Professor Lucy Vickers

Whilst freedom of religion is well established as a fundamental right internationally and within Europe, the extent to which it should be enjoyed in the workplace is still the subject of some debate. There are two main areas of contention: one involves religious workers in secular

organisations and the extent to which religious individuals can expect an organisation to accommodate their religious needs; the other concerns the interests of religious organisations

and the extent to which they should be governed by equality laws. Questions which

arise include: can religious employees expect to be allowed time off work for prayer or other

religious observance; and can religious organisations require that staff hold particular religious

beliefs in order to work for the organisation? A particular area of concern is how to deal

with the tension that can arise between equality grounds, such as where religious equality

and sexual orientation equality seem mutually irreconcilable. Although legal protection for

religion at work can be seen in many states, the UK example is used below, to illustrate the

areas of tension which arise surrounding religion and belief at work.

This paper will consider the legal provisions governing the protection of religion and belief at work. It makes specific reference to the concerns of health professionals, and in particular the issue of conscientious objection. It starts with an outline of the legal provisions governing conscientious objection under the Abortion Act 1967 and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. It then looks at the generally applicable laws relating to religious belief and employment and examines their application to conscientious objection. It assesses the recent case from the European Court of Human Rights, Eweida and others v UK [2013], and the implications of this case for staff who have conscientious objections to aspects of their work. It suggests that recent developments in the case law create an obligation on employers to consider accommodating such objections unless there are good reasons not to. The paper then moves on to consider other common requests for accommodation of religion at work, particularly the law relating to dress codes and time off for religious observance. Finally, it turns to consider the rights of non-religious staff who are employed within religious medical foundations.

This article considers how policy makers across Europe can meet the challenges of extending working lives, is a key element of the ‘Active Ageing’ agenda, whilst at the same time striking a balance between the interests of older workers, those of younger generations to access jobs and career opportunities, and the interests of employers in workforce planning. It examines the experience of the UK which removed mandatory retirement in October 2011 and argues that, viewed from a Marxist perspective, the developments in the UK have failed to strike the correct balance between the different interests at stake, and has instead taken a neo-liberal approach to the regulation of retirement. It then moves to consider retirement from an equalities perspective and suggests that retaining some form of regulation of the end of working lives can still meet the demands of equality. The final section discusses some proposals for reform.

Religious expression has long been recognized as a fundamental element of the right to religious freedom. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(“ICCPR”)1 and Article 9 European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)2 both protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the right to manifest religion

in worship, observance, practice, and teaching. The expression of religion through religious attire is, in many cases, an important aspect of religious observance and practice, and thus comes within the protection of human rights law. As a result, the question of how to respond to religious attire in public spaces has traditionally been considered from a human rights perspective.

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching. Issues for debate have included the question of whether a dress code is religiously required, and when the rights of others may prevail over the right of an individual to express their religion. 

This Article revisits the debate over when religious attire may be restricted in the public space through the alternative, but complementary, perspective of equality. It suggests that viewing

this issue through the lens of equality may provide additional insights for these debates, and argues that when assessing the proportionality of any restriction on religious expression, the

interest in equality should be taken into account.

The Article focuses on the issue of religious dress as a form of religious expression. It begins by addressing the human rights approach to the protection of religious expression and discusses

some of the difficulties which can arise from this approach, particularly with regard to the need to balance conflicting rights. It then discusses the ways in which an approach based on equality

may provide additional insights into how to resolve some of those difficulties. It ends with a consideration of the factors that may be used when assessing the proportionality of restrictions on religious expression.

This article discusses aspects of the role of religion in law and society as discussed in Julian Rivers" book, The Law of Organized Religions: Between Establishment and Secularism. Rivers provides a detailed and systematic account of the English law relating to organized religion. He argues that the role of freedom of religion as a collective right is in danger of being overshadowed by a newer more individualized understanding of the right, which then leads to inferior protection for religious rights in contemporary society. This article considers his arguments, and suggests that an understanding of the parallel interests of equality need further recognition if we are to achieve an optimal understanding of the role of organized religion in society.