BA Cross

What do you think about the current situation with Nadia Eweida the lady at BA who has lost her fight to openly wear a cross necklace at work?  You can read more about the story on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm (70% of BBC viewers believe that there should be a right to wear a cross at work)

Whatever the final outcome it is clear that this case has not only caused Ms Eweida some distress, but inflicted considerable negative PR for BA at the run up to an important holiday time and certainly not helped overall employee relations.

*

There are a number of important questions arising from this that may help other organisations

1. How well does our uniform policy allow for individual faith needs – for all traditions?
2. Have we actually spoken with individuals about their faith needs in drafting (and reviewing) our uniform policy?  Many organisations write policies as “catch-alls” without consultation.  By asking employees about their faith needs we can ensure a more inclusive approach for all beliefs and a robust policy that is relevant for our organisation, staff and customers.
3. Have we thought about appropriateness?  Is a small cross as an item of jewellery the same as a large crucifix with the figure of Jesus?  What causes offence?  To whom?  How do you know?  (All those from other faiths whom we have spoken to regarding the “BA Cross” have no issue with Ms Eweida – and many support her cross as an appropriate and moderate expression of her Christian faith).
4. How do we review and update all our policies with respect to religious diversity issues – e.g. holiday arrangements, prayer needs, food etc?
5. Have our staff been trained in managing religious diversity in the workplace?  Issues such as consultation with staff, policies that can be adapted with changing situations (e.g. demographics) and creativity, are essential in dealing with the implementation of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

It would be great to hear your views on the "BA Cross" or thoughts on the wider "religion & belief" issues at work

Kind Regards

Des McCabe

Chief Executive

PS  Diversiton is the UK’s leading provider of training in religion & belief.  We offer in-house training programmes and a special trainers pack to enable you to train all your staff.  http://www.diversiton.com/training/packages/religion-belief/

Don’t forget to order your Diversity 2007 calendars.  These include information on the main faith traditions in the UK http://www.diversiton.com/calendar/UKDiversityCalendar2007.asp

* Source of photo http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm

See also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm for Cross row stokes Christian anger

**

** Source of photo http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6051486.stm

Your Responses

Some gay people do find things like crosses unsettling when some (although certainly not all) religious leaders are saying inflammatory and offensive things about them in the media.

BA do seem to have worked strenuously to provide alternative employment in this case in an area where there is no uniform code.

Best wishes

Ben

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I agree with the overarching themes in your narrative.  A sensitive process of consultation against the backcloth of tangible business needs would have probably resulted in a pragmatic win-win situation.  As it is now, BA stands to incur direct, indirect and opportunity costs.  I think if this goes to appeal, there is a chance of success. Schdmit v Austicks Bookshops in 1979 is a good case law authority on "appropriate dress codes" and the right of the employer to set "an appropriate image".  I think too the prevailing political debates about the veil, driven by the forthcoming Labour deputy leadership contest, will have had some influence here. It astonishes me that Jack Straw has not been asked the central question - after 20 years as Blackburn's MP, and before that adviser to his predecessor Barbara Castle, is it only NOW that the veil issue has entered his thought processes!!!! Surely he will have run and/or attended over 1000 surgeries since joining the Blackburn political scene. A really shabby intrusion on his part.

Enough!

Regards William

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Greetings

I was listening to the news last yesterday they said that turbans etc could be worn because they cannot be ‘hid’ under uniforms – why can’t she get a bigger crucifix? Perhaps she should wear some ‘bling’ sized jewellery! Before you know it BA will be saying ‘turbans should be made smaller’ !!!!!! Whatever next!

I know I am not the first to think that BA are being ridiculous poor woman.

Lauretta

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nadia is playing politics or is being used to play politics. She is allowed to wear her cross. A Sikh is allowed to wear a turban. A Muslim women can wear a hijab. So people are equally allowed to wear their emblems. She should size up as should others and stop causing unnecessary difficulties.

Alan Tweedie

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I think that it is really a huge fuss over not very much!  BA are being ridiculous and the lady in question has not shown a cross for all the years she has worked for BA, so what is the big issue now?  It is not necessary to show a cross to prove you are a Christian...it is just a choice she would like to make.  In a sensible scenario, she should be allowed to openly wear it. Sikhs, for example, are able to show their Kara...they are not asked to hide it.  However, there are many more important issues to be focused on that this. This is just the imposition of wearing a uniform taken to a silly degree. 

Kind regards, Tanya Matharu

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am from a Sikh background, I believe that I have a respect for other people's faiths, as long they don't perpetuate hatred like the Islamic, Hindu or Christian extremists.  I believe that everyone has a right to carry or wear their religious articles, I do however support Jack Straw's argument against the veil. 

I think Nadia has been treated totaly unfairly and discriminated against by her employers.  I am appalled at the shameful outcome.  I think she should fight on and not give up. 

With regards

Harminder

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I think if a company has a dress code, then it should be adhered to by employees.  There would have been no problem in her wearing a cross (I assume), the problem was that she wanted to wear it openly.

Lynda Fenton

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I personally believe there should be a totally fair policy. There should be no wearing of religious, political or even charitable preferences, eg Hijab, Turban , a Cross, stickers or lapel badges, even red poppies, at all, OR a tolerance of these emblems for all with common sense and moderation. An employer has no right to differentiate or judge between different personal convictions. For a committed Christian, a Cross is not regarded as jewellery.

Richard Syms

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As a Christian myself, I have mixed feelings about this.

On the face of it, it is discrimination. However, clearly the issues are not just on the surface.

Perhaps the questions needs to be asked about whether the cross should be described as a piece of jewellery, as if yes, then there's no comeback as the organisation has banned all jewellery.

Also, the question needs to be asked about what religious symbols HAVE been allowed, and whether in the light of the answer to that question, it can be shown whether or not Nadia has been treated fairly.

The publicity of this issue does bring to the fore the complexities of what can be attributed to discrimination.

Also, the aesthetic effect on this lady's inner being should be taken into account, as it appears that simply being able to wear the cross as a symbol of her faith is important to her - and that should be enough.

Regards

Liz McGregor

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ms Eweida said people of other faiths were allowed to wear visible religious symbols such as headscarves and she wanted to be allowed to do the same.

This comment nails it really. If others have forced their faith on the public through outward apparel items within BA organization then I see no reason why other faiths should be subjected to concealing their symbolism. It’s possibly been judged by someone who is attempting to be politically correct; I say let the open toe sandal wearing brigade wear their symbol to compete with the headscarf brigade. That will give them equal footing. Sorry for the pun.

Ayesha

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I think that she should obey the dress code - just as everyone else has to, either at work, school or wherever a dress code is in force.  This is what 'uniform' means.

Enid

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For somebody flying a lot, a small cross, could be seen as similar to St Christopher, as provoding, eiythjer real to the person or simply by psychological belief, some form of 'feeling safer' in the air.

regards

Sarah

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I think it is disgraceful – it should offend no-one.

Kathleen Neill

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm appalled. Blatant discrimination against one religion (which happens to be our nationally recognised religion) that should not be tolerated. BA bends over backwards to accommodate other religions but it seems Christianity is the pariah. I wholeheartedly support any action your organisation wishes to take. I shall be boycotting BA until this policy is reversed.

Kath Wood

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I have no problem with it. She can wear the cross on her Lapel. She can wear the cross in hear earings. No one said she can't wear the Cross

Delroy Constantine-Simms

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Its totally wrong!

Will Groves

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

BA has a right to determine whether people wear jewellery or religious artefacts.

As a committed Christian, I have to say that the wearing of a cross does not necessarily suggest that those wearing it are wearing it as a symbol of their faith or commitment to their faith. One has only to look around at people who are wearing a cross and chain and their behaviour tends to suggest that they are not acting in a 'Christ -like' manner.

I do not know Nadia Eweida - I have read some newspaper reports - or all the facts surrounding this case - but if she is wearing this as a symbol of her faith, then under equal opportunities she should have the same rights as Muslims, Sikhs and of the Jewish faith to wear emblems of their faith.

Stephen Nightingale        

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This isn't right or rational.

1)  Companies should either allow jewellery or not depending on things like interface with the public and safety.

2)  If we allow people to express their religion in what they wear, we must allow a cross to be worn to be consistent.

3)  We should accept that it can be inappropriate for some religious items to be worn because it inhibits their ability to do the job - e.g. full face veil for a classroom assistant.

4)  Some items of clothing are not appropriate for health and safety reasons, e.g.  jewellery when operating machines, turban when using motorcycle or employed on building site, etc.  I don't want to be rescued from drowning by a beach lifeguard trying to swim wearing a hijab !

Anthony

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I think send her, and all who judge her light and love.  Enmity breeds enmity.  We must break the chain.

Jane Zhu

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thank you for asking.  I think she should have been allowed to wear a cross.

Yours sincerely,

Flo Clucas

The situation is absurd. Those who don't know what they are talking about or deliberately to mislead will claim this is to do with equality or has been forced on BA by Human Rights legislation or Europe but it is just BA coming up with a daft policy.

Kiron Reid.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Would we be happy for BA employees to wear openly a swastika's??

Reg

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Personally I find it utterly disgusting and will not fly with British Airways ever again!

Kathryn Shaw

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thank you for your recent email regarding the current situation with the employee of British Airways Nadia Eweida who has been disciplined because of her desire to wear a Christian cross on a necklace at her place of work. 

I have previously raised this matter in the House of Commons and I tabled a Motion that criticised the attitude of British Airways on this important issue.  I believe that the treatment of this lady represents discrimination against Christians.

I am working closely with other Members of Parliament to press British Airways to change their decision on this matter and to permit Nadia and other employees to have the freedom to wear a cross if that is their desire.

Thank you for taking the time to be in touch with me about this important issue.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Donaldson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am personally very disappointed with BA stance toward Nadia’s cross necklace. I will not use BA services for the moment.

Irena.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is purely a personal response. I am still a little unclear about the exact grounds of the objection by BA.

If the necklace and the pendant were a cause for health and safety concern to the wearer or impeded her ability to carry out her work, then and only then does BA has a right to be concerned and intervene

If the necklace and the pendant made the wearer act in a manner which was detrimental to the business of the organization, then and only then does BA has a right to be concerned and intervene

If the necklace and the pendant identified some aspect of the wearers personal and private life then, BA DOES NOT have the right to be either concerned or interfere.  If they are saying this is the reason then they need to be banning wedding rings on necklaces, any religious based pendant (gothic right through to mainstream), breast cancer ribbons, sexuality symbols and the like. If they are objecting to physical signs of faith well then they are in hot water because that must also include items of clothing (and that in itself is a hornets nest).

The main problem is that we have all become so politically correct that we have lost the ability to have open and honest debate and exchange of thoughts, views and ideas. I may not agree with your point but, it is important that I know what it is and like you need to know my points. As long as our respective views do not bring about the domination of one above the one but, mutual respect and integrity then all is not lost.

Regards

Sharon Palmer

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am personally very disappointed with BA attitude toward Nadia’s cross necklace. I want to ask why they are providing there own small logos to wear on the staff jackets they should not be allowed. I do not use BA since 1992 after one of the incident with my 6 month baby. BA have a big name on the other side very poor thinking in the favour of persons personnel Belief.

Pritam

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The situation regarding Nadia Eweida seems more straightforward to me than some of the coverage it’s received might suggest:

1. If BA includes in its dress code a ‘no jewellery’ requirement, which it is entitled to do, and this requirement applies equally to all employees, then BA has no case to answer, UNLESS
2. BA enforces the requirement in such a way that it includes items worn as religious requirements (i.e. based on sacred text or authority and generally accepted among scholars and adherents), such as the Sikh kara (the steel bangle), in which case an employee might have grounds for a complaint on the grounds of Indirect Discrimination under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, BUT
3. There is no religious requirement for Christians to wear a cross or any other sign or symbol of their faith – it is a matter of personal preference - and therefore this is not a case of discrimination on the grounds of Religion or Belief.  HOWEVER
4. Canon Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director of the Barnabas Fund, asserts (in an email to me) that Nadia Eweida is an Egyptian Coptic Christian, and that the wearing of a cross is ‘an essential of [sic] part of her faith’, BUT
5. This is not quite the same as it being a religious requirement, AND
6. I have so far found no authority for this assertion

It certainly does not appear to be true, at least in any legal sense, that BA is guilty of discriminating against Christians specifically.  The company might, however, be encouraged to review its dress code as it relates to items worn for symbolic rather than aesthetic reasons, especially in the light of current heightened religious awareness. 

I found the Barnabas Fund’s headline, ‘Cross defined as non-essential to Christian faith’ (see http://www.barnabasfund.org/archivenews/article.php?ID_news_items=228) – misleading (to say the least) since it appears to imply that BA was making a theological statement. Best wishes,   

Robert Beard

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Other useful links…

• Tony Blair and Muslim veils
• General course dates
• Course Content
• £10,000 fine for religious discrimination
• Key Topics
• Book Now