Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

policarp

Vote on Dunnes Stores uniform:-

No Hijab or everyone (male and female) wear Hijab.

davet82

Shenshen wrote: »

What, weighing up the costs of a legal battle with potentially negative publicity against paying her off?

I can guarantee you she only got a fraction of what it would have cost Dunnes to see this one through.

i could see the flood gates being opened on these cases after the settlement, i think it could cost them more in the long run or at least time wasted with chancers trying their luck on the same grounds

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you were a devout catholic and your shop insisted you sold condoms then yes, you might have grounds for complaint. At the very least, they should try to accommodate your beliefs.

Ok, let's apply that to our case here :

You work in a pharmacy for 3 years. You then convert to Catholicism and decide you can no longer sell condoms.
Not only that, you can also no longer wear the company badge with your name and a happy smiley condom on it.

Should the pharmacy be forced to change its logo for you?

Madam_X

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you were a devout catholic and your shop insisted you sold condoms then yes, you might have grounds for complaint. At the very least, they should try to accommodate your beliefs.

Why should they? I'm not religion bashing, genuine question. A person should be let believe/practise whatever the hell they like, but why should a workplace accommodate it?

anncoates

bluewolf wrote: »

I'd like to state again that this has nothing to do with having any kind of anti religion agenda on my behalf
.

Still though, there are certain majority views in forum like AH that colour topics like this.

I'd be willing to bet that a certain distaste for religion is a factor. for some people, if not yourself.

Not that I care a jot about - or believe in - religion myself, of course.

Refusing to sell condoms is a completely different matter by the way. That's letting your beliefs impact your ability to perform your job and pushing your views on others. That's different to a relatively innocuous thing like your clothing.

LeeHoffmann

You keep going on about "good reason".

Dunnes as a company decided on the uniform. They own and run the company, and they pay their staff's wages. It's up to them to decide what they want their staff to do and wear, within the limits of the law.
That's a good enough reason. Why should anyone be allowed to dictate to a company how they should run their business?

ah here ffs :pac: I´ve already responded to these points. We´re not going to agree. Therefore there´s no point in arguing with me any longer

RGDATA!

anncoates wrote: »

I think the uniform analogy is a bit unsatisfactory as the head gear is obviously part of her faith and it's not really the same as saying I'm going to wear a t-shirt or beanie hat into work today.

well my religion requires me to wear beanie hats and t-shirts, and I find what you said very offensive. What is it, one law for Muslims another for me?

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes. Is their policy discriminatory though? I believe there is a good argument that it is, or at lest this stores interpretation of it is.

Not under Irish legislation :

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/IRELAND/RELIGIOUSDISCRIMINATION-IR.htm

There is no general provision in Irish law (in contrast with the position in Northern Ireland) which prohibits discrimination based on religious affiliation or opinions. However, a dismissal based on such grounds will be unfair under section 6(2)(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

She wasn't dismissed because of her religion, though. She was dismissed because she stopped coming to work.

martomcg

clicks 'Unfollow Thread'

RossyG

davet82 wrote: »

that disclaimer just made your post viod imo

I think he's right. I can't think of any religion that isn't based on ridiculous fairy tales.

anncoates

RGDATA! wrote: »

well my religion requires me to wear beanie hats and t-shirts,?

That's not a religion.

It's just called being 14.

davet82

RossyG wrote: »

I think he's right. I can't think of any religion that isn't based on ridiculous fairy tales.

that isn't the point dunnes was making and i think it would be bad for business if it was.

you are entitled to your beliefs about religion but so is everyone else and it should be respected if they choose to believe in whatever they choose to believe in.

Chuck Stone

Aren't we supposed to be a tolerant western democracy? I think this was badly handled by Dunnes. Any decent propaganda PR firm would have told them as much.

Also, I'd hate to see the day companies think they can have their own little private tyrannies where what they say supersedes state laws on discrimination.

ArtSmart

bluewolf wrote: »

That's the decision of the private company. You might as well ask "if jeans aren't a security issue why shouldn't they be allowed". The whole point is that they have a particular uniform.

unless the employee is part of the Steve Jobs Church of Nerdom. (discrimination on the basis of religion)

Dunnes should have went to court, the dicks. Then finally we could have clarity on the Pastfarians being allowed to refuse to sell pasta products on the basis of conflict with core beliefs.

Madam_X

Chuck, Dunnes were hardly stupid enough to refuse permission to wear it because it's Muslim dress in fairness. It not being part of the uniform is not = religious discrimination.

Lyaiera

ArtSmart wrote: »

unless the employee is part of the Steve Jobs Church of Nerdom. (discrimination on the basis of religion)

Dunnes should have went to court, the dicks. Then finally we could have clarity on the Pastfarians being allowed to refuse to sell pasta products on the basis of conflict with core beliefs.

Hang on a second now! If I was to convert to his noodly goodness I'd have to give up pasta? **** that.

Shenshen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Aren't we supposed to be a tolerant western democracy? I think this was badly handled by Dunnes. Any decent propaganda PR firm would have told them as much.

Also, I'd hate to see the day companies think they can have their own little private tyrannies where what they say supersedes state laws on discrimination.

What state laws?

kaef

This is NOT a muslim country, and this is the only answer for all questions about hijabs, burqas and other burgers and pastas. There's no any tolerance in muslim countries for catholics, so why they expect it here?

ArtSmart

Shenshen wrote: »

Not under Irish legislation :

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/IRELAND/RELIGIOUSDISCRIMINATION-IR.htm



She wasn't dismissed because of her religion, though. She was dismissed because she stopped coming to work.

she would arge 'constructive dismissal' - and fair enough.

but discrimination needs to be proven, no matter what the area. Dunnes has left itself wide open.

Boombastic

So we are fighting to get religion out of schools and in to the workplace??

She should have to wear the uniform the same as everyone else. She is only discriminating against herself. Maybe allah will give her the readies and food to survive.

davet82

kaef wrote: »

This is NOT a muslim country, and this is the only answer for all questions about hijabs, burqas and other burgers and pastas. There's no any tolerance in muslim countries for catholics, so why they expect it here?

they also cut off shoplifters hands maybe you suggest we do the same? :rolleyes:

ArtSmart

Lyaiera wrote: »

Hang on a second now! If I was to convert to his noodly goodness I'd have to give up pasta? **** that.

no pain no gain

tis the way of the Pasta

(The Pasta knows the Way. Blessed is the Pasta)

anncoates

Madam_X wrote: »

Chuck, Dunnes were hardly stupid enough to refuse permission to wear it because it's Muslim dress in fairness. It not being part of the uniform is not = religious discrimination.

The fact that she got a settlement suggests that there is some tension around whether or not a Hijab is viewed as subject to dress code.

Like I said, my view would be that I don't believe in religion but these items of clothing have a genuine importance to some people and I would probably let it go in my own company. I think it's possible to do that without impacting your overall dress codes that relate to normal clothing without religious significance.

At the end of the day, It's the company's call though.

I mentioned the guy I work with that wears a turban. Very clever guy. Asset to the job. I don't know or care what he believes in and I don't feel aggrieved that I can't wear cargo paints into work because his dress isn't a recognized definition of formal wear.

Life goes on. Company harmonious. Everybody happy.

grenache

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It doesn't matter what their policy is, if their policy discriminates against people.

How on earth does it discriminate against people?!!

It's part of their policy on uniforms and hygiene. If she didn't like it she didn't have to take the job. I could say it was my "right" to wear a large plastic penis on head. It wouldn't make it acceptable though.

The woman is living in a western country, it's not unreasonable to expect her to conform to its norms. When in Rome and all.

Chuck Stone

Madam_X wrote: »

Chuck, Dunnes were hardly stupid enough to refuse permission to wear it because it's Muslim dress in fairness

In fairness nobody can't say with certainty that there was no undercurrent of 'damn them dastardly Muslamics - they won't tell Dunnes what to do'.

As someone else said earlier I don't think Dunnes would have had much of a problem if it was a woman receiving chemotherapy who was wearing a scarf to work.

It not being part of the uniform is not = religious discrimination.

Is there a prescriptive and precise Dunnes Stores law rule that says that a person cannot wear a Hijab? Also, where does it stop? No crucifixes? No make-up? No short haired women? No moustaches on men in the peas and beans aisle?

Shenshen wrote: »

What state laws?

I didn't quote any specific laws. I expressed a sentiment.

ArtSmart

kaef wrote: »

This is NOT a muslim country, and this is the only answer for all questions about hijabs, burqas and other burgers and pastas. There's no any tolerance in muslim countries for catholics, so why they expect it here?

let's stick within the issue - the law of discrimination (unfair dismissals act) in the workplace.
else this will be shutty quicky.

real pity this law wasn't tested.

as for some post saying clothing is innocuous, try telling that to your boss when you walk in with a Bob Marley t-shirt on. (along with nice shorts and a bow , of ocurse

anncoates

grenache wrote: »

How on earth does it discriminate against people?!!l.

Dunnes paid a settlement which suggests that there is ambiguity around the matter.

Not saying I think they are discriminatory or not but if they had a cut and dried case, they should have fought it.

ArtSmart

Having said all that, Dunnes calling her into the office was nuts. in the UK this type of head dress was worn twenty bloody years ago by Muslim staff - and still is.

Dunnes = Dark Ages.

the groutch

anncoates wrote: »

The fact that she got a settlement suggests that there is some tension around whether or not a Hijab is viewed as subject to dress code.

Dunnes were in the right, and they knew it.
But with some of the crazy rulings by judges recently, they didnt want to take the small risk that a judgement be made against them because of the precedence it would set.

Madam_X

anncoates wrote: »

Dunnes paid a settlement which suggests that there is ambiguity around the matter.

Not saying I think they are discriminatory or not but if they had a cut and dried case, they should have fought it.

True.

I couldn't give a flying fig either what religious garb/beliefs someone who works with me wears/has (one girl has the headscarf) but I genuinely didn't think religion had anything to do with this decision by Dunnes. The reason people are saying "I wouldnt dye my hair pink" etc is because they reckon Dunnes just sees this as a non uniform item, religion isn't being brought into it. And I do think some on this thread (not you) are dying for a bit of "Religious discrimination/racism!" outrage. Being super PC in other words - and I wouldn't make that allegation lightly.

But the fact it wasn't therefore a cut and dried case is a fair point.