JUDGES at the European Court of Human Rights have upheld the legal principle the law should be used to protect employees from discrimination rather than to justify preferential treatment, a North-East lawyer has said.

Paul Johnstone, partner at commercial law firm Muckle LLP, has said North-East companies can learn from landmark rulings published today (January 15) on the cases of four Christians – British Airways employee Nadia Eweida, nurse Shirley Chaplin, registrar Lillian Ladelle, and relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane.

All four appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against the British Government after their claims of religious discrimination against their employers were rejected by UK tribunals.

Judges in Strasbourg found in favour of Miss Eweida, 60, who took the airline to a tribunal when she was sent home from work for displaying a small silver crucifix on a chain around her neck, with the lengthy judgment stating a fair balance was not struck between Miss Eweida's desire to demonstrate her religious belief and BA's wish to "project a certain corporate image”.

Miss Eweida left her job in airport check-in in September 2006 but returned to work in customer services at Heathrow's Terminal 5 in February 2007, after BA changed its uniform policy on visible items of jewellery.

But they rejected similar claims made by 57-year-old Mrs Chaplin, who was moved to a desk job on the grounds that the removal of her necklace was deemed necessary to protect health and safety.

Miss Ladele, a registrar at Islington Council in north London and Mr McFarlane, a 51-year-old solicitor and father of two from Hanham, in Bristol, also saw their claims rejected.

Judges found Islington Council's action was "legitimate" given it was also obliged to consider the rights of same-sex couples while they said Mr McFarlane took on the role at counselling service Relate in the knowledge that clients could not be divided up in accordance with their sexual orientation.

Mr Johnstone, partner at commercial law firm Muckle LLP, said: “The findings of the ECHR provide guidance for employers as to how to think about such issues in the work place. The starting point of the ECHR was to note that manifesting religion is a ‘fundamental right’ because ‘a healthy democratic society needs to tolerate and sustain pluralism and diversity; but also because of the value to an individual who has made religion a central tenet of his or her life to be able to communicate that belief to others.’

“However, there are limits to this right. Whilst Miss Eweida was found to have been discriminated against for being asked to remove her crucifix from her British Airways uniform, Mrs Chaplin was not found to have been discriminated against.

“The distinction drawn by the ECHR to justify the different outcome was health and safety. It noted ‘the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward, was inherently of a greater magnitude than that which applied in respect of Miss Eweida. Moreover, this is a field where the domestic authorities must be allowed a wide margin of appreciation.’

“Interestingly the ECHR stated that in the circumstances of Miss Eweida ‘there is no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others, the domestic authorities failed sufficiently to protect the first applicant’s right to manifest her religion, in breach of the positive obligation under Article 9 (of the European Convention on Human Rights).’

“With regard to Mr McFarlane and Miss Ladele, both failed in their claims that they had been discriminated against by being dismissed from their roles. A referral of these matters to the ECHR’s Grand Chamber is possible and may be progressed.

“So what do these findings mean in practice, particularly for employers? The UK courts will have to give due regard to this judgment and the ‘fundamental right’ to manifest religious beliefs in the work place. To take action against employees who do so where that action does not encroach upon the interests of others is likely to be found to be discriminatory.

“However, where manifesting religious beliefs does have an impact upon the service provided by an employer, then employers will have wide discretion to set reasonable policies requiring all employees to adhere to them irrespective of their religious beliefs.

“In essence, the ECHR has upheld the principle that discrimination law should be properly used as a shield to prevent less favourable treatment rather than as a sword to justify preferential treatment.”