Many large companies have “sustainability” or “environmental departments. For example the large supermarkets and all of the oil companies have such departments which they see as an important part of their corporate governance and social responsibility. However, the first responsibility of a company is to its shareholders. There are many ways in which all of these large companies could act and do business in ways that are more environmentally friendly but to do so wholeheartedly would stand in the way of profits so most of them simply do what they think they can afford provided it does not impact on the bottom line.
Grainger plc is a large residential investment company. Tim Nicholson was head of sustainability at Grainger plc. Grainger has a sustainability policy of reducing their adverse environmental impacts. It is fairly modest as sustainability and environmental policies go – reducing emissions from travel, recycling paper, waste recycling and energy monitors in their homes, as well as delivering energy advice to tenants. They could do more – for example fitting properties with microgeneration such as solar water heating, but no doubt this would impact on the bottom line.
Mr Nicholson was dismissed from his employed and wanted to argue in unfair dismissal proceedings, that he was dismissed because of his belief in climate change and was unfairly under the Employment Equality Regulations. If the regulations cover climate change as a “belief” and the case is proved, Mr Nicholson would be entitled to significantly higher damages than he would get if simple unfair dismissal was proved.
The relevant regulation provides (not in the clearest language) that you must not discriminate against an employee on the grounds of religion or belief and specifies:
Discrimination on grounds of religion or belief
3. - (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (“A”) discriminates against another person (“B”) if -
(a) on grounds of religion or belief, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or
(b) A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same religion or belief as B, but -
(i) which puts or would put persons of the same religion or belief as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons,
(ii) which puts B at that disadvantage, and
(iii) which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2) The reference in paragraph (1)(a) to religion or belief does not include A’s religion or belief.
(3) A comparison of B’s case with that of another person under paragraph (1) must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other.
My ordinary reading of the regulation leads me to query the decision of the court; the word “belief” is coupled with the word “religion”, and I think that it is in this sense that the regulation ought to be interpreted.
However, at a preliminary hearing the court ruled that the word “belief” in the regulation includes a philosophical belief in climate change. I understand that Grainger will appeal this preliminary ruling.
I do not think that belief in climate change is in any sense philosophical. Many climate change “believers” do have a particular philosophy of consuming less and acting in modest simple ways following a traditional series of philosophical ideas and beliefs that may be traced back thousands of years. Climate change is not based upon a philosophy but is based on science.
The judge ruled that in Mr Nicholson’s case his belief went beyond the science and was a philosophical state of mind, beyond mere opinion. I have not read the full judgment but it may well be that the case has been misreported, and was about Mr Nicholson’s philosophical beliefs rather than his belief in climate change.
I think that taking “belief” as a separate topic (technically construing the “or” in religion and belief” disjunctively rather than conjunctively) takes employment legislation into an area where it ought not to travel.
I have no knowledge as to whether Mr Nicholson’s case against Grainger will succeed or fail – a tribunal will decide that – but I am concerned about a tendency to elevate climate change into a religion. Doing that does the planet no favours. In order to cope with climate change and to protect our client we have to found our knowledge upon science, which is provable to an extent that belief is not.
Filed under: climate change, global warming | Tagged: belief in climate change, belief in the Employment Equality Regulations, climate change and religion, climate change believers, grainger plc, tim nicholson
I don’t see how this ruling can be interpreted as “elevat[ing] climate change into a religion”. It says that such a deeply-held belief has the same legal status AS a religion. Don’t you think this is quite different from saying that it IS a religion?
I also think it’s interesting that, while the judge mentioned both religion and philosophy, nobody writing about this decision ever says, “This judge ruled that climate change is a philosophy.” It’s always “This judge ruled that climate change is a religion.”
Climate change is not a religion, love of our planet is love, and the science telling us that our planet is in danger will lead some people to speak out and act. So I think that Mr Nicholson was unfairly dismissed by Grainger plc, and probably the tribunal will open up the case and the true reasons for Mr Nicholson’s dismissal will be revealed.