British Airways cross controversy

British Airways cross controversy refers to a public dispute between British Airways (BA) and one of their employees over its uniform policy. The case has been widely reported in the UK media because various groups have argued that it shows either anti-Christian prejudice in the UK, [cite news | title = Woman to sue BA in necklace row | publisher = BBC News | date = 2006-10-15 | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6052608.stm | accessdate = 2006-11-21 ] or alternatively, favouritism towards people of faith. [cite news | title = Editorial: Christian Bullies Press Their Advantage | publisher = National Secular Society | date = 2006-11-26 | url = http://www.secularism.org.uk/editorialchristianbulliespressth.html | accessdate = 2008-01-22 ] [cite news | title = BA needs defending from religious zealots, not the other way round | publisher = National Secular Society | date = 2008-01-18 | url = http://www.secularism.org.uk/baneedsdefendingfromreligiouszea.html | accessdate = 2008-01-22 ]

Initial dispute

In October 2006, Nadia Eweida, a Christian employee of British Airways, was asked to cover up a necklace which depicted a Christian cross, and was placed on unpaid leave when she refused either to do so or to accept a position where she did not have to cover it up. She was wearing the necklace on the outside of her uniform, contravening BA's uniform policy for jewellery. Eweida planned to sue the airline for religious discrimination. Some Christian groups accused British Airways of double standards, as Sikh and Muslim employees are not prevented from wearing religious garments at work, since these are impractical to cover up. [cite news | title = Woman to sue BA in necklace row | publisher = BBC News | date = 2006-10-15 | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6052608.stm | accessdate = 2006-11-21 ] Though the wearing of garments is required from some faiths, the wearing of jewellery is not in Christianity.

Eweida lost an initial appeal to her employers on 20 November, but publicly stated she would continue to dispute BA's policy, and that she wished to wear the cross to manifest her religion: [cite news | title = Woman loses fight to wear cross | publisher = BBC News | date = 2006-11-20 | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6052608.stm | accessdate = 2006-12-03 ] the BBC quoted her as saying, "It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them." [cite news | title = Archbishop attacks BA cross rules | publisher = BBC News | date = 2006-11-21 | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/6166746.stm | accessdate = 2006-11-25 ]

The National Secular Society declared it sensible for staff handling baggage to be prohibited from wearing jewellery over their uniforms, suggested that Eweida was trying to evangelise in the workplace [cite news | title = BA Should Not Be Bullied Over Jewellery Ban, Especially by Government Ministers | publisher = National Secular Society | date = 2006-11-22 | url = http://www.secularism.org.uk/bashouldnotbebulliedoverjeweller.html | accessdate = 2006-12-01 ] and said that BA should have the right to insist that its uniform is neutral. [cite news | title = Archbishop attacks BA cross rules | publisher = BBC News | date = 2006-11-21 | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/6166746.stm | accessdate = 2006-11-25 ] [cite news | title = Editorial: Christian Bullies Press Their Advantage | publisher = National Secular Society | date = 2006-11-26 | url = http://www.secularism.org.uk/editorialchristianbulliespressth.html | accessdate = 2006-12-01 ]

BA, having had the same policy with regard to jewellery being worn with the uniform for a long time, with which other staff were comfortable, responded to pressure and announced on November 25 a review of its uniform policy which could allow the wearing of a lapel badge. The Archbishop of Canterbury disclosed that the issue had been raised with the Church Commissioners, who look after Anglicans' financial interests. [cite news | title = BA's climbdown follows tirade from archbishop | publisher = Daily Telegraph | date = 2006-11-25 | url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/25/ncross125.xml | accessdate = 2006-12-01 ] The following day Eweida declared that this compromise was unacceptable to her. [cite news | title = BA cross women vows no compromise as 92-per cent of public back her | publisher = ThisisLondon.co.uk | date = 2006-11-26 | url = http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23376019-details/BA%20cross%20women%20vows%20no%20compromise%20as%2092-per%20cent%20of%20public%20back%20her/article.do | accessdate = 2006-12-01 ]

On November 28, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, publicly stated that in his view the issue was not worth BA fighting and that it would be best for the airline "just to do the sensible thing": i.e. allow the cross to be worn. [cite news | title = Blair chides British Airways for fighting employee over cross | publisher = The Guardian | date = 2006-11-28 | url = http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1958474,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 | accessdate = 2006-12-01 ] [cite news | title = Blair advises BA to end cross row | publisher = BBC News | date = 2006-11-27 | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6188606.stm | accessdate = 2006-12-03 ]

BA policy change and subsequent employment tribunal

On January 19, 2007 BA announced that they would in future allow employees to wear a symbol of faith "openly" on a lapel pin, "with some flexibility ... to wear a symbol of faith on a chain". [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6280311.stm] [http://bapress.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/bapress.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=&p_lva=&p_faqid=7314]

Employment tribunal

Despite BA's change of policy, Eweida opted to pursue her case against BA at an employment tribunal, citing the original BA ruling as a form of discrimination against Christians. [cite news | title = BA worker 'speechless' after losing cross case | publisher = The Times | date = 9 January 2008 | url = http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3158620.ece | accessdate = 2008-01-22 ]

On January 8, 2008, after rejecting an out of court settlement offer reported at £8,500, Eweida lost her case. It was rejected on the grounds that she had breached the firm's regulations without good cause. [cite news | title = BA worker loses discrimination case over cross | publisher = The Guardian | date = 9 January 2008 | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2237603,00.html | accessdate = 2008-01-14 ] The tribunal's report highlighted several other issues regarding Eweida's conduct at BA, including refusing to work on Christmas Day and telling a gay man he could still be "redeemed". [cite news | title = A cross to bear | publisher = The Guardian | date = 17 January 2008 | url = http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/terry_sanderson/2008/01/a_cross_to_bear.html | accessdate = 2008-01-22 ]

ubsequent events

While Eweida has indicated that she will continue to fight her employers while retaining her position at the company, [cite news | title = British Airways worker loses discrimination battle to wear crucifix | publisher = Daily Mail | date = 2008-01-09 | url = http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=506963&in_page_id=1770 | accessdate = 2008-01-22 ] BA has since become involved in a second dispute with an employee over religious privilege. Daniel Rosenthal, a customer service agent, has claimed he was disciplined by the airline for refusing to work on Saturdays, the Jewish holy day. [cite news | title = BA needs defending from religious zealots, not the other way round | publisher = National Secular Society | date = 2008-01-18 | url = http://www.secularism.org.uk/baneedsdefendingfromreligiouszea.html | accessdate = 2008-01-22 ]

References

External links

* [http://www.britishairways.com British Airways]