It’s my belief

Saini v All Saints Haque Centre and ors

It is against the law to discriminate against someone because of their religion or belief. In Saini v All Saints Haque Centre and ors (IDS 869), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has confirmed that the law also provides workers with protection against harassment because of someone else’s religion or belief.

Basic facts

Mr Saini (a Hindu) worked as an immigration advice worker at All Saints. Mr Bungay (who followed the Ravidass faith) lost his job when his funding came to an end in June 2005, as did Mr Paul (also of the Ravidass faith) who was a volunteer. They resented losing their posts and felt that non Ravidassis had, as they saw it, been retained in post by the Hindu manager, Mr Chandel.

By October 2005, the board of directors had come under the control of Mr Bungay and Mr Paul and others from the Ravidass community who decided to try to get rid of Mr Chandel because he was a Hindu.

Following complaints about the way the Centre was applying certain charges, the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner started an inquiry which concluded in November 2005 that there had been irregularities. It was also critical of Mr Chandel. In December 2005 Mr Bungay reassured Mr Saini that his position was safe and that they just wanted rid of the manager.

Then, in March and April 2006 the centre received more complaints this time about the way Mr Saini had been applying charges. The board took forward those complaints by investigating Mr Chandel, following which he was suspended and then dismissed summarily on 7 July 2006.

In the meantime, it also interviewed Mr Saini in May and June when he volunteered information that implicated Mr Chandel. He was then suspended on 23 June 2006, by which stage he felt that he was being pressurised to provide the board with ammunition to pursue Mr Chandel. He took out a grievance and resigned in July. He claimed, among other things, harassment and discrimination under the religion or belief regulations.

Tribunal decision

But the tribunal did not agree. It said that Mr Saini had not been discriminated again because of his own faith, as he was the “victim” not the “target” of Mr Bungay and Mr Paul. Although they had breached the implied term of trust and confidence of his contract, they had not been motivated by his religion.

As for the harassment claim, the tribunal said that although the effects of their behaviour had been to create an atmosphere that satisfied the definition in article 5 of the regulations, they had not engaged “in that unwanted conduct on grounds of religion and belief”.

EAT decision

But the EAT disagreed. It said that starting point was the European directive which prohibits unwanted conduct “related to” religion or belief, among other things. This would cover a situation where someone was being subjected to offensive conduct as a result of a discriminatory policy being implemented by their employer against someone else on the grounds of their religion or belief.

It said: “Such an interpretation is consistent with the aims and intention of the Framework Directive and of the plain import of the legislation. To adopt the language of the Advocate General at paragraph 17 in Coleman v Attridge Law: "As soon as we have ascertained that the basis for the employer's conduct is one of the prohibited grounds then we enter the realm of unlawful discrimination."

In this case, it said that once the tribunal had decided that the animosity shown by Mr Bungay and Mr Paul towards Mr Chantel was because he was a Hindu, it should have concluded that the Centre was pursuing an anti-Hindu (and therefore discriminatory) policy. So if Mr Saini was being “used” to get rid of Mr Chantel, it must also be because of that policy. That amounted to harassment on grounds of religion which was contrary to regulation five.