To think this sets a dangerous precedent? Ethical veganism is philosophical belief and is protected by law.

[AlternativePerspective]

Ethical veganism is 'philosophical belief' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

Now, I’m not saying that how someone lives their life shouldn’t be protected. But in this instance the man was dismissed because he found out the pension funds his employers invested in supported animal testing, and then started to spread the word about them.

That was why he was dismissed and that shouldn’t be supported.

After all where does it end? Someone who is a philosophical vegan objects to workmates eating ham sandwiches at their desks so their belief trumps others’ right? Should they be able to demand that someone who needs an assistance dog not be allowed to bring it into work on the basis their beliefs state that it is unethical to keep any animal for any purpose?

Isn’t it just time people lived out their own beliefs for themselves without feeling they should have the right to make others compensate for their beliefs? And I would apply that to any kind of belief system....

PoohBear- He worked for an animal rights charity. I would assume that a large number of his colleagues shared his beliefs and this is the reason why the employer didn’t want him to tell other people that they were investing in companies that tested on animals. I think if the rest of the office were just rolling their eyes at the crazy vegan in the corner then the employer would have been rather less worried about everyone finding out about it.

I agree with Sophie. The protected belief part though is rather .

it was important to him that his employer (league against cruel sports) didn’t invest in companies who conduct animal testing

Wow. You really wouldn't expect that company to invest in animal testing.

The guy may be eccentric but I think he was right to draw attention to that.

Sabine - I do get that but I bet he was a pain all the same. You can all have the same beliefs but find someone difficult to be around.

I appreciate that there were some dubious actions - ethical company pension invests in company that does animal testing. However this company and the type of animal testing is not elaborated upon. It doesn’t explain if it is medical testing or testing dog food on dogs.

From experience, an employee worth keeping will be kept. A company will use any excuse to get rid of a trouble maker. I suspect there’s a whole lot more here than I’d being told. If it was about him bring an ethical vegan (let’s face it it’s very on trend and newsworthy currently) we wouldn’t have heard about it.

What worries me more about this has been brought up by pp, you can’t say anything without offending people which is a minefield in the work place

It’s not surprising that the judge found it was a protected belief as this was uncontested by the employer. He also has an extreme take on being vegan, which isn’t standard.

The tribunal have not reached any decision on whether he was dismissed for this protected belief, or for another reason (which is presumably what the employers are arguing).

The judgement does not mean all vegans are protected, or that vegans can behave however they like. Incidentally, employment tribunal judgements are not binding on other employment tribunals - it has to be a higher court

I also think the judgement in Maya’s case was incoherent, but that was a different tribunal.

So, sneering at a Greggs Vegan Sausage Roll is now a hate crime?

In which case it's a hate crime when vegan's criticise carnivores' choices or is it the usual rubbish where PC is a one way street?

From experience, an employee worth keeping will be kept. A company will use any excuse to get rid of a trouble maker. I suspect there’s a whole lot more here than I’d being told

This ^^. Like PPs I can see why he'd comment on an "animal rights" employer's choices, but it depends how he did it ... and that's something the tribunal are no doubt discussing

On the principle, though, I'm with OP in that "it's time people lived out their own beliefs for themselves without feeling they should have the right to make others compensate for their beliefs"

I can’t figure out exactly why he was sacked

Did he make the info about investments public and therefore break his contract?

So on the one hand we have a religion that thinks women are the property of their husband and can be beaten, being the second class citizens that they are. This religion when practiced outside the UK allows children to be married and sexually abused. This religion also allows the taking of sex slaves.

Then we have another religion that says that women can't have control over their reproductive rights.

Then we get onto the legislation that could end all sports for women, as well as a lot of rights.

The rights of those are OK to be enshrined in law.

But we'll view the people who don't want abuse of animals and horrendous cruelty to them to continue. Who also are concerned about the damage to the planet and the contribution of that industry to world hunger and thirst, as the dangerous ones.

Yes that makes sense.

I can’t wait until someone in Aldi refuses to scan my steak through check outs as it’s against their philosophical belief.

It is actually a good precedent to classify ethical veganism as a philosophy or belief system. Religious freedom falls under the same category. It is perfect because the laws on religious freedom not only protects those who follow the beliefs in question but also those who choose not to believe.
So this protects non vegans from being forced to adopt vegan ethics.

I have a gut feeling that the law about protecting belief systems, is a bad law, is the real underlying problem.

When I wrote to my colleagues to tell them that their pension was being invested in non-ethical funds, and that there were alternatives to the single alternative that the company was suggesting, I was sacked.

Is it "whistleblowing" to email your colleagues to tell them what their pension fund is investing in? I'm surprised that amounted to gross misconduct. Feel like I'm missing some key part of the picture. We need a tabloid newspaper to dig into just exactly what did JC do.

YABU. The ruling was on whether ethical veganism counted as a philosophical belief not on the individual case. The employment tribunal will be held separately. you should not be allowed to discriminate against someone because they are a vegan but that doesn’t mean they get a pass for any and all behaviour which is the point of the tribunal, to establish the facts of this case.

So all he did was tell his colleagues something they could have easily found out?

X post Batqueen
Ah, the ET is separate
Thank you

So, if ethical veganism is a protected belief does that mean that someone in my workplace could object to me wearing my leather boots, putting my leather bag beside my desk and eating my chicken sandwich for lunch? And, if so, I could be the one in the wrong?

Also, if it’s protected, then shouldn’t he have checked how the company pension was invested?

I don’t want a religious pharmacist refusing to dispense contraception, which is where I see this going.

I have vegan boots, i didn’t realise they were vegan when I bought them but I whole heatedly believe they are beautiful misses point entirely, off to dream of more vegan boots

Hey!! The invisible giant spaghetti space monster is not a man!

They haven't yet made a finding as to whether the dismissal was justified: they've just made a finding that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief, which sounds right to me. There is no finding that it was fine for him to blow the whistle on his employers' pension arrangements, but when they decide on that issue they will take the fact that his actions were based on a philosophical belief into account.

If you want to take issue with the principle that philosophical beliefs should be protected, you are taking issue with very long-established legislation. I remember a case years ago when parental preference for single-sex education was found to be a philosophical belief that had to be taken into account, so it's nothing new.

So, if ethical veganism is a protected belief does that mean that someone in my workplace could object to me wearing my leather boots, putting my leather bag beside my desk and eating my chicken sandwich for lunch? And, if so, I could be the one in the wrong?

No. The mere fact that something is a protected belief doesn't mean that you have to take ridiculous steps to tiptoe round it. The
legislation requires reasonable adjustments, with the emphasis on the word "reasonable". No employee can dictate how another employee lives their lives unless they are doing something obviously objectionable: for instance, a Muslim couldn't object to a colleague bringing in a ham sandwich.

Regarding this specific case, I don’t think anyone should be dismissed for questioning pension fund investments. So that seems like the right decision, but agree the protection of vegan rights is about to open a can of worms. And I say that as someone who eats a dairy free diet due to allergy and benefits from the rise of veganism

I remember a case years ago when parental preference for single-sex education was found to be a philosophical belief that had to be taken into account
So does the opposite hold true? If a preference for mixed sex education is genuinely held, must that be taken into account?

So does the opposite hold true? If a preference for mixed sex education is genuinely held, must that be taken into account?

Yes. As with single sex, it doesn't automatically mean the preference has to be met, but if it's a genuine philosophical belief then it should be taken into consideration.

I don’t think anyone should be dismissed for questioning pension fund investments. So that seems like the right decision

They haven't made a decision either way on that issue.