When I read in the papers about a man who won a payout of €70,000 after being sacked from his job with South Tipperary County Council for repeatedly talking about his religion during working hours, I have to confess that my sympathies were initially with the Council.
But when I read the full account of the case on the Labour Court website, my sympathies changed.
Initially my impression was that the man, an Evangelical Christian, was speaking about his religion so much that it was interfering with his work.
But then it turned out that the real problem is that some of his work colleagues basically didn’t like his faith. They didn’t like him talking about it to them (that’s their prerogative obviously) and so he stopped.
But they didn’t even like him talking about his faith on his lunch break to any members of the public he happened to strike up a conservation with.
(There was also an example of him talking about his faith to a member of the public when he was out supervising the pouring of concrete, but it didn’t seem to interfere with his supervisory task).
In fact, some of his work colleagues went out of their way to effectively spy on him when he was on lunch break or otherwise out of the office. If they saw him speaking to someone, they would go up to that person and ask them was their Christian colleague speaking to them about religion.
They then reported him back to their employer for breaching disciplinary proceedings.
Eventually he was sacked.
The Equality Tribunal found in his favour. It decided he was discriminated against on the basis of his religion. It found that speaking about his religion was not interfering with his job. In the end, it looked like speaking about his religion was simply annoying some of his work colleagues even when he wasn’t speaking about it to them. They couldn’t stand that he was talking about his religion to anyone, even on his lunch break! And we like to think we’re so tolerant.
In fact, when you think about it, receiving €70,000 in compensation is a pretty poor return for being sacked from a job worth €54,000 per annum.
PS. Here is the key passage in the Equality Tribunal’s judgement [1] and it seems to strip the employer of any justification for sacking him:
“It seems to me that from the first warning onwards that the complainant was observed and closely monitored by staff of the Council and when he was seen speaking to other people these people were approached by Council staff to find out the content of the conversation. From the evidence it appears a significant number of Council staff were apprised of the complainant’s religious beliefs and the fact that he could not speak about his beliefs to anybody during the working day including the lunch period. It is clear that these staff were asked to monitor him given the number of staff who reported to management that they saw the complainant speaking to a member of the public.
Following each incident, the complainant was warned under the Disciplinary Procedures. I am satisfied that the treatment of the complainant and the monitoring of him by Council staff directly related to his religious beliefs and the manifestation of these beliefs. There was no evidence submitted that the complainant failed to carry out his duties as an employee or that the practising of his religious beliefs had any adverse impact on the respondent’s business. I note that there was no evidence that other staff of the Council had their conversations with members of the public monitored in any way. I am satisfied that the complainant has established that he was treated less favourably than a person of a different religion or a person of no religion would have been treated in similar circumstances as other staff had not had their conversations with members of the public investigated and reported to management.
I note from the evidence there was no prohibition on other staff of a different religion practising their religion and it was accepted in evidence that a person of the Catholic faith could attend Mass during the working day. I also note that the complainant was compelled to attend counselling because the respondent believed that his passion for speaking about his religion was a form of addiction. I am satisfied that a person of another religion would not have been compelled to attend counselling for reasons related to their religion. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment in relation to his conditions of employment and dismissal.”)