to think that this is religous discrimination.

[reallytired]

It seems over the top to have an investigation and threats of disciplinary action.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-13108578

If the company really objects to a palm cross then surely they could just ask him to remove it. Unless he has repeatly ignored reminders not to have personal artifacts in his van, then it seems a bit heavy handed.

I think the tenant who complained is just plain malicious. Its not as if a palm cross was hurting anyone.

Would this company allow a muslim electrician to carry a prayer mat in his van?

I think that this company need to do a spot check to see that EVERY van is clear of personal artifacts during the working day.

Let's face it, the rule is pretty pathetic in the first place if they don't follow it through into the offices too. If they are trying to be seen as a 'neutral' company and not Christian then they shouldn't be allowed any kind of religious artifact anywhere. However, that in itself then becomes religious discrimination as you are not allowing people the freedom to express themselves some might say.
Personally, I would be happy to clear all signs of religions/beliefs out of the workplace altogether. You are all there to do a job no matter what your race, religion, sexual orientation etc. None of these factors should have any bearing on the working day.

mayorquimby well put.

"take the word christain out of it and lets just use the words personal items on display.

One person is allowed his personal items on display and the other isn't. Are they both being treated equally?"

If that was what was happening yes, but once again you've taken out the main body of the rule. No personal items on display in company vehicles. Now if one person was allowed to display a personal item in a company vehicle and another wasn't then yes that would be being treated unfairly and disproportionately targetting one of the employees. That's not what has happened here.
All employees are allowed to display personal items in the office. No employees are allowed to display personal items in company vehicles.

The man's not being unfairly treated. He can wear a cross if he likes.

The Wolfie Smith who manages him should take that bloody poster down though.

Flaunting Che Guevara memorabilia past the age of 20 is not showing solidarity with revolutionary principles. It's the sign of a wanker.

I used to work in a housing related job. There are very different rules for how we acted within the office, what we displayed on and around our desks and what kind of things we talked about, from when we were out on visits talking to and presenting ourselves to clients who are often vulnerable people whose homes we are visiting.

So it makes complete sense that the public facing housing association staff like electricians on visits are expected to present the company in a way that isn't personally about them as an individual. It is part of the understanding of staff-client boundaries that people sign up to in their contract when they work for a housing association or related organisation.

If other members of staff have been allowed to display items in their vans and this man has been targeted because of his religion, then his legal team will win the case and he will be compensated. If, on the other hand, all people who have displayed personal items have been treated in the same way, then the man will not have a case.

The fact that the company is moving forward with disciplinary procedures is perfectly normal. He was given a first verbal warning, which he ignored. So they move on the next step. There are a number of further sanctions between one verbal warning and being sacked, so there is no reason to believe he is going to lose his job over this issue.

limited.. agree, but it's not a religious artefact is it?

I would have no problem with it if it covered everyone for all personal items both in offices and work vans.

Issue one work uniform which must be worn by all with no alterations. No adding to it or no personal statements by way of badges ect.

As it stands the rule applies as follows:
3 employees Mr. A (a christian), Mr. B (A Muslim) and Mr.C (an aethiest) have similar roles which see their job loads split between their respective offices and also going to deal with on-site issues for which they use a company vehicle.
In their offices
Person A may display a Cross or other Christian artefacts
Person B may display Muslim artefacts (once again my ignorance is showing as I don't know what the traditional items are for display by Muslims)
Person C can have a poster of The Strokes (cause he has awesom taste in music)

when they are travelling to sites in their company vehicle
Person A can display no personal items
Person B can display no personal items
Person C can display no personal items

But yeah, Christians are being disproportionately targetted.
By all means slag off the rules as being pc-gone mad or the distinction between office and van arbitrary and illogical. But to try and paint this as a anti-christian issue is just non-sensical.

mayourquimby I get your point re the workplace maybe not open to the public therefore items being allowed on desks however this makes the company a bunch of hypocrites. In one breath they're publically telling the world 'we're neutral' when behind closed doors there could be 5 peeple working in the office of different religions with a variety of artifacts on their desks. They basically have no balls at the end of the day to speak out in public and say something on the lines that their company is multicultural and tolerant and they accept the many varied beliefs within the company which it's employees have (whether christian,muslim or jew) and support them in their individual beliefs.

By asking individuals to hide emblems, and that it what they are doing essentially, they are making religion more of a taboo subject.

But, as we're in the real world and this isn't going to happen then it's best to stick to the clear desk policy!!!

So you'd have no problem with someone displaying different beliefs on a work van.

They're not asking him to 'hide emblems' - he could wear a cross - they're asking him not to assign religious belief to a transit.

MaisyMooCow, I think you hit on the crucial point when you said You are all there to do a job no matter what your race, religion, sexual orientation etc. None of these factors should have any bearing on the working day.

He can wear the cross. Wear it fgs. He just can't stick it to a van that doesn't belong to him.

And although a poster of Che Guevara may be in poor taste, it is NOT a religious artefact.

Also, as others have added, if you take the religious aspect out of it altogether and discuss 'personal' belongings, how seriously would the company have taken it had I been offended at a copy of the Daily Sport being on the dashboard showing a scantilly clad woman. I bet he would have only had his hand slapped, it wouldn't have got to disciplinary.

The company feel as though they have to be seen to be doing something about it hense the disciplinary.

"mayourquimby I get your point re the workplace maybe not open to the public therefore items being allowed on desks however this makes the company a bunch of hypocrites. In one breath they're publically telling the world 'we're neutral' when behind closed doors there could be 5 peeple working in the office of different religions with a variety of artifacts on their desks."

I see your reasoning but I'm not sure I'd agree with you. To my mind it doesn't make them hypocritical nor does it preclude them from having their neutral status. In allowing members of staff equal freedom with regards to their own personal work-spaces I think they retain their neutrality, in a similar way to which they are happy for their van drivers to wear personal items or religious artefacts. What they are doing is trying to stop the connection between any particular stance/ideology and official company properties or logos. So they have no problem with a van driver being identified by the public as being religion x/y/z in their personal capacity but they do not want any items to become connected with the company logo or properties.

The difference between an office and a van isn't arbitrary. Clients can't go into most housing association staff office areas because confidential files are stored there, and may be open on staff desks. Clients visiting the offices are taken into neutral interview areas or a front desk where a Che poster would clearly be inappropriate.

This is clearly different than representing the company by turning up at someone's house in a company van, and requesting to be let into the home of a potentially vulnerable person.

In much the same way someone working in counselling will deal with the client very differently to how she presents herself to her colleagues; it isn't hypocrisy - it is merely adopting different levels of boundaries in different situations.

No diabolo it's not. I was being flippant

Seriously though, personal items in offices, beyond a single family photo, don't look professional. And that poster in particular makes me question the man's maturity.

I operate a completely clean desk policy. Mainly so if I was ever sacked I could make a dignified exit rather than scrabbling around picking up gonks and novelty pencil tops.

I think the driver is being performance-managed out of his job. No idea whether that's fair or not. He is handing it to them on a plate though.

He is 64. What on earth would be the point of performance managing him out when he is coming up to retirement and will still be entitled to his pension?

I don't see the difference in the company not allowing an item in the van but allowing a person to attach a pin to their uniform. The uniform as well as the van are a representation of the company therefore if someone is wearing a religious emblem on their clothing they are still sending the same message to the customer as they would be if the item was on the dashboard.

Both van and uniform are the same thing.

"MIFLAW I remember when there were other minority groups in this country and we had to jump through hoops to include them. I find your comments harsh, we are supposed to be working towards tollerance to all people."

We are indeed. Which is why he is not being persecuted, publicly stoned, or stripped of his position or human rights by virtue of being a Christian. And I, as an agnostic atheist, have previously and continue to jump through hoops for this man and his many brethren who talk what I consider to be nonsense about god in my presence without once telling them to shut up or piss off.

So tolerance is pretty much a given in this case.

What he does not have the right to do is plaster religious tat over a company vehicle in which he will be visiting people of all faiths and none. Now from what I can see from the story so far, NO ONE in the firm has the right to do this. They can decorate their offices with religious tat (and that, believe me, is annoying enough for co-workers who do not share a given faith); but they cannot have it on their vehicles. And I do ont see why a company SHOULD have to tolerate that, because it's their van, their rules. (It's also their office, their rules, and they've chosen to have different rules in the office and in the vans.)

He HAS tolerance; what he wants - and, thankfully, isn't getting - is preferential treatment.

I wonder if David Brent is the manager of this office, he's the type to have a pathetic motivational poster on the wall!

I'd have a lot of time for that point and would completely agree with you. I think we'd need a bit more clarification on the companies interpretation on what constitutes 'wearing' personal items as I had assumed it related to jewellery/piercings/headscarfs etc. but if it extended to allowing employees to attach items be they pins/patches/badges to official company uniform then I would fail to see the logic in differentiating that from displaying an item on the van.

What is in an office isn't part of the public face of an organisation. A van is. This is why Sales people where suits, bus drivers wear uniforms, and IT staff wear jeans.

Maisy you've no proof that someone with a copy of the Star on the dashboard wouldn't be told to remove it. They probably would. My BIL has a building company. He's not bothered by his employees' reading matter. However, he knows some of his customers would be so he asks them not to display it. That's all that's happening here.

limited my point is that this story has hit the news only because of the religious content. Had it been related to a newspaper complaint we wouldn't hear a thing about it. It's another example of media hype drumming up more trouble and unrest throughout the community.