Tweet
There’s an interesting legal case pending in Britain about the employment rights of prominent BNP activists-
.
It’s been prominently featured around the unions, and featured in this year’s TUC congress.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Comment