Shop employee exempt from selling alcohol based on religious beliefs

lifeandtimes

Just wants to open a thread about something I saw recently.

A well known German supermarket was quizzed by a member of public and forward a picture of aconveyer belt at a till in this supermarket with a printed out sign saying "No alcohol is able to be served on this till,sorry for any inconvenience". They were asked why this was the case and it was found to be that this was due to the till operators religious beliefs that they don't want to sell alcohol.

Now my question is due to shop have any level obligation to abide by this for their employee or can then force the employee to do the job of a till operators and sell all the things customers want to buy?

Obviously at the companies discretion they obliged but do they have too? And where does it stop? What if all employees were of this faith would the shop just stop selling alcohol all together or revert everyone back to the same rules?

Any other comments or discussion regarding this subject is welcomed

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

I suppose the shop was not allowed to discriminate when recruiting that person so the question is: what is the situation under Irish law if the employee refuses to scan booze when assigned to a check-out?

Is there a 'conscience clause' for the employee?

Is there a 'sanity clause' for the employer.....

Guy applies for a job in an off-licence, has excellent references, looks presentable and polite i.e. ticks all the boxes for a job in retail so he gets the job whereupon he declares that he won't sell alcohol on religious grounds. What happens next?

lifeandtimes

If an employee was celiac then on medical grounds they wouldn't place them in a bakery area or anywhere with bread but on religious grounds where is the line drawn regarding not selling something that is part of your employers stock?

I doubt this would have been discussed at the interview stage and would only have been brought up after.

I'm trying to wrap my head around it,clearly the employer wants to be seen as understanding and accommodating to their employees but this may also cause tension with other employees as their tills may become busier due to people switching tills to buy alcohol

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

Guy applies for a job in an off-licence, has excellent references, looks presentable and polite i.e. ticks all the boxes for a job in retail so he gets the job whereupon he declares that he won't sell alcohol on religious grounds. What happens next?

You can't employ them on Sunday, because they are a presbyterian / methodist.

Personally, I would have qualms selling alcohol or tobacco, but for non-religious ethical reasons.

Conall Cernach

coylemj wrote: »

I suppose the shop was not allowed to discriminate when recruiting that person so the question is: what is the situation under Irish law if the employee refuses to scan booze when assigned to a check-out?

Is there a 'conscience clause' for the employee?

Is there a 'sanity clause' for the employer.....

Guy applies for a job in an off-licence, has excellent references, looks presentable and polite i.e. ticks all the boxes for a job in retail so he gets the job whereupon he declares that he won't sell alcohol on religious grounds. What happens next?

The employer can get rid of him for any reason as long as it doesn't fall under one of the categories of discrimination as outlined in the Employment Equality Act and he as been there less than 12 months. The employer can say "you know what, I don't need people that won't serve alcohol, so you're fired" or something like that and it can't be considered discriminatory under the Act. Once the employee has 12 months of service then the employer may be on shakier ground though the contract that the employee should have signed at the start of their service would probably include the fact that the employee is required to serve alcohol.

Jayop

If your religion prevents you from selling alcohol then don't work in a place that sells alcohol.

Help!!!!

coylemj wrote: »

I suppose the shop was not allowed to discriminate when recruiting that person so the question is: what is the situation under Irish law if the employee refuses to scan booze when assigned to a check-out?

Is there a 'conscience clause' for the employee?

Is there a 'sanity clause' for the employer.....

Guy applies for a job in an off-licence, has excellent references, looks presentable and polite i.e. ticks all the boxes for a job in retail so he gets the job whereupon he declares that he won't sell alcohol on religious grounds. What happens next?

There were 2 or 3 chefs of the faith applied for and got the jobs at some bbq restaurant in America. Decided they couldn't & wouldn't cook pork. Sued the owner & won.

Gatling

So no alcohol but pork products and lotto and scratch cards , Christmas , Easter and holy communion / confirmation products are ok

Always found it odd how there is only an issue with alcohol

L1011

Gatling wrote: »

So no alcohol but pork products and lotto and scratch cards , Christmas , Easter and holy communion / confirmation products are ok

Always found it odd how there is only an issue with alcohol

The German retailer mentioned has to be one of two; neither of which would touch that list; bar the pork products.

Funnily enough, my personal observations would be that of all the rules of Islam to get broken, eating pork is probably the one broken the least and drinking alcohol the one broken the most.

Losty Dublin

You wouldn't mind but in any Aldi that I've been in, a till is never open for more than 2 minutes. All you'd have to do is wait a tick and problem solved

GM228

Help!!!! wrote: »

There were 2 or 3 chefs of the faith applied for and got the jobs at some bbq restaurant in America. Decided they couldn't & wouldn't cook pork. Sued the owner & won.

Any link to that? I'd be surprised they would win, but then again in the USA you just never know.

Closer to home, remember the Muslim chef who took a case against the Metropolitan Police over being asked to cook pork despite having a letter of comfort from them saying he didn't have to do so:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7704835.stm

He lost:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8064474.stm

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

I suppose the shop was not allowed to discriminate when recruiting that person so the question is: what is the situation under Irish law if the employee refuses to scan booze when assigned to a check-out?

Dismissal potentially for breach of contract.

There is no requirement under law for an employer to facilitate religous beliefs. There are provisions in the Employment Equality Acts in relation to religous discrimination. Such could fall under the heading of indirect discrimination - when a practice or policy, that may not appear to discriminate against one group more than another, actually does discriminate or where a requirement of a job adversely affects a particular group or class of individuals. 

If the practice, policy or requirement is such that the proportion of employees who are disadvantaged by it is substantially higher in the case of one group or class of individuals compared to another group or class of individuals, then indirect discrimination exists, but to apply it would be very difficult.

Del2005

GM228 wrote: »

Dismissal potentially for breach of contract.

There is no requirement under law for an employer to facilitate religous beliefs. There are provisions in the Employment Equality Acts in relation to religous discrimination. Such could fall under the heading of indirect discrimination - when a practice or policy, that may not appear to discriminate against one group more than another, actually does discriminate or where a requirement of a job adversely affects a particular group or class of individuals. 

If the practice, policy or requirement is such that the proportion of employees who are disadvantaged by it is substantially higher in the case of one group or class of individuals compared to another group or class of individuals, then indirect discrimination exists, but to apply it would be very difficult.

So if a staff member is refusing to do their job on religious grounds can the other staff take a case of religious discrimination because they are being disadvantaged?

Silverfish

I saw that, it was shared pretty widely. It was because the staff member was under 18, not because of their religion. It wasn't "found" it was because of their religion, it was "suspected" and shared as fact.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

emo72

Ordered a pulled pork bap in a deli the other day. There was issues, not sure what happened but another person had to make it for me.

Silverfish

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's my point. Considering the sign didn't also include pork products etc isn't it far more likely it was because of a legal restriction rather than a religious one?

Atlantic Dawn

Could a catholic till operator refuse to sell condoms?

Erik Shin

You have to be 18 to work on the tills in Aldi...so what would the legal reason be ?

Mrs Shuttleworth

If Aldi has a licence to sell alcohol and wishes to sell it under the licence and the staff member refuses to perform their duties that would be a lawful ground to terminate their employment and Aldi should have the guts to dismiss this individual.

Johnboy1951

This discussion has caused me to wonder what would be the situation if an employee of long standing changed their religion and then told their employer they could not serve some products on religious grounds.

Could dismissal then be considered discriminatory on religious grounds?
I think it would fall under 'non-performance' and not discrimination.

brian_t

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Could a catholic till operator refuse to sell condoms?

Maybe the buyer wants to keep their matches dry when they go camping.

Peregrinus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

If Aldi has a licence to sell alcohol and wishes to sell it under the licence and the staff member refuses to perform their duties that would be a lawful ground to terminate their employment and Aldi should have the guts to dismiss this individual.

Aldi's under no obligation to dismiss them, and a good employer will generally try to accommodate employees where this can be done without causing business problems - e.g by not rostering a Jewish employee on the sabbath, by not rostering someone at school for a late shift on a school night, etc.

Obviously, it's not always possible or convenient to do this. But a good employer would rather do it that not, and to take this as evidence of a lack of guts suggests someone who has difficulty in distinguishing between a workplace and a battlefield.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Peregrinus wrote: »

Aldi's under no obligation to dismiss them, and a good employer will generally try to accommodate employees where this can be done without causing business problems - e.g by not rostering a Jewish employee on the sabbath, by not rostering someone at school for a late shift on a school night, etc.

Obviously, it's not always possible or convenient to do this. But a good employer would rather do it that not, and to take this as evidence of a lack of guts suggests someone who has difficulty in distinguishing between a workplace and a battlefield.

One till today, two tomorrow and so on. Call me a hardened paranoid cynic but I suspect Aldi are playing some very devious games with the British public with this stunt.

Won't be shopping there again (not that I ever do anyway).

Peregrinus

Erik Shin wrote: »

You have to be 18 to work on the tills in Aldi...so what would the legal reason be ?

Well, one obvious possibility would be that, for whatever reason, on this occasion they have departed from their normal custom and put an under-18 year old on the till.

Peregrinus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

One till today, two tomorrow and so on. Call me a hardened paranoid cynic but I suspect Aldi are playing some very devious games with the British public with this stunt.

Won't be shopping there again (not that I ever do anyway).

Well, after you've burned down your own house you may be a bit too strapped for cash to do much shopping anyway.

Hardened paranoid cynicism is a stressful and expensive lifestyle!

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, one obvious possibility would be that, for whatever reason, on this occasion they have departed from their normal custom and put an under-18 year old on the till.

Well, it's just possible that in a different country, they have different rules.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Well, it's just possible that in a different country, they have different rules.

If the picture comes from the UK (which I don't know, but the fact that the sign is in English suggests its from an English-speaking territory) you do have to be 18 to sell grog. If from the US, 21. In Australia, 18. I haven't checked every English-speaking territory in which Aldi operates, but restrictions of this kind are pretty common. So an immediately obvious possibility here is that the reason for the sign is that the till operative is forbidden by law from ringing up alcohol sales.

It's also possible that the till is operated by someone with an ethical objection which the employer is seeking to accommodate. That strikes me as the less likely of the two possibilties but, yeah, still possible.

The answer to the OP's question is, if this is a legal restriction, obviously the employer must comply. If this is an attempt to accommodate the employee's preference, the employer doesn't generally have to do this, absent unusual facts. But you could easily imagine facts - somebody applies for and is appointed to a position which doesn't involve handling alcohol, but due to a temporary staff shortage is asked to staff a till; says he'd love to help out, if the alcohol-handling problem can be got around.

I doubt very much that Aldi would appoint someone permanently to a role which involved handling all the produce sold by the shop if they had an objection to handling any of the produce sold by the shop. And they certainly would have no legal obligation to make such an appointment.

two wheels good

Help!!!! wrote: »

There were 2 or 3 chefs of the faith applied for and got the jobs at some bbq restaurant in America. Decided they couldn't & wouldn't cook pork. Sued the owner & won.

Really? Sounds a bit like something the Daily Mail would concoct.
I couldn't find anything on a web search. Can you source a reference?

redcup342

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Could have been Mormon, they consider handling alcohol a sin but Pork is fine.

lifeandtimes

Just to clarify people think it was age related but it's not.

The official statement from the store states "If a colleague raises concerns about a job they have been asked to do, our approach is to try and find a solution"

This would imply the employer brought the issue up with the store themselves. This in turn makes people believe it is religiously motivated however no confirmation of what religion it was.

Peregrinus

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Just to clarify people think it was age related but it's not.

The official statement from the store states "If a colleague raises concerns about a job they have been asked to do, our approach is to try and find a solution"

This would imply the employer brought the issue up with the store themselves. This in turn makes people believe it is religiously motivated however no confirmation of what religion it was.

It only implies a religious motivation if you assume that there can be no secular objections to alcohol. Which, once you state the assumption, is obviously wrong.

schemingbohemia

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Just to clarify people think it was age related but it's not.

The official statement from the store states "If a colleague raises concerns about a job they have been asked to do, our approach is to try and find a solution"

This would imply the employer brought the issue up with the store themselves. This in turn makes people believe it is religiously motivated however no confirmation of what religion it was.

Do you have a religious aversion to providing links to the FACTS that you're stating?

RGDATA!

Help!!!! wrote: »

There were 2 or 3 chefs of the faith applied for and got the jobs at some bbq restaurant in America. Decided they couldn't & wouldn't cook pork. Sued the owner & won.

link?

Victor

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Just to clarify people think it was age related but it's not.

How do you know? Maybe the cashier's under-age classmates are pressuring him to sell alcohol?

lifeandtimes wrote: »

The official statement from the store states "If a colleague raises concerns about a job they have been asked to do, our approach is to try and find a solution"

Expanded statement here: http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/19/man-vows-never-to-return-to-aldi-after-spotting-sign-saying-cashier-is-unable-to-sell-alcohol-6864314/

I can only find the first AldiUK tweet.

https://twitter.com/AldiUK/status/898892825718394882

This in turn makes people believe it is religiously motivated however no confirmation of what religion it was.

You've been given a whole bunch of other reasons of what the exact reason could be. You are jumping to a conclusion.