Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

juice1304

She signed a contract when she got the job, She should have read their policies. She was in breach of the contract. If you don't want to work somewhere where you can't wear it then don't but don't take a job and think you are then entitled to change the rules because you think they are being prejudice. The rules are the same for all of the staff so get over yourself. This is nothing more than a look at me being oppressed i need lots of money.:mad::mad:

Where To

juice1304 wrote: »

She signed a contract when she got the job, She should have read their policies. She was in breach of the contract. If you don't want to work somewhere where you can't wear it then don't but don't take a job and think you are then entitled to change the rules because you think they are being prejudice. The rules are the same for all of the staff so get over yourself. This is nothing more than a look at me being oppressed i need lots of money.:mad::mad:

Are they?

martomcg

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is a tradition and a choice to some, but not others. Just like some Muslims drink alcohol, others do not.

Islam, like Christianity, has differing levels of conformity. I know Catholics who use contraception, but others who insist it is the work of the devil.



How so?

What has that got to do with the argument exactly?!

dis·crim·i·na·tion/disˌkriməˈnāSHən/

Noun:

• The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, religion, age, or sex.
• Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

By Dunnes not allowing any staff member of any religion to wear any head attire they are not discriminating against any one category of people. All categories are treated equally.

Fratton Fred

Where To wrote: »

If I was a voodoo witch doctor then Dunnes wouldn't have a problem with me having a machete down my trousers?

Anybody that thinks that 'company policy' has nothing to do with religion is talking through their hole.

A machete is an offensive weapon though. There is a very good reason why someone shouldn't take one of them to work. Just as a Sikh would be prevented from taking a Kirpan to work with them.

Shenshen wrote: »

Not paying £25 to read that article, thank you.

The bit you quoted says uniforms should be enforced consistently....

consistently and sympathetically. Here is the full article:

Music stores have long been considered bastions of individuality, staffed by individuals who are encouraged to show their distinct personalities. Yet recent news has shown HMV requesting that staff cover up what it classifies as ‘extreme’ body art. This move forms part of a change to their uniform policy, which also outlaws the wearing of open-toed shoes and flip-flops in a campaign to smarten up their staff.

Where do employers stand?

To a large extent, employers are free to set a dress-code that they consider appropriate for their business, provided that they are consistent and do not stray into discriminatory territory.

HMV has stated that behind this policy is its aim to ensure that its staff are considered approachable by the public. As a large store, HMV sells a range of products to a diverse clientele across the country. They are perfectly within their rights to decide that not all of this clientele will view someone with extensive piercings or tattoos in the same way. Whilst the management are keen that staff can show their personalities and recognise that there are benefits to be derived from this, an unfettered right to do this does not sit easily with a large multi-site retailer that wishes to portray a consistent image to its customers.

Discrimination

It is important that the enforcement of any dress code does not result in discriminating against employees. The policy should be enforced consistently, but also sympathetically. Particular care should be taken where tattoos or piercings may be for religious or cultural reasons and temporary body art, such as henna, should also be considered. It is important that both male and female employees are treated in the same way, including in relation to piercings.

Clearly, each person’s body art will be different, meaning a fixed policy is difficult. However, the company should form a view as to what it generally considers acceptable. For example, would a single tattoo on an arm be acceptable, where an entire ‘sleeve’ might not? Is there a certain part of the body where piercings would not be considered appropriate? Consideration should also be had as to how the company may wish such body art to be concealed or covered up; whilst this may be more straightforward for many tattoos, piercings may be different.

It is important that all employees are made aware of these general considerations and that they are set out as clearly as possible. In addition, specific training should be given to those who will be required to enforce the policy, including how to deal sensitively with the issue. Body art is very personal and individuals may not take kindly to what they may perceive as criticism or an attempt to repress their personality.

James Hall, Associate at Charles Russell LLP

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Probably a misunderstanding., The uniform policy is the choice of the employer. Employers still have to adhere to equality act, so they cannot put in place a uniform policy that discriminates against someone based on their religion.

A Sikh is technically not allowed to cut their hair, which is why they wear a turban to tidy it up. preventing someone from wearing a turban is discrimination is it not?

Considering that Dunnes forces their male employees to wear their hair no longer than a certain length, no it isn't.

Just because you declare it a religion doesn't mean it deserves extra-protection.

Drumpot

I think the world has gone PC mad . .

Do Dunnes have a uniform for everybody or specific people based on their religions ? Theres your answer, it doesnt discriminate, it treats everybody the same, if anything its as close to treating everybody the same as it comes. I think if they start allowing individuals to go outside the general rules then its discriminating against everybody else by making an exception. On an extreme (and albeit it silly) example, what if one of their butchers is a hardcore catholic and says he wont work in the butcher section on Good Friday cause they shouldnt be selling non fish product (or something ridiculous like that) that day. .

If you feel that strongly about your religion then apply for jobs where you will not get upset. The question of how far is enough, raises a concern. What if some guy says that all women in his office should have their faces covered up because its insensitive to his religion ? Personally I think society should adapt to differant people and their religion, but I think it works both ways. Deciding to do a specific job does not mean that this job/company/industry should be required to single out specific individuals for preferntial treatment (which is exactly what this is doing). .

A person chooses to be hardcore religious or a casual religious person, the rest of us shouldnt have to suffer for people who take their religion more seriously (spoken like a true atheist) . . This is where we start going down the yankee route whereby Christmas gets called Happy holidays, it becomes illegal for schools to talk about Jesus and every sensitive minority Tom/dick/Harrys whim is catered for at the expense of the rest of us.

Fratton Fred

martomcg wrote: »

What has that got to do with the argument exactly?!

dis·crim·i·na·tion/disˌkriməˈnāSHən/

Noun:

• The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, religion, age, or sex.
• Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

By Dunnes not allowing any staff member of any religion to wear any head attire they are not discriminating against any one category of people. All categories are treated equally.

yes they are. They are effectively saying that Muslim women need not apply because you can't wear a Hijab. There is no reason why not, it's just that we have never considered it before and if you don't like it, **** off.

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A machete is an offensive weapon though. There is a very good reason why someone shouldn't take one of them to work. Just as a Sikh would be prevented from taking a Kirpan to work with them.



consistently and sympathetically. Here is the full article:

Thanks.
The article states, in short, that all people with piercings and tattoos should be treated equally, but that it's legal to ask them to cover them up.

I'm not entirely sure what you were hoping to prove with this?

LeeHoffmann

Yet if you go to a muslim country you are required to follow their customs... no if's, but's or and's.

so because it´s that way there, we have to do the same?

For everyone saying ´work somewhere else´, think about how many jobs involve wearing a uniform - working in a bank, supermarkets, shops, public transport, the police, doctors and nurses etc. That´s a lot of jobs she´s automatically disqualified from.

I´m also curious about whether people would be ok with a teacher wearing a hijab? There´s no specified uniform there

coffee_cake

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes they are. They are effectively saying that Muslim women need not apply because you can't wear a Hijab. There is no reason why not, it's just that we have never considered it before and if you don't like it, **** off.

Muslim women choose NOT to wear one all the time. So there is no discrimination against muslim women.

LeeHoffmann

just because you declare it a religion doesn't mean it deserves extra-protection.

If there´s no good reason to ban something, why do so?

Fratton Fred

Drumpot wrote: »

I think the world has gone PC mad . .

Do Dunnes have a uniform for everybody or specific people based on their religions ? Theres your answer, it doesnt discriminate, it treats everybody the same, if anything its as close to treating everybody the same as it comes. I think if they start allowing individuals to go outside the general rules then its discriminating against everybody else by making an exception. On an extreme (and albeit it silly) example, what if one of their butchers is a hardcore catholic and says he wont work in the butcher section on Good Friday cause they shouldnt be selling non fish product (or something ridiculous like that) that day. .

If you feel that strongly about your religion then apply for jobs where you will not get upset. The question of how far is enough, raises a concern. What if some guy says that all women in his office should have their faces covered up because its insensitive to his religion ? Personally I think society should adapt to differant people and their religion, but I think it works both ways. Deciding to do a specific job does not mean that this job/company/industry should be required to single out specific individuals for preferntial treatment (which is exactly what this is doing). .

A person chooses to be hardcore religious or a casual religious person, the rest of us shouldnt have to suffer for people who take their religion more seriously (spoken like a true atheist) . . This is where we start going down the yankee route whereby Christmas gets called Happy holidays, it becomes illegal for schools to talk about Jesus and every sensitive minority Tom/dick/Harrys whim is catered for at the expense of the rest of us.

oh Christ.

Maybe we should just build a big wall around this rock so those nasty foreign people can't get in:rolleyes:

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes they are. They are effectively saying that Muslim women need not apply because you can't wear a Hijab. There is no reason why not, it's just that we have never considered it before and if you don't like it, **** off.

No, that's not what it says.

It says all persons who feel that they need to cover their hair at all times, even at work, need not apply.

It does not pick out women, and it does not pick out Muslims.

Guy:Incognito

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

a baseball cap or football jersey would be inappropriate because it´s casual attire. A hijab is not casual attire..

Not by my beliefs I've decided they should be worn at all times and to take them off is a slur on those beliefs . Do I need to dig out an ancient Book of some sort to validate my beliefs or am I free to h ave them for my own reasons?

Kenny Logins

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

so because it´s that way there, we have to do the same?

For everyone saying ´work somewhere else´, think about how many jobs involve wearing a uniform - working in a bank, supermarkets, shops, public transport, the police, doctors and nurses etc. That´s a lot of jobs she´s automatically disqualified from.

She's not disqualified from any of those jobs, her Hijab is.

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I´m also curious about whether people would be ok with a teacher wearing a hijab? There´s no specified uniform there.

Yes, can't see why not..

Shenshen

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

If there´s no good reason to ban something, why do so?

Go ask Dunnes.

There's no reason at all why I couldn't wear jeans and flip-flops during work, but my employer doesn't want me to.
I knew that when I signed my contract, and I've got more dignity than run to a work tribunal now to get my right to wear flip-flips at work confirmed.

Shenshen

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

so because it´s that way there, we have to do the same?

For everyone saying ´work somewhere else´, think about how many jobs involve wearing a uniform - working in a bank, supermarkets, shops, public transport, the police, doctors and nurses etc. That´s a lot of jobs she´s automatically disqualified from.

I´m also curious about whether people would be ok with a teacher wearing a hijab? There´s no specified uniform there

If it's a state-run school, no, I would not be ok with it.
But seeing as in Ireland most schools are run by religious institutions, it's really up to them to decide what they want teachers to wear and what not.

Drumpot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes they are. They are effectively saying that Muslim women need not apply because you can't wear a Hijab. There is no reason why not, it's just that we have never considered it before and if you don't like it, **** off.

It is not discrimination because it is not singling out Muslims, its treating everybody equally . . You said it yourself, we never considered it before, so how is it all of a sudden now an action of discrimination ?

I dont believe a workplace is a place to practise religion, where do my rights stand ?

What if somebody working for Dunnes (like a female) finds the wearing of these Hijabs offencive and demeaning or even interprets it as something that is contradictory to their own religion (men and women not being equal)? What then ?

Once you start singling out (which is exactly what this has done) one specific group for special consideration, you open the door for others.

coffee_cake

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

That´s a lot of jobs she´s automatically disqualified from.

No, it's a lot of jobs she chooses to disqualify herself from because she has decided that wearing a particular item of clothing is more important to her than a job.

A job she is "automatically disqualified from" would be a job where she does not have the right degree, or a male-only job (I can't think of any, but as an example).

Shenshen

bluewolf wrote: »

No, it's a lot of jobs she chooses to disqualify herself from because she has decided that wearing a particular item of clothing is more important to her than a job.

A job she is "automatically disqualified from" would be a job where she does not have the right degree, or a male-only job (I can't think of any, but as an example).

Sperm donor?

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

Considering that Dunnes forces their male employees to wear their hair no longer than a certain length, no it isn't.

Just because you declare it a religion doesn't mean it deserves extra-protection.

in your opinion. It is still covered by the equality act though.

Shenshen wrote: »

Thanks.
The article states, in short, that all people with piercings and tattoos should be treated equally, but that it's legal to ask them to cover them up.

I'm not entirely sure what you were hoping to prove with this?

This is the important bit. This is a lawyers explanation of the laws around uniforms. They have to be sympathetic and care should be taken where (Tattoos) are for religious or cultural reasons.

It is important that the enforcement of any dress code does not result in discriminating against employees. The policy should be enforced consistently, but also sympathetically. Particular care should be taken where tattoos or piercings may be for religious or cultural reasons and temporary body art, such as henna, should also be considered. It is important that both male and female employees are treated in the same way, including in relation to piercings

bluewolf wrote: »

Muslim women choose NOT to wear one all the time. So there is no discrimination against muslim women.

I don't think that Muslim women wearing headscarves is considered a fashion statement though.

LeeHoffmann

Not by my beliefs I've decided they should be worn at all times and to take them off is a slur on those beliefs . Do I need to dig out an ancient Book of some sort to validate my beliefs or am I free to h ave them for my own reasons?

they´d have to be actual beliefs. :rolleyes:
Like I said, banning people who wear hijabs is like banning people who wear a cross on their necklace etc. I´ve seen that very often but I´ve never heard people calling for that to be banned

Drumpot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh Christ.

Maybe we should just build a big wall around this rock so those nasty foreign people can't get in:rolleyes:

So one either agrees with your views or you are zenophobic ?

If irish women goto Saudi arabia they have to accept and abide by their strong religious beliefs and hide their faces . . If Muslim women come to ireland they can practise their religion as often as possible, but they must abide by general practises in employment. Why shouldnt common consensus in Ireland be any less acceptable ? This is a fair meeting halfway . .

Perhaps its not always our society that is uncompromising . .

smash

Shenshen wrote: »

Sperm donor?

She could apply to be an assistant though!

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is the important bit. This is a lawyers explanation of the laws around uniforms. They have to be sympathetic and care should be taken where (Tattoos) are for religious or cultural reasons.

"Should" being the crucial term here, I think.
The lawyer very carefully doesn't say that any exceptions for religious reasons HAVE TO BE made, just that consideration SHOULD be given.

Would it have been nicer of Dunnes to try a compromise and get some sort of black-and-white patterned scarf for her? Of course it would have been.
Are they obliged to do so, legally? No.

Shenshen

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

they´d have to be actual beliefs. :rolleyes:
Like I said, banning people who wear hijabs is like banning people who wear a cross on their necklace etc. I´ve seen that very often but I´ve never heard people calling for that to be banned

I certainly have heard of it.

--Kaiser--

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

they´d have to be actual beliefs. :rolleyes:
Like I said, banning people who wear hijabs is like banning people who wear a cross on their necklace etc. I´ve seen that very often but I´ve never heard people calling for that to be banned

Bam. Anyway, it all depends on the dress code of the employer, doesn't it?

davet82

ok i've heard great points from both sides about the rights and wrongs of it but from a legal point of view that Dunnes settled the case which i'm presuming came from their legal team, so is that not an admission that they got it wrong?

--Kaiser--

davet82 wrote: »

ok i've heard great points from both sides but the thing that says alot about the rights and wrongs of it but from a legal point of view that Dunnes settled the case which i'm presuming came from their legal team, so is that not an admission that they got it wrong?

Not necessarily. You can settle a case without an admission of liability

Fratton Fred

Drumpot wrote: »

It is not discrimination because it is not singling out Muslims, its treating everybody equally . . You said it yourself, we never considered it before, so how is it all of a sudden now an action of discrimination ?

I dont believe a workplace is a place to practise religion, where do my rights stand ?

What if somebody working for Dunnes (like a female) finds the wearing of these Hijabs offencive and demeaning or even interprets it as something that is contradictory to their own religion (men and women not being equal)? What then ?

Once you start singling out (which is exactly what this has done) one specific group for special consideration, you open the door for others.

no one is being singled out for special treatment. I would hazard a guess and say that in this case, the legal experts decided that Dunnes uniform policy breached the equality act, which is why they settled. I would expect that Dunnes have now changed this policy to allow the wearing of headscarves, something which is now open for all employees to avail of.

Now, I'm pretty sure that I have seen women in Dunnes wearing a Hijab, so this is probably an over enthusiastic HR or store manager being stupid as opposed to Dunnes actually not wanting people to wear a Hijab to work.

Drumpot wrote: »

So one either agrees with your views or you are zenophobic ?

If irish women goto Saudi arabia they have to accept and abide by their strong religious beliefs and hide their faces . . If Muslim women come to ireland they can practise their religion as often as possible, but they must abide by general practises in employment. Why shouldnt common consensus in Ireland be any less acceptable ? This is a fair meeting halfway . .

Perhaps its not always our society that is uncompromising . .

Why does Saudi Arabia get rolled out everytime these discussions come up? wtf has Saudi Arabia got to do with anything. This is Ireland.