Proselytizing Middle Eastern Death Cult Fanatic Gets 70K

MrAbyss

If you have ever been unfortunate enough to be around a Born Again they are absolute dickheads who never shut up about their Bronze Age Desert Death Cult. Most of them are ex Junkies and/or Alkies and 'Jesus' in their new fix.

The man continued to speak to colleagues and to members of the public out on the street during work hours and was suspended with pay for a period before a final investigation which resulted in his dismissal.
He claimed it was unfair for management to tell him not to discuss his faith as the tenets of his religion require him to speak to people about Jesus and to share the Gospel.

https://www.thejournal.ie/born-again-christian-tipperary-council-1583009-Jul2014/?fbclid=IwAR3hTwdFJofpMoJYfIyBE0sm5ogvhmtCKm2lrGiiqBWPJHgZDhawAy2JkKo

paw patrol

solid judgement. quite unfair that he wasn't allowed discuss his faith.
jesus is lord and the lord does provide (70k).

SafeSurfer

I for one welcome our Proselytizing Middle Eastern Death Cult Fanatic overlords.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

No doubt he will give away such material possessions to charity.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Terminal Burrowing wrote: »

He can do with it as he wishes

As long as its in accordance with the wishes of the Lord Jesus, who preached a life of being humble, helping the poor and rejecting Satan in all his guises.

Still waters

The wanker, imagine listening to the prick all day, his colleagues should have been compensated as well for having to put up with the gobshíte

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Terminal Burrowing wrote: »

You almost seem upset that things worked out for the Christian man.

This is completely in your head.

ILoveYourVibes

Change the title to born again christian cult. Stop messing about.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Terminal Burrowing wrote: »

70K is a lot. Just imagine all the things YOU could do with it.

I think I'd give it away to the homeless. Seems like something Jesus would do.

Stroke Politics

That happened in 2014! I wonder what he’s doing now?

TheValeyard

Dont get the whole death cult thing. They are convinced they have beaten death and these bodies are mere temporary.

Anyhow, they are wrong, the correct answer was:

One eyed Jack

MrAbyss wrote: »

If you have ever been unfortunate enough to be around a Born Again they are absolute dickheads who never shut up about their Bronze Age Desert Death Cult. Most of them are ex Junkies and/or Alkies and 'Jesus' in their new fix.

Your ire is aimed at the wrong target if you’re complaining about someone receiving compensation for being discriminated against by their employers. If their employers hadn’t been discrimatory, they wouldn’t have had to compensate their former employee to the tune of €70k.

ILoveYourVibes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your ire is aimed at the wrong target if you’re complaining about someone receiving compensation for being discriminated against by their employers. If their employers hadn’t been discrimatory, they wouldn’t have had to compensate their former employee to the tune of €70k.

So you think he was fired for his religion rather than fired for preaching and annoying people about his religion?

In 2010, he was dismissed from his job following a number of complaints about him “preaching” to staff and members of the public during work hours. He received multiple warnings and attended disciplinary meetings in which he was told not to discuss his religion during work hours or on lunch breaks.
He was also compelled to seek professional help to control his compulsion to speak to people about his beliefs and he attended four counselling sessions.

He has basically been given permission to harass people.

If a business doesn't want religion discussed during business hrs that is their choice its a personal topic for many people.

And it wasn't as if they banned him praying etc ..they banned him talking about it to other people who were not of his religion.

He is trying to convert people during work hrs.

It would look TERRIBLE for your company.

pablo128

MrAbyss wrote: »

If you have ever been unfortunate enough to be around a Born Again they are absolute dickheads who never shut up about their Bronze Age Desert Death Cult. Most of them are ex Junkies and/or Alkies and 'Jesus' in their new fix.

I have direct experience of one of these lads. Your description has him down to a tee.

One eyed Jack

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

So you think he was fired for his religion rather than fired for preaching and annoying people about his religion?

Yep, and that was also the decision of the Labour Court who awarded him the €70k.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He has basically been given permission to harass people.

If a business doesn't want religion discussed during business hrs that is their choice its a personal topic for many people.

And it wasn't as if they banned him praying etc ..they banned him talking about it to other people who were not of his religion.

He is trying to convert people during work hrs.

It would look TERRIBLE for your company.

He hasn’t been given permission to harass anyone. The LC ruled that his employer discriminated against him, that’s all. It looks terrible for his employer and I wouldn’t want to work there, not for fear of being discriminated against, but simply because of the attitudes of the people working there towards anyone who didn’t fit in with their narrow minded prejudices.

ILoveYourVibes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He hasn’t been given permission to harass anyone.

Yes he has. I will tell you another thing.

If he had been a muslim the judge would NOT have been so tolerant.

Christians tend to think they are discriminated against. Which is bs.

They don't realize the amount of chances and privileges they are given in this country.

He got special treatment by that judge because he is christian.

And he is no allowed to target people not from his religion into joining it. This is now his right.


He is allowed preach freely to anyone he likes.

One eyed Jack

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Yes he has. I will tell you another thing.

If he had been a muslim the judge would NOT have been so tolerant.

Christians tend to think they are discriminated against. Which is bs.

They don't realize the amount of chances and privileges they are given in this country.

He got special treatment by that judge because he is christian.

And he is no allowed to target people not from his religion into joining it. This is now his right.

He wasn’t given special treatment because of his religion. He was treated fairly by the LC according to the law, because it was his employer who chose to discriminate against him, thereby violating equality legislation.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He is allowed preach freely to anyone he likes.

Yes it’s one of the joys of living in a country where everyone has that freedom, and when an employer chooses to discriminate against their employees on the grounds of their religious beliefs, the law doesn’t hold the employee responsible for their being discriminated against, it holds the people who actually violated the laws responsible for their actions.

ILoveYourVibes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He wasn’t given special treatment because of his religion. He was treated fairly by the LC according to the law, because it was his employer who chose to discriminate against him, thereby violating equality legislation.





Yes it’s one of the joys of living in a country where everyone has that freedom, and when an employer chooses to discriminate against their employees on the grounds of their religious beliefs, the law doesn’t hold the employee responsible for their being discriminated against, it holds the people who actually violated the laws responsible for their actions.

No they don't.Only Christians do.

And if that man is targeting non Christians HE Is discriminating. People have a right to their own religion if they don't bother other people about it. He has no right to target non christians. And they do.

One eyed Jack

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No they don't.Only Christians do.

And if that man is targeting non Christians HE Is discriminating. People have a right to their own religion if they don't bother other people about it. He has no right to target non christians. And they do.

He didn’t violate any laws, his employer did. That’s why he got €70k, and his employer now has the terrible reputation as an employer. They received no complaints from the public and only received complaints of an informal nature in the beginning from one staff member before they encouraged other staff members to observe him and report back to management, and required the man attend counselling. His former employers were unable to present any evidence that his work was below standard or that he had caused any other employees work to suffer.

He was clearly singled out and mistreated by his employer on the basis of his religion, and that’s why they were found to be at fault, in accordance with the law.

20Wheel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He wasn’t given special treatment because of his religion. He was treated fairly by the LC according to the law, because it was his employer who chose to discriminate against him, thereby violating equality legislation.





Yes it’s one of the joys of living in a country where everyone has that freedom, and when an employer chooses to discriminate against their employees on the grounds of their religious beliefs, the law doesn’t hold the employee responsible for their being discriminated against, it holds the people who actually violated the laws responsible for their actions.

Telling someone to stfu and stop banging on about something every day is not discrimination.

This country is done.

3,000 pm luxury apartments for social housing.
30,000 for being searched by a garda.
70,000 for being told to shut your hole.
1.6 million for a printer.

We need a saviour of some kind.

One eyed Jack

20Wheel wrote: »

Telling someone to stfu and stop banging on about something every day is not discrimination.

Opinion which has no standing in Irish law vs Irish law.

Want to bet €70k on which one of us is right?

DrPhilG

Speaking as a Christian, (full on happy clapper, yee ha), this fella is either a complete arse, or this was a deliberate attempt to force his employers into action and then go for a claim.

If as he claims, his only intention was to spread the gospel and win some souls for the Lord, why the fup would he think that annoying the crap out of people would be effective?

So as I say, unless he's completely thick, he would/should have known that being utterly obnoxious and ramming his beliefs down the throat of people who presumably initially politely asked him to stop would have the very opposite effect.

And no, he shouldn't have won compo. Being an annoying bollix to all your colleagues constantly should be a perfectly sackable offence IMO.

pablo128

DrPhilG wrote: »

Speaking as a Christian, (full on happy clapper, yee ha), this fella is either a complete arse, or this was a deliberate attempt to force his employers into action and then go for a claim.

If as he claims, his only intention was to spread the gospel and win some souls for the Lord, why the fup would he think that annoying the crap out of people would be effective?

So as I say, unless he's completely thick, he would/should have known that being utterly obnoxious and ramming his beliefs down the throat of people who presumably initially politely asked him to stop would have the very opposite effect.

And no, he shouldn't have won compo. Being an annoying bollix to all your colleagues constantly should be a perfectly sackable offence IMO.

It's like these type of lads are brainwashed. The lad I know reckons the end of the world is nigh and when the Lord Jesus saviour or whatever he calls him arrives, only his crew are going to be saved.

He genuinely thinks there'll be a puff of smoke and his clothes will fall to the ground. I've heard him repeat it many many times.

20Wheel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Opinion which has no standing in Irish law vs Irish law.

Want to bet €70k on which one of us is right?

Yes Jack, yes I do.

You may have the established judgement of the above case on your side, from which to hide behind and go nah nah nah nah nah.

But I have the endless restrictions of pedantry.

So off you go and find me the law that contradicts my exact words above.

See, we can both be (edit) silly Billies about it.

One eyed Jack

20Wheel wrote: »

Yes Jack, yes I do.

You may have the established judgement of the above case on your side, from which to hide behind and go nah nah nah nah nah.

But I have the endless restrictions of pedantry.

So off you go and find me the law that contradicts my exact words above.

See, we can both be (edit) silly Billies about it.

It’s unfair treatment if you’re not telling everyone to stfu and stop banging on about something and you’re focused on one person specifically. That’s why it was discrimination and that’s why in this case he won his case - because he was being treated unfairly on the basis of his religion.

There’s no need for either of us to be pedantic or be silly billies about anything. There’s no law that says you can’t tell everyone to stop banging on about anything, but there are laws against treating people unfairly on the basis of one or other of the nine grounds of discrimination.

igCorcaigh

If only he were passionate about veganism Jack.
Would that have been discrimination?

One eyed Jack

igCorcaigh wrote: »

If only he were passionate about veganism Jack.
Would that have been discrimination?

It hasn’t been established in law that veganism is a philosophy. There was a recent case which attempted to determine whether veganism qualifies as a protected belief or philosophy under equality legislation, but the employer conceded in that case that they were guilty of discrimination, and so there was no necessity to establish whether veganism was a protected belief or philosophy that qualifies under equality legislation -



A Tribunal has ruled that vegetarianism does not amount to a philosophical belief capable of protection under the Equality Act 2010.


So for now at least it appears that employers are permitted to suggest that their celery chewing colleagues keep their nonsense to themselves. Would I chance continuously suggesting that my celery chewing colleagues keep their nonsense to themselves? I personally wouldn’t, as my behaviour could constitute harassment in the workplace.

suicide_circus

Go with Christ.


And seventy grand.

topper75

We've all met these types. Initially it is amusing as they work an obtuse link to their thing from whatever you are talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEK0h2Fe-wQ

But then it wears you down.

Ronin247

The HR person should be sacked. If you are dealing with an issue of this nature then surely the approach should have been..."you are interfering with the right of other people in the workplace to practice there own religious beliefs unmolested "
He is entitled to his religious beliefs, but once he begins preaching to me and I ask him to stop then by continuing he is the one not allowing me religious freedom.

CrankyHaus

How is someone bringing up Jesus Christ in conversation any worse than them bringing up football or Love Island?
I have no interest in any of the three and would just politely change the subject.
If he was doing it on his lunch breaks it's hardly as if it detracted from his work.
Granted I'd think the person was a bit out there for it. But we used to just call people like that characters, or at worst touched, rather than have HR brand them as a lunatic and drive them out of their job.

Badly Drunk Boy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Opinion which has no standing in Irish law vs Irish law.

Want to bet €70k on which one of us is right?

You're not right and the Labour Court/Equality Tribunal definitely was not right for pandering to this man, no matter what the legal outcome is. He was using work-time to harass colleague and others when he should have been doing his job. He wasn't doing his job. He deserved to lose his job, especially after numerous warnings. He was dismissed for the “inappropriate promotion of his faith” to members of the public during working hours which included lunch time, but not only during his lunch time.

At worst, the company dealt with the situation clumsily but they shouldn't have been punished and he definitely shouldn't have been rewarded.

Hector Savage

paw patrol wrote: »

solid judgement. quite unfair that he wasn't allowed discuss his faith.
jesus is lord and the lord does provide (70k).

Junkyard Tom

I remember asking a new colleague at breakfast 'do you follow any team Steve' and Steve replies 'I follow Jesus'. I felt like fucking my plate of sausages at his stupid fucking head coming out with that **** first thing in the morning.

Hotblack Desiato

Funny you should bring up a 5 year old case at this time, OP. Mini-protest outside megalegal firm Arthur Cox this morning.

3 people with very large placards,

"Christian Solicitor Dismissed By Arthur Cox"

"€70,000 ex-gratia"

Anyone any idea what this is about? I suspect something very similar to the Tipp Co Co case, seems 70k is the going rate for being a total arse to your colleagues about religion.

Perhaps ironically, Arthur Cox was founded by a priest.

One eyed Jack

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

You're not right and the Labour Court/Equality Tribunal definitely was not right for pandering to this man, no matter what the legal outcome is. He was using work-time to harass colleague and others when he should have been doing his job. He wasn't doing his job. He deserved to lose his job, especially after numerous warnings. He was dismissed for the “inappropriate promotion of his faith” to members of the public during working hours which included lunch time, but not only during his lunch time.

At worst, the company dealt with the situation clumsily but they shouldn't have been punished and he definitely shouldn't have been rewarded.

I don’t think you’ve read the case at all, have you? His employers were found to be at fault because they violated the law. The employee in question had not violated any laws. Perhaps you should have read the post which the previous poster was responding to -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He didn’t violate any laws, his employer did. That’s why he got €70k, and his employer now has the terrible reputation as an employer. They received no complaints from the public and only received complaints of an informal nature in the beginning from one staff member before they encouraged other staff members to observe him and report back to management, and required the man attend counselling. His former employers were unable to present any evidence that his work was below standard or that he had caused any other employees work to suffer.

He was clearly singled out and mistreated by his employer on the basis of his religion, and that’s why they were found to be at fault, in accordance with the law.

Whether you think the LC were wrong to pander to this man, the facts are that he was not at fault. His employer was responsible for their actions. They dealt with the situation maliciously by attempting to single an employee out for unfair treatment, and were punished accordingly, in accordance with Irish law, as opposed to your subjective standards regarding who you think is responsible when an employee is being discriminated against by their employers.

On that basis, their former employee deserved to be compensated for loss of earnings as a result of their employers incompetence.

Blackhorse Slim

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I remember asking a new colleague at breakfast 'do you follow any team Steve' and Steve replies 'I follow Jesus'.

So he's a Man City fan? What's the problem?

o1s1n

pablo128 wrote: »

It's like these type of lads are brainwashed.

They 100% are brainwashed.

My parents and grandparents are Jehovah's Witnesses and fit into a similar category.

You can actually see their eyes glaze over when their cognitive dissonance kicks in and they mumble the party line, word for word.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whether you think the LC were wrong to pander to this man, the facts are that he was not at fault.

He was harassing his colleagues.

What about THEIR freedom of religion?

Anybody with the slightest bit of cop-on, when told by their employer their behaviour was out of line would at least try to moderate or stop it.

You'd think the Labour Court had papal infallibility the way you're going on. This is far from the first perverse decision from them.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He was harassing his colleagues.

What about THEIR freedom of religion?

Anybody with the slightest bit of cop-on, when told by their employer their behaviour was out of line would at least try to moderate or stop it.

You'd think the Labour Court had papal infallibility the way you're going on. This is far from the first perverse decision from them.

There was only one informal complaint made to their employer by another employee. Their freedom of religion wasn’t being violated in that case, but rather they would have had grounds for a complaint against him for harassment.

He did moderate his behaviour, but there’s no getting away from the fact that his employer encouraged other employees to observe him and report back to management. That’s where the unfair treatment began as no other employee was subjected to that kind of harassment, and furthermore to insist that he attend counselling, where no other employee was expected to do so - that’s unfair treatment, and he was treated unfairly on the basis of his religion, which meant he had grounds for taking a case for discrimination against his former employer.

If he were an anti-theist I’d say the same thing btw, because the LC is recognised by both employers and employees as arbiter in disputes like this. If a decision doesn’t go a persons way, that doesn’t mean they get to go all Freeman and declare that they don’t recognise the authority of the Court.

LaFuton

a fella down my local is like yer man there, he's affectionately known as preachingbastard, but he doesbring scones, the ones made with yoghurt, anyway he does be saying that there is a war going on and the tractable masses on the secular sidelines are both collateral and bounty.

interesting stuff alright... after a few creamy ones.

20Wheel

Well, like anything designed by people the legal systems have their flaws.
Obviously, as we've been reminded, the law was technically followed, and this nonsensical judgement was the result.

But as with the classic compo claims in this country of the 'burglar cuts hand on fence, wins claim' variety this can only be expected.

Its this level of technical accuracy or loosen up the power of judges.

Both have their (dis)advantages.
This model happens to charge the cost to common sense.

What can you do.

Laugh at these rulings. Call them for the bullsht they are.

One eyed Jack

20Wheel wrote: »

Well, like anything designed by people the legal systems have their flaws.
Obviously, as we've been reminded, the law was technically followed, and this nonsensical judgement was the result.

But as with the classic compo claims in this country of the 'burglar cuts hand on fence, wins claim' variety this can only be expected.

Its this level of technical accuracy or loosen up the power of judges.

Both have their (dis)advantages.
This model happens to charge the cost to common sense.

What can you do.

Laugh at these rulings. Call them for the bullsht they are.

As an employer? You are responsible for adhering to equality legislation.

As an employee? Carry on taking cases against employers who fail to adhere to equality legislation. The only way they’re brought to heel is when they pay heavily enough for their incompetence. It’s a costly lesson, true, but the employer in this particular case didn’t appear to care much for what is common sense to most people.

Could laugh at them too of course, I have no doubt his employer had a good laugh at his expense, but if it were me shelling out €70k as a result of my own incompetence, I’d be pretty embarrassed.

My time machine worked!

20Wheel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As an employer? You are responsible for adhering to equality legislation.

As an employee? Carry on taking cases against employers who fail to adhere to equality legislation. The only way they’re brought to heel is when they pay heavily enough for their incompetence. It’s a costly lesson, true, but the employer in this particular case didn’t appear to care much for what is common sense to most people.

Could laugh at them too of course, I have no doubt his employer had a good laugh at his expense, but if it were me shelling out €70k as a result of my own incompetence, I’d be pretty embarrassed.

thankfully im not an employer.

and who would want to be in this country with the likes of this bollockology. So yes i can laugh.

Doesnt directly cost me anything in this particular case.
Just like it doesnt directly benefit you.

We've made the compromise in this country to go more with the letter of the law than the spirit.
And investors, and industries are aware of that.

Were it the other way we'd have some kind of parallel, opposite end of the spectrum case with equally ridiculous consequences.

Nothing to be done. Other than tread lightly around anything remotely legal, and maybe make up a cover story if youre an emoloyer with a crackpot to get rid of.

Performance. Downsizing. Etc.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Funny you should bring up a 5 year old case at this time, OP. Mini-protest outside megalegal firm Arthur Cox this morning.

3 people with very large placards,

"Christian Solicitor Dismissed By Arthur Cox"

"€70,000 ex-gratia"

Anyone any idea what this is about? I suspect something very similar to the Tipp Co Co case, seems 70k is the going rate for being a total arse to your colleagues about religion.

Perhaps ironically, Arthur Cox was founded by a priest.

The three amigos were back out at lunchtime.

Placard was actually "Christian Solicitor Ejected By Arthur Cox"

Seems to refer to this https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-christian-lawyer-ejected-screaming-fit-arthur-cox

and they're using the 70k award as some sort of precedent - even though they are not saying this guy was sacked - yet - and he may well be a UK employee where a 70k claim on this basis would be laughed out of court.

Sound like a whiny bunch of complete chancers.

As average people fall away from religion more and more, we can expect the proportion of nutters in those remaining to go through the roof, and they will be screaming in our faces at every opportunity about how "oppressed" they are that we won't vote the way they want and don't like them proselytising in our faces every chance they get.

The unlovely Breda O'Brien in the Irish Times was at it last Saturday.

Time to pay attention to the persecution of Christians

Of course nothing about the atheists and secularists getting hacked to death in the streets in Pakistan and Bangladesh as the authorities look the other way. Their oppression doesn't count.

endacl

Do born again christians have two bellybuttons?

One eyed Jack

20Wheel wrote: »

thankfully im not an employer.

and who would want to be in this country with the likes of this bollockology. So yes i can laugh.

Doesnt directly cost me anything in this particular case.
Just like it doesnt directly benefit you.

We've made the compromise in this country to go more with the letter of the law than the spirit.
And investors, and industries are aware of that.

It was yourself earlier though who challenged me to point out where you were wrong according to the letter of the law, and now you’re complaining when you perceive someone else is doing the same thing? The LC made their adjudication very much in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Smell of “do as I say, not as I do” off that.

20Wheel wrote: »

Were it the other way we'd have some kind of parallel, opposite end of the spectrum case with equally ridiculous consequences.

Nothing to be done. Other than tread lightly around anything remotely legal, and maybe make up a cover story if youre an emoloyer with a crackpot to get rid of.

Performance. Downsizing. Etc.

Would that be acting within the spirit of the law?

I don’t think it is, looks like quite the opposite to me, and I would expect any employer behaving in such a fashion to be pulled up on it and it should cost them dearly.

20Wheel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was yourself earlier though who challenged me to point out where you were wrong according to the letter of the law, and now you’re complaining when you perceive someone else is doing the same thing? The LC made their adjudication very much in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Smell of “do as I say, not as I do” off that.

This is an internet chat forum with no practical real life consequences.

Im not calling for the standards of boards to be applied to courts. Are you?

I wouldnt say what i say here in a court because i doubt id find you in a court living out a little vicarious victory like a brexiter telling people 'we won get over it'.

Which is effectively what youve done here. Take any objection and say 'the court ruled its discrimination'.

Which really isnt news.

Would that be acting within the spirit of the law?

I don’t think it is, looks like quite the opposite to me, and I would expect any employer behaving in such a fashion to be pulled up on it and it should cost them dearly.

Dont get caught i guess.
Or just dont come here. Try a country where you dont have to work round a mental bumbling round the office mumbling about Jesus.

This is why temp contracts are so popular.
Safety from horsesht cases like the above.

One eyed Jack

20Wheel wrote: »

This is an internet chat forum with no practical real life consequences.

Im not calling for the standards of boards to be applied to courts. Are you?

I wouldnt say what i say here in a court because i doubt id find you in a court living out a little vicarious victory like a brexiter telling people 'we won get over it'.

Which is effectively what youve done here. Take any objection and say 'the court ruled its discrimination'.

Which really isnt news.

By your own standards, your objections have no standing in Irish law, so what’s your point? There’s no “we won, get over it”, because I’m not that childish.

What there is, is reassurance that should you or I ever find ourselves the victims of discrimination due to our employers incompetence and having suffered a loss of earnings due to our employers thinking they were clever in taking your impractical advice, then we have legal recourse to recover any losses incurred as a result of said employers incompetence!

20Wheel wrote: »

Dont get caught i guess.
Or just dont come here. Try a country where you dont have to work round a mental bumbling round the office mumbling about Jesus.

This is why temp contracts are so popular.
Safety from horsesht cases like the above.

I have no doubt the employer in this particular case thought there was no way that one employee would stand up for themselves when they were being discriminated against. If anything, a case like this shows that in this country we take employment rights seriously and endeavour to root out rogue employers who treat their employees like crap and encourage them to single out and humiliate an employee and subject them to unfair treatment.

Temp contract employees and potential employees are protected by the same equality legislation as permanent employees. Temp contracts wouldn’t have made any difference in the above case.