Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: August 5, 2011
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 14 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
In Cherfi v G4S Security Services Ltd, it has been determined that if an employer can show genuine and justifiable reasons based on costs that a company has chosen to implement a particular policy, that would but for the cost implications be seen as direct discrimination, it will not be.
The above case involves a security company, who used to allow a particular employee to have Friday afternoons off to attend service at his local mosque. The employer could no longer facilitate this as they needed to have two guards on duty at all times, and it was too costly to allow him the time off without him making it up elsewhere. They offered to change the employees working pattern so that he could have Fridays off and work a weekend day instead, but the employee refused and made a claim for unfair dismissal.
The tribunal held that the cost implication on the employer to allow the employee to continue in this manner was disproportionate, thus making the policy fair. The employee’s case failed on the basis of economical consideration.
