Christians in the workplace.

But the recently handed down 54-page judgment from Watford Employment Tribunal tells a different story.

In January 2009, the homelessness prevention officer was interviewing 'Ms X' when she revealed she was suffering from an incurable disease. The next day Ms X sent a letter of complaint to the council, alleging that Amachree 'proceeded to give me a half-hour lecture on the fact that there was no such thing as an incurable illness, doctors should never be trusted, that my problem was that I did not have God or faith in my life and was therefore ill as a result'.

Amachree was eventually fired for gross misconduct under Wandsworth's disciplinary code, having 'made offensive and inappropriate comments' to Ms X 'relating to her state of health, her religious or personal beliefs and your religious or personal beliefs'. A second count of gross misconduct was also recorded, for breach of confidentiality, following a decision by Amachree's solicitors, the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), to issue a press release which Ms X later claimed revealed her identity.

At Amachree's appeal to Watford Employment Tribunal (Case Number 2328606/2009 '“ see solicitorsjournal.com, 11 August 2010), it was held that Amachree was fairly dismissed; he was not discriminated against on the grounds of his religion, nor was his breach of contract in the public interest.

Matters concerning religion in the workplace are often viewed as a taboo subject, into which employers do not like to venture. Here the tribunal specifically stated that the council was justified in seeking to obtain further clarification, including the duration and exact content of the religious discussion. The tribunal did not feel that Wandworth's actions were either obsessive or unreasonable, nor did it find that the council had a preoccupation with the religious nature of Amachree's conversation with Ms X, as the CLC had submitted.

No discrimination

Practitioners who represent religious claimants should emphasise the need to be able to provide evidence that there is a 'provision, criterion or practice' demonstrating they were placed at a disadvantage. Here, Amachree submitted that the way in which the disciplinary policy was 'selectively' applied to him and no others meant it adversely affected him; but no evidence was placed before the tribunal that others had not been or would not have been investigated or disciplined for making inappropriate remarks at an interview with a service user. Indeed the evidence was that all complaints were investigated.

The tribunal said Wandsworth had provided a convincing non-discriminatory explanation for Amachree's treatment. Although his religion was an integral part of the case, 'it was not on the ground of his religion that he received this treatment, but rather on the ground that he was inappropriately raising it with a service user. His religion might be the reason for his actions but it was not the reason for the actions of the council.'

Amachree's barrister submitted that Christianity is 'unique in its commitment to try to live out the teachings of the Holy Bible in word and deed, and that Christians more than anyone would fall foul of such a draconian policy that no reference to religion could be made'.

The tribunal disagreed and found that the policy would impact in exactly the same way on all major religions.

It concluded that if there was any evidence of disparate impact (noting that little evidence or argument was presented on these points by either party), a practice of not allowing the discussion of 'irrelevant matters' at interviews was legitimate '“ namely to ensure a professional, focused, efficient and cost-effective service was delivered to members of the public '“ and this was achieved by the proportionate means of preventing staff from straying from the relevant subject matter.

Comprehensive policies

The panel also warned the matter could have serious public ramifications for Wandsworth, and referred to the specific sections of its code of conduct for employees (dealing with disclosure of information, and contact with the press) and Wandsworth's disciplinary code (dealing with breach of confidentiality). It is a reminder of the importance of having a thorough and comprehensive code of conduct and disciplinary procedure in place which clearly sets out the type of conduct which the employer considers would amount to gross misconduct; this is commonly set out as a non-exhaustive list within a staff handbook.

Practitioners should consider whether any standard policies could benefit from a review; especially to check any statutory references which are listed in any policies after the implementation of the first swathe of the Equality Act 2010.

Practitioners must also note the importance of the additional charge of breach of confidentiality as the tribunal specifically held that this allegation would have been sufficient alone to have justified dismissal.

This case also highlights the potential pitfalls of dealing with the press, as the tribunal pointed out that the CLC's decision to go public in the way he did was 'most unfortunate and ill-judged, but there is no doubt that claimant was a party to it'. They did not want to criticise Amachree for wanting to go public about the length of the investigation, stating the issue was not that he went to the press about his suspension but that he had divulged personal information about Ms X.