Disciplined for showing faith symbol

[AndyHB]

Yet again, we seem to have an issue that promises to expose some degree of hypocrisy.

A Yorkshire electrician has been told to remove a palm cross from his works van, on the grounds that their policy is for no personal items to be displayed in their vehicles.  What do folk think about this kind of policy?  Is it unacceptable for Roman Catholics, Muslims or Buddhists to hang their rosary/prayer beads over the rear-view mirror, or for a driver to hand a St Christopher (patron saint of travellers) icon in the same place?  Plenty do, and you see it every day.

On a wider theme - and Nicky Campbell has picked this up on his Your Call programme this morning - is it acceptable to display religious symbols within the work-place (and, incidentally, what constitutes the work-place if you're an electrician/plumber/other service provider who drives from 'site' to 'site'?)

[Jan]

no personal items to be displayed in their vehicles

Could this be to do with risk of theft of personal items and insurance claims - or is it a religious matter. Would it not be better to state that any personal items left or displayed in vehicles are there at the drivers own risk?

Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one?s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

As far as I understand, a 'company policy' is not necessarily part of the law. Also one wonders about a cross affecting public safety, freedoms of others etc etc.

[Jan]

Bosses at the housing association where he has worked for 15 years have asked Colin Atkinson to remove the religious symbol because it could offend tenants.

from http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=157080769

Amazing - and rather sad

[Martin]

I think they have overzealous rules, but their rules seem to be consistent for all religions and none. If someone wanted to display a Budda or a Star of David or whatever, in their van, then they would be told that they could not, but if someone wants to wear a turban, a cross or cover their head, then that's ok by the rules.

I can't imagine how any tenant has been offendedby it, but aparently the company have had a complaint from an overzealous tenant, which is why they've felt the need to ask him to remove the cross since it contravenes their policy.  Had he simply complied I don't think any further action would have been taken, but as he has refused

But I don't see the discrimination he claims. Any other employee of any faith would be treated in the same way.

[tranchiebabe]

As long as faith symbols of all religions are banned, I don'tsee the problem.

[Boudi]

Isn't the first question to ask....is it his van?  If it isn't then he has to be bound by the rules of the owner.  I think this is a van very local to me, belonging to Wakefield Distric Housing, an arms length local authority company.  I was surprised when during the last world cup that we had an edict coming out allowing a small flag in the van, though it must be removed on the day of the final.  There are plenty of companies/authorities who are particular not to portray an individuals choices as those of the parent company.

[Jan]

I just think it is so petty. Someone could be really good at their job, a caring hard working person (whatever their faith) and end up losing their job just for having a symbol of their faith  in their car or van. A 'girlie' mag or page 3 paper, left on the passenger seat would probably not have caused so much fuss!

[JJ]

A 'girlie' mag or page 3 paper, left on the passenger seat would probably not have caused so much fuss!

good good point!

[Martin]

I think the problem, seen from the company's point of view, will be that to allow it for this man, now that it has been complained about and thus brought to their attention, will set a precedent for others.  Before the complaint had been made, they could claim that they didn't know about it and therefore it hadn't been authorised. Now that it has been brought to their attention, they must deal with it in accordance with their policy because, when a future situation arises that is less petty, they could be taken to a tribunal for discrimination if it can be pointed out that they broke their own policy by doing nothing in this case.

When Jan says....

Someone could be really good at their job, a caring hard working person (whatever their faith) and end up losing their job just for having a symbol of their faith  in their car or van

...I don't think that is quite the point.  The man isn't losing his job for having the symbol of faith in his car or van, he is being disciplined for refusing to remove the symbol of faith, when asked to do so, from the company's van, and, from the company's perspective, to do nothing at this stage, would expose them to legal action on other issues in the future.

[Jan]

...I don't think that is quite the point.  The man isn't losing his job for having the symbol of faith in his car or van, he is being disciplined for refusing to remove the symbol of faith, when asked to do so, from the company's van, and, from the company's perspective, to do nothing at this stage, would expose them to legal action on other issues in the future.

I still think it is really petty Martin. What harm is the symbol of faith doing? Nothing as far as I can tell - it is just a symbol of faith after all. This is where the priorities are all wrong (IMO).

[AndyHB]

I think they have overzealous rules, but their rules seem to be consistent for all religions and none. If someone wanted to display a Budda or a Star of David or whatever, in their van, then they would be told that they could not, but if someone wants to wear a turban, a cross or cover their head, then that's ok by the rules.

And what is more obvious to the general public being served by the worker - a turban which the person will wear into a customer's house, or a cross or set of prayer beads hanging on a rear-view mirror.  There seems to be a lack of consistency within the rules as they appear to us.

Furthermore, does any company or organisation ever act on the strength of a single complaint?  Can they be sure that this is not a vindictive complaint that has more to do with personal issues than anything to do with a religious symbol?  None of us know, but the fact that they admit to having had ONE complaint seems to me to suggest an over-reaction by the organisation.

[Martin]

Furthermore, does any company or organisation ever act on the strength of a single complaint?  Can they be sure that this is not a vindictive complaint that has more to do with personal issues than anything to do with a religious symbol?  None of us know, but the fact that they admit to having had ONE complaint seems to me to suggest an over-reaction by the organisation.

I think you'll find that they have to act on the strength of a single formal complaint, because their policy says that they will do so. The action taken would simply be to tell the driver to remove the object. I agree that it seems petty, but the whole point of having a policy is that, once the rules are written down, then everybody knows what the rules are, and can stick to them.  A policy protects the management from being criticised for discrimination or harassment of employees. If the policy is always followed, then any contravention of it will be dealt with in the same way.  If the policy is ignored because one employee refuses to follow it, then, however small the original contravention may seem, another employee will be able to argue that the management are discriminating if they won't allow a different employee to break a policy.

Probably, when the policy was created, the wearing of religious symbols was considered too hot a potato to try to introduce rules.  Attempts to tell people to remove garments of religious significance had already been causing furores ever since the rules on motor cycle crash helmets was challenged by Sikhs.  I strongly suspect that this is why the rules appear to be far less strict on what an employee wears about their person.

If I was this chap, I would simply transfer the cross symbol from decorating the vehicle to decorating myself, then there would be no breech of policy.  Instead he's trying to make the case appear as if it's a case of discrimination, where Christians are being treated differently from other religions, which isn't true.

[AndyHB]

If I was this chap, I would simply transfer the cross symbol from decorating the vehicle to decorating myself, then there would be no breech of policy.  Instead he's trying to make the case appear as if it's a case of discrimination, where Christians are being treated differently from other religions, which isn't true.

Martin, its a palm cross, which is difficult to decorate oneself with. As such, this is a a form of discrimination - not so much of Christians, per se, but of quite what one is allowed display of one's faith.  Ironically, Christianity has possibly the lowest number of compulsory symbols - none (after all, none of us are required, as part of our faith or denominational belief, to display any symbols).  I wonder why crosses seem to offend people so much?

I think the other issue is that the company would appear to be being inconsistent in the application of their own policy.  If they had applied it consistently, why hadn't this guy been told to remove his symbol long before this complaint was made?  Surely the van is checked on a regular basis.  As such, it would smack of hypocrisy on their part - and I can see why the guy is querying the decision.

[Martin]

Martin, its a palm cross, which is difficult to decorate oneself with. As such, this is a a form of discrimination - not so much of Christians, per se, but of quite what one is allowed display of one's faith.  Ironically, Christianity has possibly the lowest number of compulsory symbols - none (after all, none of us are required, as part of our faith or denominational belief, to display any symbols).  I wonder why crosses seem to offend people so much?

Then get a silver cross and hang it around your neck, or a tie clip or a badge!  For heaven's sake Andy, use your imagination! The company's policy doesn't say that it has to be a compulsory symbol to exempt it, only that it has to be worn on the person rather than displayed in the vehicle.  It ain't rocket science.

I think the other issue is that the company would appear to be being inconsistent in the application of their own policy.  If they had applied it consistently, why hadn't this guy been told to remove his symbol long before this complaint was made?  Surely the van is checked on a regular basis.  As such, it would smack of hypocrisy on their part - and I can see why the guy is querying the decision.

Well this is a feather in the cap of the company isn't it?  What they've done is to ignore the problem until there's been a complaint.  I daresay they'd say that it hadn't been drawn to their attention and that they don't go looking for ways to criticise their employees.  The guy isn't 'querying the decision' he's refusing to comply with the policy.

[AndyHB]

Then get a silver cross and hang it around your neck, or a tie clip or a badge!  For heaven's sake Andy, use your imagination!

Martin, lest you forget, Palm Crosses are not the 'run of the mill' crosses that you buy.  They will have been given out on Palm Sunday (hence their name) and, for some people, have a greater significance than a silver or jewellery cross.  That is why I pointed out the nature of its construction/material.  I don't know if this guy regards it differently to a metal one, but the fact that it is a palm cross does seem to have been quite prominent in the reporting.