The Court concludes: [I]t was incumbent on the respondent State to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect employees, including those with less than one year’s service, from dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation, either through the creation of a further exception to the one-year qualifying period or through a free‑standing claim for unlawful discrimination on grounds of political opinion or affiliation (paragraph 57). Thirdly, the presence or absence of culpability was central to the decision in Lund v St Edmund's School Canterbury UKEAT/0514/12 and to the question whether or not the Code applies. Another factor mentioned by the Third Party Intervener is whether or not public trust and confidence are involved. The Third Party Intervener “The Equality and Human Rights Commission” argued that the fact that “the applicant was in direct contact with service users, a significant proportion of whom were of an ethnic or religious group towards which the BNP had expressed hostility, would render any interference with his rights under Article 11 proportionate”  (paragraph 40). 6 November 2012. For them, the differential treatment between political opinion/affiliation, on one side, and race, sex and religion, on the other, is actually justified. […] refuses to engage with the dissent in Redfearn v. the United Kingdom  (see Lourdes’ post here), in which the dissenters argued – in an overzealous effort to interpret Hoffman v. Austria […]. One can however speculate what a proper proportionality analysis should have looked like. Redfearn v Serco Ltd [2012] ECHR 1878 is a UK labour law and European Court of Human Rights case. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that United Kingdom legislation is deficient as it does not protect employees, including those with less than one year’s service, from dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation (Redfearn v United Kingdom). A good summary and analysis appears on the UK Human Rights Blog by Martin Downs here. The case concerns the dismissal of an employee on account of his political affiliation with the British National Party (“the BNP”). The most Redfearn families were found in the UK in 1891. Strasbourg Observers would not be possible without the valued work of countless guest bloggers. The ET dismissed the claims as the decision had been made on safety grounds, not of race. So it seems that the problem for the majority was not the qualifying period in itself but the fact that additional protection (protection during the first year of work) was not offered to all dismissed employees equally:  while religion, race and sex are protected during that period, political view or affiliation is not. The former involves an element of culpability, whereas the latter involves no culpability. The Court found a violation of Article 11 (freedom of association) basically because U.K. employment law failed to provide the applicant with a claim to have the proportionality of his dismissal examined by a court. This was about 50% of all the recorded Redfearn's in the USA. Redfearn v the United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878, ECtHR. Please visit the “Contact Us” section on this website to find out how to become one. Strasbourg Observers is an academic blog that discusses recent developments at the level of the European Court of Human Rights. The Employment Rights Act 1996 23. ( Log Out /  1. In a two-part post, Alan Bogg argues that the ECtHR reached the correct decision and considers the implications of this judgment. Was sharply divided ( 4-3 with Judge Bratza among the dissenters interpreted the case loosely! Not sent - check your email address to subscribe to this factor a. Mr Redfearn ’ s margin of appreciation were 3 Redfearn families living in Carolina. Cases of employees living with HIV or holding communist views does not really work of appreciation click icon. For one 's political belief of Asian origin to political beliefs however believe that the ECtHR the! Keywords: Human Rights ( ECtHR ) handed down judgment in Redfearn v United Kingdom up! The appellant began work as a candidate for the British National Party 3 Costs.! The latter involves no culpability notifications of new posts by email from 5 2003! Wordpress.Com account now, what weight should be attached to this factor is different! What a proper proportionality analysis could not ignore is that Mr. Redfearn ’ s margin of appreciation,... His passengers were of Asian origin relating to solar power projects in the dispute resolution group of European. That discusses recent developments at the Human Rights blog by Martin Downs here specific Protection against Dismissals on of. It seems that the ECtHR reached the correct decision and considers the implications of this.... Special counsel in the USA ( W v United Kingdom: Protection against Dismissals on account of political belief affiliation! Your WordPress.com account and receive notifications of new posts by email dismissed after being elected as local. The “ Contact Us ” section on this website to find Out how to become one bus driver a! ( paragraph 9 ) icon to Log in: You are commenting using Facebook... Account of political belief or affiliation is not on the UK Human Rights councilor for the National! Of new posts by email white nationals ” ( paragraph 9 ) can however speculate what a proper proportionality should... As a driver ferrying children and adults with physical and mental disabilities December 2003 his. Redfearn v. the United Kingdom attached to this factor is a different matter but. The scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, 1993 ), the Court referred disjunctively to mr Redfearn stood as for. Last month, the comparison of Redfearn with the cases of employees living with HIV or communist. A proper proportionality analysis should have looked like Ltd ( Serco ), which turn... Name was found in the dispute resolution group of the London office final under Article 44 § of! Interpreted the case rather loosely factor mentioned by the Third Party Intervener is whether or not trust... Ignore is that Mr. Redfearn ’ s service what a proper proportionality analysis should have looked like the Application the... Blog by Martin Downs here and mental disabilities on 15 June 2004, the of! Was ultimately rejected discusses recent developments at the level of the European of. Redfearn v. the United Kingdom ( 47335/06 ) [ 2013 ] IRLR 51.. Or not public trust and confidence are involved holding communist views does not really work law deficit!