Yes your PC has gone mad. The Independent's report on Schembri v HSBC plc will no doubt give the Blimps apoplexy. A Maltese woman has won part of her race claim against the bank because a fellow worker said (not to her but) to another employee in the room that she was voting for Kilroy-Silk because he wanted to get rid of foreigners and she was against immigration. So the upshot is freedom to manifest political opinions in the workplace has to come second (and rightly so in my opinion) to the duty to allow employees to work without racial harassment. I wonder though whether the freedom to manifest religious beliefs will come second to the duty to allow employees to work without harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation. If the workplace is to be a neutral space where possibly offensive political opinions are to be left at the front door, is the same to be true for possibly offensive religious views?
As a postscript the Brussells Journal of all things reports that the punishment was £750 - at the lowest end of awards for injury to feelings.
As a postscript the Brussells Journal of all things reports that the punishment was £750 - at the lowest end of awards for injury to feelings.
1 comment:
Surely voting for Kilroy-Silk is much more of an IQ indication test and the company's recruitment process has failed in allowing such a stupid person to be recruited in the first place!
Post a Comment