Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What would jesus say? That'll be €70K

2

Comments

  • #52
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    So an employer must prevent sexual harrassment from occurring in the workplace, but must facilitate religious harrassment?

    Bat-doodoo insane decision.

    Looks like it. Begs the question of what to do if an employee's religion requires him to constantly talk to people about his penis.


  • #53
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    What if this just a PR stunt by the equality authority to appease religious types before acknowledging pastafarians head gear is acceptable for licence photos?
    A smokescreen.


  • #54
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Immanuel wrote: »
    Sure, but as I say, I've seen employees in the public sector do far far worse and not even receive any disciplinary action, never mind dismissal of any sort, so maybe there is more to the story than is being reported. A lot of people seem to feel compelled to continually repeat their opinions at work, and it might as well be evagelisation.

    That's what came to mind for me also. For example if some employee was persistently vocal in, say, their repulsion at Israel's current campaign in Gaza (or indeed, the other way around—was vocally supportive of Israel), would they be disciplined and ultimately dismissed? Possibly. My guess is that it would probably be more likely to result in dismissal if it were an unpopular/contrarian position that they persisted with (because the other employees would probably find it annoying/uncomfortable).

    Religious chatter should be treated the same as any other IMO.

    (the caveat here is that bigoted/offensive language will rightly result in disciplinary action; but again that doesn't apply specifically to religiously-inspired evangelism)


  • #55
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    There's an active thread here, Tim

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057253553


  • #56
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Hmmm - I've been thinking about this case a bit, and there's a different way to look at it. And that is that this man has a medical issue somewhere between a personality disorder and mental illness. He is (IMO) actually delusional. The problem he really has is that his medical issues are being dealt with as religious rights rather than as mental health issues, and that's because culturally most people won't accept that religious belief is delusional.

    Had this man being saying that aliens from the planet Zog were talking to him and insisting he spread the word, he would be treated very differently. However as the alien in this case is in fact Jesus, everyone bends over backwards to assist his self-deception.

    It's one of the biggest problems we have with religion: that it normalises delusional beliefs. Anyone who is unfortunate enough to take such delusional beliefs too seriously can easily end up in a similar situation.

    I suspect (warning: speculation alert!) that this man is effectively unemployable and was awarded the 70k as a lump sum out of sympathy/compensation for the the fact that he lost his job. The justification for the 70k really sounds dodgy to me, from a legal perspective at any rate. It does set a poor precedent - I would imagine the equality tribunal is not supposed to dress up sympathy payouts as legal entitlements.

    .


  • #57
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Deleted User wrote: »
    €70K to be rid of him was probably cheaper than shuffling him into a back office.

    This may be right, but the issue is more about the precedent it sets. To me it seems like they have really picked up the EU jurisprudence wrong on this. This cannot be the correct judgement.

    MrP


  • #58
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,181 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    my wife works with someone of a different approach - the 'religious organisation' he is a member of does not permit him to talk to co-workers, except to discuss matters pertaining to work. he cuts a rather lonely figure, i believe.


  • #59
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Jade Fluffy Sugar wrote: »
    What I do see wrong is him being forbidden while on his breaks. As I said, if he's meant to be working and not performing in his job, that's another story and worthy of discipline.
    I have to say that if I couldn't have my lunch without someone blathering on at me about how sinful I am and how I need to accept their invisible friend as my saviour I'd be annoyed to the point of getting HR involved. I do not think it's unreasonable to tell him to be quiet about his religion during work hours if his co-workers are fed up of hearing about it.


  • #60
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Turtwig wrote: »
    What if this just a PR stunt by the equality authority to appease religious types before acknowledging pastafarians head gear is acceptable for licence photos?
    You're not the only one wondering that ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    If he wants to evangelise at work he should work as a preacher, otherwise shag off.


  • #62
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Could the opposite also apply? Suppose you worked in a sector where you were subject to prayers and objected to it, could one claim one's freedom is curtailed by having to listen to religious stuff throughout the day? And you had to endure this outside of scheduled lunch breaks?


  • #63
    Immanuel
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Immanuel


    Dave! wrote: »
    That's what came to mind for me also. For example if some employee was persistently vocal in, say, their repulsion at Israel's current campaign in Gaza (or indeed, the other way around—was vocally supportive of Israel), would they be disciplined and ultimately dismissed? Possibly. My guess is that it would probably be more likely to result in dismissal if it were an unpopular/contrarian position that they persisted with (because the other employees would probably find it annoying/uncomfortable).

    And that might well be why this guy was dismissed. Anyways, look on the bright side, atheists can now evangelise atheism at work. :)


  • #64
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    kylith wrote: »
    I have to say that if I couldn't have my lunch without someone blathering on at me about how sinful I am and how I need to accept their invisible friend as my saviour I'd be annoyed to the point of getting HR involved. I do not think it's unreasonable to tell him to be quiet about his religion during work hours if his co-workers are fed up of hearing about it.

    Doesn't that apply to all topics of conversation though? If he was blathering at you about being a lefty, and that the unions were the downfall of this country, etc., I'm sure you'd be annoyed too. Would that be an offence requiring HR too?


  • #65
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Dave! wrote: »
    Doesn't that apply to all topics of conversation though? If he was blathering at you about being a lefty, and that the unions were the downfall of this country, etc., I'm sure you'd be annoyed too. Would that be an offence requiring HR too?

    I think it should come under the umbrella of harassment.


  • #66
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    I worked in an environment where there was a guy who suddenly became evangelical. Next thing you know there are posters up everywhere for Alpha courses and what not, and he's burning with a passion to share his new found love of the Lord. He became really intense, and most people starting avoiding him unless absolutely necessary. People found it incredibly uncomfortable, regardless of their own religious beliefs. And most people were simply too polite to challenge him, as he was obviously hugely invested in his new found faith and there was a risk he would react very strongly to any perceived criticism.

    I still think it's a mental health issue for people who get that extreme about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Dave! wrote: »
    Doesn't that apply to all topics of conversation though? If he was blathering at you about being a lefty, and that the unions were the downfall of this country, etc., I'm sure you'd be annoyed too. Would that be an offence requiring HR too?
    Yes. If someone is constantly banging on about a subject to the point where it is impacting their work, your work, and your enjoyment of your break, and they have been told to stop but haven't, then it should be brought to HR (or equivalent) so that they can be formally told to stop badgering, harassing, pestering, or otherwise bothering their colleagues regardless of whether they're talking about religion, politics, or trainspotting.


  • #68
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I'm on board with that.

    As Piliger suggested, maybe it comes under the umbrella of harassment?


  • #69
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Tabnabs wrote: »
    So now born again christians are protected under law from any disciplining when proselytising in the workplace (or anywhere else during work hours)?

    Surely I have the right not to be lied spoken to about a foreign belief system?

    Tax payer picks up the tab on this one, I'd say his colleagues and bosses consider it a victory on their part also.



    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/born-again-christian-awarded-70-000-in-discrimination-case-1.1873468

    Here's what I wrote in the hazards of belief thread on this matter:
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    You know what, if I were one of his work colleagues I'd sue for €71,000 on the basis that listening to his constant bull**** made my life a living hell.

    And frankly proselytising to all and sundry when you're doing your job should be a sackable offence.

    Oh and the equality officer is a ****ing idiot, who is incapable of carrying out her duties in a manner befitting the graivitas and importance of her role:



    So freedom of religion is the freedom to impose your religion on others in a public setting now? {offensive comment removed}

    She's still a {offensive comment removed}


  • #70
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Manach wrote: »
    Just rather amused that AA is upset by a state agency whose raisin d'être is part of a push for an inclusive republic were the commonalities of a previously shared past have been overturned in pursuit of all manner of individualizations, overseen by the Equality authority.

    I'd like to point out for some of our newer members that bannashide has roundly demolished manach's little fantasy that Ireland was always a catholic country. She has conclusively shown that for most Ireland's history since christianity's founding (pick a date between 125CE and 315CE, they're all good) it has existed in a state of de facto secularity, whether or not it was de iure a secular state (or more accurately group of statelets sharing a common culture).


  • #71
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    MrPudding wrote: »
    This may be right, but the issue is more about the precedent it sets. To me it seems like they have really picked up the EU jurisprudence wrong on this. This cannot be the correct judgement.

    MrP

    No it is not a correct judgement under ECHR interpretation of freedom of religion. Because the ECHR considers freedom from religion and separation of church and state to be essential pillars in any freedom of religion legislation, and has ruled in a number of cases against states which tried to impose certain religious strictures on their citizens, or other inhabitants of their state.

    Edit: Just been thinking about this post from swampgas:
    swampgas wrote: »
    I suspect (warning: speculation alert!) that this man is effectively unemployable and was awarded the 70k as a lump sum out of sympathy/compensation for the the fact that he lost his job. The justification for the 70k really sounds dodgy to me, from a legal perspective at any rate. It does set a poor precedent - I would imagine the equality tribunal is not supposed to dress up sympathy payouts as legal entitlements.

    But the problem there is that it is beyond the competency of any court in this land to make a ruling that an organisation or person is responsible for compensating any other organisation or person for an injury they have suffered (in this case the former cc employee's probable life long mental illness) to which the first party has no part in causing. The courts are not in the business of giving out money to people on the basis of sympathy (otherwise I'd be able to sue every single boards.ie member for the fact that I am currently unemployed and win), they are in the business of finding out if a wrong were caused to a party, assigning blame to the wrong doer and either compensating the wronged party (civil cases) or punishing the wrongdoer (criminal cases). If this supposition is the reality, then I have serious worries over the competency of the equality commission as a whole to do its job.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    secondrowgal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭secondrowgal


    robindch wrote: »
    I wonder how things would pan out if somebody set up a religion, one of whose manifestations was a refusal to pay tax.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't religions that are set up as charities exempt from tax already??

    And wouldn't that be most of them?


  • #73
    secondrowgal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭secondrowgal


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    my wife works with someone of a different approach - the 'religious organisation' he is a member of does not permit him to talk to co-workers, except to discuss matters pertaining to work. he cuts a rather lonely figure, i believe.

    What religion is that mb?


  • #74
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    She's still a ****ing retard.

    That's putting it a bit strongly, and personally I don't like "retard" being used as an insult.

    Absolutely I don't understand her decision, but let's not get too carried away, eh?


  • #75
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    kylith wrote: »
    I have to say that if I couldn't have my lunch without someone blathering on at me about how sinful I am and how I need to accept their invisible friend as my saviour I'd be annoyed to the point of getting HR involved. I do not think it's unreasonable to tell him to be quiet about his religion during work hours if his co-workers are fed up of hearing about it.

    I don't think it's unreasonable either if his colleagues requested it.
    What I do think is unreasonable is a ban on lunchtime conversation which is effectively his own time. I assume it was an unpaid lunch. Would the same thing happen if he had been a fanatical golfer. I doubt it.
    It's a fine line.
    I'm a Christian 30 years and sometimes a bit of cop on is needed.
    It appears it was lacking in this case.


  • #76
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    swampgas wrote: »
    That's putting it a bit strongly, and personally I don't like "retard" being used as an insult.

    Absolutely I don't understand her decision, but let's not get too carried away, eh?

    Anyone who can in all good conscience reinterpret the freedom of religion clause to mean freedom to religiously oppress others or impose your will on them fully deserves the application of the name retard.

    It is a ruling that I would expect a three day dead goldfish to be intelligent enough not to give.


  • #77
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,859 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Anyone who can in all good conscience reinterpret the freedom of religion clause to mean freedom to religiously oppress others or impose your will on them fully deserves the application of the name retard.

    It is a ruling that I would expect a three day dead goldfish to be intelligent enough not to give.

    I'm with swampgas regarding using "retard" as an insult. When I was in school "retard" was a perjorative term for someone with intellectual disabliities.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #78
    Immanuel
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Immanuel


    I've not seen that word in a long time. As someone who has friends and family that care for people with special needs, I had hoped the ignorance of using this word to try and insult people had died out with the education Ireland hosting the Special Olympics brought here. I'm saddened to see its apparently permitted and continued use on this thread and other threads on this forum.


  • #79
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    That's probably a topic for another thread really lads. I would say though that context is important here, there's no indication that it's being used here to denigrate people with intellectual disabiliities. Languages evolve, often appropriating words from various places/situations & changing their meaning. Pretty much any word you can think of to designate someone or their ideas as stupid (often a perfectly justifiable though perhaps undiplomatic response to various arguments) was at one time used in a medical context to describe intellectual disabilities. Idiot, imbecile, moron, cretin, etc etc. Would you have had the same reaction if one of those terms had been used? All of them once had a similar meaning to retard in terms of how they were used but eventually evolved to the mild insults they are today. The same thing is likely to happen with retard, there are far more important issues relating to disabilities to get angry over.


  • #80
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig



    A) calling a public person a retard is
    potentially defamatory.

    B) the use of retard itself a highly derogatory term. Like ****** or fag, there is no place for it in this forum.



    Given that this was not an intentional offence you have the opportunity to edit and retract your remark. But please in future be more considerate of the terminology used.


  • #81
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Heh, that's hilarious one of them is censored the rest aren't. Must bring that to feedback.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Turtwig wrote: »

    A) calling a public person a retard is
    potentially defamatory.

    B) the use of retard itself a highly derogatory term. Like ****** or fag, there is no place for it in this forum.



    Given that this was not an intentional offence you have the opportunity to edit and retract your remark. But please in future be more considerate of the terminology used.

    I have removed the comments in question. Upon a mature reflection, I realised that they were offensive to many posters. I apologise for the hurt I have caused.

    That still doesn't stop me from thinking that, given her ruling, she has shown an incompetence that would mean stacking shelves in Tesco is beyond her capabilities, never mind ruling on important areas of human rights legislation.


  • #83
    Immanuel
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Immanuel


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Anyone who can in all good conscience reinterpret the freedom of religion clause to mean freedom to religiously oppress others or impose your will on them fully deserves the application of the name retard.

    It is a ruling that I would expect a three day dead goldfish to be intelligent enough not to give.

    What about this post ?

    This post on the other A&A thread has not been edited either.


  • #84
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Immanuel wrote: »
    What about this post ?

    This post on the other A&A thread has not been edited either.

    That post is fair in my opinion. Her ruling is so far beyond the bounds of the legislation under interpretation, and beyond the bounds of intelligence, that I stand by what I say.

    Got a mod to edit the original.


  • #85
    yopy
    Registered Users Posts: 41 ✭yopy


    That still doesn't stop me from thinking that, given her ruling, she has shown an incompetence that would mean stacking shelves in Tesco is beyond her capabilities, never mind ruling on important areas of human rights legislation.[/QUOTE]

    This is offensive to anyone that works in Tesco. I demand a full apology and retraction!


  • #86
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    yopy wrote: »
    That still doesn't stop me from thinking that, given her ruling, she has shown an incompetence that would mean stacking shelves in Tesco is beyond her capabilities, never mind ruling on important areas of human rights legislation.

    This is offensive to anyone that works in Tesco. I demand a full apology and retraction![/QUOTE]

    I've worked in Tesco's myself, I don't think I met anyone else working there who didn't know the meaning of freedom of religion. She doesn't therefore she lacks sufficient intelligence to work in Tesco's.


  • #87
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    I'd prefer to play the ball and not the player here. The decision was a poor decision, that doesn't mean the person who made it is a crazy and moronic person. Everyone makes mistakes, and the important thing is to get those mistakes fixed and move on. IMO demonising someone for a single decision (and I have no idea how well or how badly Ms Duffy has performed in other decisions) is not a very constructive approach.

    Just sayin'.


  • #88
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    swampgas wrote: »
    I'd prefer to play the ball and not the player here. The decision was a poor decision, that doesn't mean the person who made it is a crazy and moronic person. Everyone makes mistakes, and the important thing is to get those mistakes fixed and move on. IMO demonising someone for a single decision (and I have no idea how well or how badly Ms Duffy has performed in other decisions) is not a very constructive approach.

    Just sayin'.

    That may sound all well and good .. but if that person is left in the same position, what will the next decision they make be ? and the next and the next ?


  • #89
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Piliger wrote: »
    That may sound all well and good .. but if that person is left in the same position, what will the next decision they make be ? and the next and the next ?

    I have no idea how the system works; whether there is an appeal process, or whether the decision involved will create any sort of precedent. I certainly hope the council appeal the decision, if there is a process to do so.

    But the primary focus should be on the decisions themselves, not on the persons making them.


  • #90
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    swampgas wrote: »
    I have no idea how the system works; whether there is an appeal process, or whether the decision involved will create any sort of precedent. I certainly hope the council appeal the decision, if there is a process to do so.

    But the primary focus should be on the decisions themselves, not on the persons making them.

    I disagree completely. If a high court judge kept making appalling decisions you believe that no one should call for them to be removed ? This is ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,579 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Full details in the equality tribunal case here (haven't read it yet):
    http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/en/Cases/2014/June/DEC-E2014-045.html
    Piliger wrote: »
    I disagree completely. If a high court judge kept making appalling decisions you believe that no one should call for them to be removed ? This is ridiculous.

    There are two separate issues here, one is the judgment made on a specific case, the other is the competence of a person in position to make such judgements.

    From an A&A perspective, I think the key issue issue here is the decision itself. It is, IMO, a crazy decsion that was made. That judgement needs to be reversed.

    I absolutely do think that people who are demonstrably incompetent should be removed. But that is a separate issue. If Ms. Duffy retired tomorrow or was sacked (and in saying that I'm not saying she is necessarily incompetent), the issue of the judgement itself would still remain.


  • #92
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    swampgas wrote: »
    I'd prefer to play the ball and not the player here. The decision was a poor decision, that doesn't mean the person who made it is a crazy and moronic person. Everyone makes mistakes, and the important thing is to get those mistakes fixed and move on. IMO demonising someone for a single decision (and I have no idea how well or how badly Ms Duffy has performed in other decisions) is not a very constructive approach.

    Just sayin'.

    Problem is that she got the issue so wrong that you have to seriously doubt her inability to do her job. Misconstruing a basic point of constitutional jurisprudence the way she has is as big a faux pas as a wrecking ball operator acidentally dropping his ball on top of a cement truck.


  • #93
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    IMO this is not as clear-cut as most people here seem to think.
    There does not appear to be any formal complaint from any "victim" of the proselytizing. The issue seems to be that the HR person got to hear about it and asked him to stop. For all we know, the HR person might have been annoyed because she was a member of a rival religion.
    When he didn't stop talking about Jesus, management got annoyed at his disobedience of the HR person, possibly losing sight of the original issue.

    So, from the judgement linked to above in the swampgas post;
    He said that sometimes when he is sharing his faith with people he can read that they are not interested without them verbalising it and when he sees these signs he stops as he does not believe that he has a right to violate a person’s free will....
    IMO this is a good defence of his position, and the council has not shown that he is lying about this.

    It is similar to someone who won't shut up about football really. Whenever it is the majority religion/sport/interest, the interested people think its fine to go on about it regularly. But when its a minority interest, they think the person should cease and desist.
    Well, the boss should not tell the person to shut up unless the listener actually makes a complaint, or unless it's stopping the work from being done. If religion is involved, then that "should not" becomes "cannot".


  • #94
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    recedite wrote: »
    IMO this is not as clear-cut as most people here seem to think.
    There does not appear to be any formal complaint from any "victim" of the proselytizing. The issue seems to be that the HR person got to hear about it and asked him to stop. For all we know, the HR person might have been annoyed because she was a member of a rival religion.
    When he didn't stop talking about Jesus, management got annoyed at his disobedience of the HR person, possibly losing sight of the original issue.

    So, from the judgement linked to above in the swampgas post;
    IMO this is a good defence of his position, and the council has not shown that he is lying about this.

    It is similar to someone who won't shut up about football really. Whenever it is the majority religion/sport/interest, the interested people think its fine to go on about it regularly. But when its a minority interest, they think the person should cease and desist.
    Well, the boss should not tell the person to shut up unless the listener actually makes a complaint, or unless it's stopping the work from being done. If religion is involved, then that "should not" becomes "cannot".

    Why? Why does religion have to be treated differently?.


  • #95
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Because there are certain specific things; religion, sexual orientation, race, that are mentioned in equality legislation. The boss can't show any discrimination in these matters. But he can still tell you to shut up about your favourite football team because he hates them.


  • #96
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    recedite wrote: »
    Because there are certain specific things; religion, sexual orientation, race, that are mentioned in equality legislation. The boss can't show any discrimination in these matters. But he can still tell you to shut up about your favourite football team because he hates them.

    Ok, hadn't thought of that, fair enough.
    And also if there was no formal complaint from a fellow worker to HR it really does put a different complexion on things.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    if this decision stands then the message to employers is simple - be a lot more wily and make sure you can find or create sound reasons for firing someone.
    I have been involved in having to fire about three people in the past, more than ten years ago, and in all three situations a claim of some kind of discrimination was a major risk. Thankfully we had a very good MD, and between three of us we managed to manipulate a situation that resulted in sound 'official' reasons to fire the person. Too many businesses approach this whole scenario from far too naive a point of view in my mind.


  • #98
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,497 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    recedite wrote: »
    There does not appear to be any formal complaint from any "victim" of the proselytizing.

    I wouldn't be so quick to assume that.

    Speaking as a 'man on a motorcycle' if some pleb came up to me talking about Jesus while wearing a county council hi-vis vest, or anything else linking them to a particular employer, I'd be onto them in a shot.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #99
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    I wouldn't be so quick to assume that..
    Feel free to read through the equality commission report as linked to above.
    Admittedly I did a bit of a "speed read" through it, but I didn't see any mention of any formal complaint being made.
    If Tipp CoCo had an actual complaint, they could have waved it at the equality officer, and the outcome would probably have been different. So I don't see this case as some kind of "worrying precedent", not at the moment anyway.

    Nor do I see it as forcing employers to be "wily". There is a line in the sand. If the guy managed to stay on the right side of it, fair play to him. Sooner or later someone would have made a complaint though, and then they could have told him to shut it, legitimately. If anyone has f***** up it is the HR person and the management. They have just cost the taxpayer €70,000 plus costs because they didn't follow due process.


  • #100
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Piliger wrote: »
    between three of us we managed to manipulate a situation that resulted in sound 'official' reasons to fire the person. Too many businesses approach this whole scenario from far too naive a point of view in my mind.
    If a guy needs to be fired, you don't need to manipulate anything. You just deal with the reasons why he needs to be fired.


  • #101
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    RainyDay wrote: »
    If a guy needs to be fired, you don't need to manipulate anything. You just deal with the reasons why he needs to be fired.

    As someone who's also had to fire someone that is a lot easier said than done.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement