UK Employment Hub 

In March 2019, an Employment Tribunal will decide for the first time whether ethical veganism is a “philosophical belief” under one of the nine protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010, namely “religion or belief”. If the Employment Tribunal decides that it is, then it would still likely be subject to appeal. So it would unlikely finally determine issue.

It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate directly, by treating an employee less favourably than others because of their religion or belief.

Case law has set out a series of tests to determine whether a philosophical belief falls within the scope of the protected characteristic, “religion or belief”.

If the Tribunal decides that ethical veganism is a protected characteristic, then the discrimination claim will proceed to a full hearing.

Jordi Casamitjana claims he was dismissed from his role as head of policy and research at the League Against Cruel Sports after raising concerns to his manager and other employees that it was investing pension funds in companies that tested on animals. He alleges that as a result of his disclosures he was unfairly disciplined and subsequently dismissed. Mr Casamitjana claims that the reason for his dismissal was due to his philosophical belief in ethical veganism.  The League Against Cruel Sports says he was dismissed for gross misconduct and denies that he was dismissed because of his veganism.

If the Tribunal finds ethical veganism to be a protected characteristic, subject to the first instance decision not being overturned on appeal, it will ensure ethical vegans are protected against discrimination (direct and indirect), harassment and victimisation.

Practically speaking, if vegans are given protected status then employers will need to understand more about what veganism means in practice and consider any particular needs vegans may have in the workplace.

In the recent case of Saha v Capita plc the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that an Employment Tribunal (ET) is not compelled to rely on a list of issues that wrongly categorises the claim to be heard.

The Claimant was employed as an assistant management accountant. In an email she alleged that the Respondent subjected her to a detriment by asking her to work the year-end hours proposed as they were:

• detrimental to her health and safety; and
• in breach of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR).

Following the email, the Claimant received an offer to terminate her employment in return for a payment of £10,000. She then lodged a claim with the ET pleading both of the above matters as protected disclosures.

An agreed list of issues was prepared at the outset of the hearing but categorised the WTR allegation as a working time detriment claim rather than detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure. The EAT held that the ET failed to consider the substance of the claim.

The EAT relied on the Court of Appeal case of Parekh v London Borough of Brent [2012] which made clear that an ET is not bound by the list of issues agreed and the core duty of the court is to hear and determine the case in accordance with the law and evidence. The claim was remitted to the same ET to decide whether the email contained a protected disclosure of a likely breach of the WTR.

This decision is a reminder that an agreed list of issues is not set in stone. If a list of issues is wrongly categorised then it is the duty of the ET to determine the case in accordance with the law and evidence.

In the recent Employment Tribunal (ET) case of Ball v. First Essex Bus Limited, the claimant, a 60-year-old bus driver who suffers from diabetes, has been successful in his unfair dismissal claim. He persuaded an ET that his dismissal for being under the influence of cocaine whilst on duty was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The claimant had failed a random drug test.

This case shouldn’t instil fear in employers who require to carry out random or “with cause” drug testing despite the attention-grabbing headlines that have been published in response to the ET decision. It should, however, serve as a useful reminder to employers to follow their own policies and procedures (which should be regularly updated) as well as the ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance even in the face of (or perhaps particularly in the face of) very serious, career-ending, allegations. In this case the employer failed to follow its own drug and alcohol policy and contractual disciplinary policy. Importantly the drug and alcohol policy expressly allowed an employee to challenge the results of a positive test but the respondent did not bring this to the employee’s attention. The policy also required that an independent laboratory identified by the employee carry out a second test. This didn’t happen either. In addition the disciplinary policy provided that both investigating officer and disciplinary manager must carefully consider any verbal or written evidence submitted by the employee or their representatives. This was roundly ignored.

The judgment sets out a very good summary of what the ACAS Code requires an employer to do when operating any disciplinary procedure or process and in particular that an employer should keep an open mind and look for evidence that supports the employee’s case as well as evidence against it. In this case it appeared to the judge that “the respondent would pursue any avenue that would shore up the case against the claimant yet ignore any factor that might support the claimant’s position”. The judge also commented that “any disciplinary process requires a degree of common sense”.

The claimant’s position on cross-contamination (by handling cash and his fingers coming into contact with his mouth) was all but ignored despite being “open to the issue” as far as the judge was concerned. The employee had long service and an unblemished record. The fact that all four senior managers involved in the disciplinary process (investigation, disciplinary, first appeal and second appeal) found it odd that a 60-year-old man who suffered from diabetes, had no history of drug taking whatsoever, had an unblemished record, was of good character and whose managers were surprised that he had allegedly taken cocaine meant that any reasonable employer would have made further enquiries.