News Feed
Refusal to take time off to attend mosque was not religious discrimination.
Cherfi worked for G4S Security Services Ltd as a security guard, at a site where the employer was contracted to provide safety and security services. The contract required a specified number of security officers to be on site for the full duration of operating hours. Due to this, all security officers working on the site were required to remain on site throughout their shifts.
Cherfi is a Muslim. He requested permission to leave the site in the middle of the day on Fridays to attend a mosque. This permission was refused because G4S was concerned that their contract would be in danger of termination if the full complement of security officers was not on site throughout the hours of operation. Cherfi had previously worked for G4S on a different site, where it had been possible for him to leave on Fridays to attend a mosque.
G4S offered a number of alternative solutions, including offering a shift pattern of Monday- Thursday and then working a Saturday or Sunday in addition. However, Cherfi was not prepared to accept any alternatives. From October 2008, Cherfi did not work on Fridays, taking the time off as authorised annual leave, sick leave or unauthorised leave. He was informed that this situation could not continue.
He then brought a claim of indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion. The Employment Tribunal, in a decision that was later supported by the Employment Appeals Tribunal, rejected the claim. The requirement to remain at work for the full shift was a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. If the full complement of security guards was not present, G4S was in danger of losing the contract. The costs of employing another guard just to cover the time that Cherfi would be absent at the mosque was prohibitive.
Comment for Employers:
In this case the employer did try to find a way to accommodate the needs of the employee, by offering a different shift pattern. However, the important point is that requirement to have all security guards present for the full shift was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Hence, any disadvantage that those observing Islamic practices might suffer through the requirement was not indirect discrimination.
