 |
| |
|
|
Lazarus and the Gimp
|
 |
Whale-raping abomination
Aug 2000
time: 05:37
|
|
There’s an interesting legal case pending in Britain about the employment rights of prominent BNP activists-
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/Vie...ticleID=1101232
quote:
A BRITISH National Party councillor could win thousands of pounds in compensation after he successfully appealed against an employment tribunal finding that he was lawfully sacked.
Arthur Redfearn, a Bradford BNP councillor, is now set to face a fresh tribunal hearing in a case that could have wide implications for employers who take on staff who are members of the far-Right party.
After a hearing in London, Mr Justice Burton, president of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, has ruled that the decision of the original tribunal in Leeds earlier this year should be quashed.
Coun Redfearn had claimed racial discrimination after being sacked in June last year as a bus driver with West Yorkshire Transport Services (WYTS) when it was discovered he was standing for election to Bradford Council.
WYTS's parent company, Serco, claimed the decision to fire Coun Redfearn was made on health and safety grounds because it was feared its buses, which carry mainly Asian disabled children and adults, could be attacked once his political affiliation became known. It also said it was acting in his best interests because he could also have been attacked.
But Coun Redfearn had argued that his dismissal was directly related to his involvement with the BNP despite it being a legitimate political party.
He claimed the "whites only" membership of the party meant that if he was dismissed for being a member that would in effect constitute racial discrimination on the grounds of his skin colour.
|
.
It’s been prominently featured around the unions, and featured in this year’s TUC congress.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/congress/tuc-10572-f0.cfm
There are a few intriguing grey areas that will be examined in the courts, such as these-
1- Should employees be allowed to conduct whatever political activity they choose without censure from their employer?
2- Should employers have the right to fire staff whose political activities threaten to damage (directly or indirectly) their business activities? Or corporate values?
3- Should the BNP be allowed to use safeguards against indirect racial discrimination to protect their members, when such indirect racial discrimination is actually a result of their own direct racial discrimination?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
I would even say that it is absolutelyessential to democracy |
Its not a absolute principle.
If he was working for the Labour party and it turned out that he was a member of the Conservative party, nobody could argue against his sacking...from there it's just shades of grey to this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
In the US, in those states with fire-at-will laws, it is perfectly acceptable to fire somone for being a member of a political party, as long as you are a private employer. Per se you have "Freedom of Association", it's just that you do not have that in conjunction with retaining your job.
Otherwise you need to belong to a protected class in the USA to avoid non-cause based firing (in fire-at-will states). That includes being disabled (with exceptions that you obviously must be able to do the job with reasonable accomodation), age (40 or older I believe), race (typically minority, reverse discrimination case for whites are viciously hard to win), sex (same as for race, women have substantially more protections than men, though more cases have been won by males than by whites in the previous example, from my understanding), etc.
It's a very complex area of law, and it is the one area that small employers who like the flexibility of fire at will get in trouble. They have a record of arbitrarily firing people simply because they have supervisors who are jerks, and then the supervisor fires someone who is a protected class, who can show than the supervisor's favorites, who for example were all white male drinking buddies, did worse jobs but were not fired.
The only place that there are any consequences to the "fire-at-will" rules are concerning Unemployment Compensation. Each state differs, but in general if you are fired for good cause you can be denied unemployment. This actually pays off for the employer, because increased claims increase their rates. Most Unemployment Boards, or however the state adjudicates this, tend to be favorable to employees, or at least they used to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I should have clarified, some states do have laws protecting freedom of association from retribution. There is no federal right reference employment, so it is a patchwork.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:37
|
|
the yorkshire post article you posted says that when he was dismissed he was delivering mail, not driving buses, so he wouldn't have had much direct contact with their customers.
it's difficult to see how his actions could be construed as a detriment to the companies legitimate business interests, unless they find that simply being a member of the BNP can be such a detriment, which i think the court will be reluctant to do, for obvious reasons.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-09-2005 00:33
|