Religious Expression in the Workplace and the Contested Role of Law

Re-imagining the place of religion in the workplace: The example of Australian social work

“…Religion and belief can be said to be higher in the hierarchy because of the additional exemptions that are available to religion and belief-based organisations, and in particular the exemption related to sex and sexual orientation discrimination in the appointment of clergy and other such religious personnel (see Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010). Conversely, it has been argued (Hambler, 2015) that religion and belief are treated less favourably than sexual orientation, with cases such as the Asher's bakery case and the Bull v Hall used as illustration. However, assuming that there must be a hierarchy just because in these cases one side has won or because of the creation of a special exception (Sandberg, 2014) may be to assume too readily that the Courts are creating a hierarchy (Pearson, 2016).…”

Managing workplace religious expression within the legal constraints

“…For people who approach their faith in this way, religious beliefs infuse everyday living and working and so cannot be removed like a coat at the door of the office. Some religious employees may also consider themselves to be under a positive duty to express their religion in different ways which affect the workplace (Hambler, 2015;Kaminer, 2000). Where the employer is unwilling to allow this, it will either force staff to act against conscience, or it will exclude them entirely.…”

“…Of course there will be occasions where particular forms of religious expression impose unacceptable costs on the employer or co-workers, perhaps where genuine health and safety concerns or genuine operational constraints exist or actual harassment ('improper' religious speech) of other staff is occurring. On such occasions, arguably employers should take care to confirm that the apparent reasons for restrictions are genuine and not contrived (this may be particularly relevant where 'health and safety' is invoked sometimes for spurious reasons (Hambler, 2015)).…”