As the environmental agenda continues to gain prominence both politically and in the media, “green beliefs” may begin to feature in workplace disputes.
Protection for employees against discrimination in employment and vocational training on the grounds of religion or belief came into force with the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations in 2003. Under the regulations, religion or belief was defined as “any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief”. But last year the Equality Act 2006 removed the requirement for the philosophical belief to be “similar” to a religious belief. Tribunals now have to decide what actually constitutes a belief, and it’s likely this will cover firmly held political or other beliefs that affect employees’ lifestyles.
Widening the scope of the discrimination law may have unforeseen consequences. In particular, employers without an environmental policy may find themselves facing claims from employees who consider their commitment to helping the environment amounts to a protected belief. They could claim they were prevented from following a personal philosophical belief, just as employees can complain an employer prevented them practising their religion.
It would be discriminatory for an employer to refuse an employee’s request for a prayer room without good reason. Similarly, rejecting an employee request for an onsite waste paper recycling facility without proper consideration could risk a claim. A request may be rejected if the employer can show it considered the issue and its refusal is justified. But not putting in a recycling bin may be more difficult to justify than not designating a prayer room. Reducing waste paper is usually an easy step to take.
More controversy may arise over travelling long distances for business meetings, whether by car or plane. This could be unacceptable to firm believers in green principles, who wish to take steps to reduce their carbon footprint. Refusing to fly to a meeting could turn out to be a protected act under the discrimination legislation – we will have to wait for the first test case to find out. But if it is, taking disciplinary action against the employee would be an act of victimisation. The potential risk of an employee complaining warrants at least an assessment of whether a meeting has to be face to face, or whether it could be conducted just as well by video or telephone conferencing.
Many believe that it is only a matter of time before organisations are subject to specific legal requirements to ensure they are more environmentally responsible. Rather than waiting for this, or for potential complaints from green employees, some employers are acting proactively and introducing a “green policy”.
There are several provisions that could be included in such a policy that would benefit individual employees. Workplace schemes such as flexible working, including homeworking, and flexible start and finishing times, can reduce the amount of time employees spend commuting each day, while reducing traffic on the roads at peak times. Employers offering financial incentives to car share, or providing interest-free loans for season tickets to encourage employees to use public transport, can also reduce carbon emissions.
Such a policy is likely to be perceived by most of the workforce as being beneficial overall. But there may be a number of employees who are resistant to the necessary alterations in working practices. Changing policies on travel arrangements is likely to invite challenge. While some employees may object to certain types of business travel on the grounds of carbon emissions, others may regard the chance to travel around the country as a perk of the job. They may see the introduction of a policy that limits opportunities for travel, or which dictates that employees must go by train or other more environmentally friendly means, as a detrimental variation to their contract terms.
To avoid claims, employers should make sure all employees are consulted on any proposed new policies and agree to any changes necessary.
Guy Guinan, partner in the employment team at national law firm Halliwells guy.guinan@halliwells.com
Key points
• An amendment last year to the regulations governing discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, has broadened the definition of belief to include any strongly held belief that affects an employee’s lifestyle. This may include environmental concerns.
• Employees concerned about their carbon footprint may pressurise their employer to introduce green policies.
• Refusing green measures may constitute discrimination. Employers should ensure that their refusal is justified.