|
''Eweida v British Airways plc'' () (EWCA Civ 80 ) is a UK labour law case concerning a public dispute between British Airways (BA) and one of their employees over its uniform policy. The case involved an employee's right to wear a religious necklace outside her clothes while working. The European Court of Human Rights awarded her damages for the UK government's failure to protect her rights. The case has been widely reported in the UK media because various groups have argued that it shows either anti-Christian prejudice in the UK, or alternatively, favouritism towards people of faith. ==Facts== In October 2006, Nadia Eweida, a Christian employee of British Airways, was asked to cover up a cross necklace which depicted a Christian cross, and was placed on unpaid leave when she refused either to do so or to accept a position where she did not have to cover it up. She was wearing the necklace on the outside of her uniform, contravening BA's uniform policy for jewellery. Eweida planned to sue the airline for religious discrimination. Some Christian groups accused British Airways of double standards, as Sikh and Muslim employees are not prevented from wearing religious garments at work, since these are impractical to cover up.〔 Though the wearing of garments is a requirement in some faiths, in this case, British Airways believes that wearing a cross is not necessary in Christianity, in general. Eweida lost an initial appeal to her employers on 20 November, but publicly stated she would continue to dispute BA's policy, and that she wished to wear the cross to manifest her religion: the BBC quoted her as saying, "It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them." The National Secular Society argued it was sensible for staff handling baggage to be prohibited from wearing jewellery over their uniforms, said that Eweida was trying to evangelise in the workplace and that BA should have the right to insist that its uniform is neutral.〔 BA, having had the same policy with regard to jewellery being worn with the uniform for a long time, with which other staff were comfortable, responded to pressure and announced on 25 November a review of its uniform policy which could allow the wearing of a lapel badge. The Archbishop of Canterbury disclosed that the issue had been raised with the Church Commissioners, who look after Anglicans' financial interests. The following day Eweida declared that this compromise was unacceptable to her. On 28 November, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, publicly stated that in his view the issue was not worth BA fighting and that it would be best for the airline "just to do the sensible thing": i.e. allow the cross to be worn. On 19 January 2007 BA announced that they would in future allow employees to wear a symbol of faith "openly" on a lapel pin, "with some flexibility ... to wear a symbol of faith on a chain".〔() 〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Eweida v British Airways plc」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|