Human Rights and Employment Law

Human rights law has played a significant role in shaping UK employment law.

Some landmark cases have clarified how human rights principles, particularly under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), apply in the workplace.

Below are some of the main areas and key cases where human rights principles have intersected with UK employment law:

1. Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion (Article 9 ECHR)

Eweida and Others v United Kingdom (2013)

• Facts: Ms. Eweida, a British Airways employee, was prohibited from wearing a visible cross at work, which she argued was an expression of her Christian faith. Other claimants in the case raised similar issues about religious expression in the workplace.
• Outcome: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in favor of Ms. Eweida, finding that the employer’s actions were disproportionate and interfered with her right to religious expression.
• Significance: Employers must balance workplace policies with employees’ rights to manifest their religion, ensuring that restrictions are justified and proportionate.

2. Freedom of Expression (Article 10 ECHR)

Smith v Trafford Housing Trust (2012)

• Facts: A housing trust employee was demoted for posting comments on Facebook opposing same-sex marriage, which the employer claimed breached its equality and diversity policy.
• Outcome: The High Court ruled that Mr. Smith’s comments were not so offensive as to justify demotion, upholding his right to freedom of expression.
• Significance: Employers must carefully consider whether disciplinary actions for employees’ personal views on social media infringe on their Article 10 rights.

3. Right to Private and Family Life (Article 8 ECHR)

Barbulescu v Romania (2017)

• Facts: An employee was dismissed for using a work email account for personal communications. The employer had monitored the communications without informing him.
• Outcome: The ECtHR ruled that the dismissal violated Article 8 because the employer failed to provide clear notice of monitoring.
• Significance: Employers must respect employees’ privacy and inform them of monitoring policies to comply with Article 8.

4. Right to Freedom of Assembly and Association (Article 11 ECHR)

Redfearn v United Kingdom (2012)

• Facts: A bus driver was dismissed because he was elected as a councillor for the British National Party (BNP), which the employer claimed could harm its reputation.
• Outcome: The ECtHR ruled that the UK failed to protect Mr. Redfearn’s right to freedom of association, as his dismissal was not justified by the nature of his political affiliation.
• Significance: Employees are entitled to political freedoms, and employers must carefully justify any restrictions based on potential harm to the business.

5. Discrimination and Equality (Article 14 ECHR)

Bull and Another v Hall and Another (2013)

• Facts: A Christian couple refused to allow a same-sex couple to stay in their B&B, citing their religious beliefs.
• Outcome: The UK Supreme Court ruled this was unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, balancing freedom of religion with equality rights.
• Significance: Article 14 ensures that employees (and service providers) cannot use personal beliefs to justify discriminatory behavior.

6. Whistleblowing and Public Interest Protections

Heinisch v Germany (2011)

• Facts: A nurse was dismissed after whistleblowing about poor conditions in her workplace.
• Outcome: The ECtHR ruled that her dismissal violated her freedom of expression under Article 10.
• Significance: Whistleblowing in the public interest is protected under both UK law and human rights principles.

7. Disability Discrimination and Human Dignity

Cordell v Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2011)

• Facts: A deaf diplomat’s request for funding for sign language interpreters was refused, making it impossible for her to continue in her role.
• Outcome: The Employment Tribunal upheld the employer’s decision but highlighted the importance of dignity and reasonable accommodation in such cases.
• Significance: This case raises questions about balancing financial constraints with the duty to accommodate employees under equality and human rights laws.

8. Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6 ECHR)

R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017)

• Facts: UNISON challenged the introduction of employment tribunal fees, arguing they restricted access to justice.
• Outcome: The UK Supreme Court ruled the fees unlawful as they breached the right to a fair trial.
• Significance: The case reinforced the principle that financial barriers to justice are incompatible with fundamental human rights.

These cases highlight the delicate balance between employees’ human rights and employers’ legitimate business interests. UK courts have increasingly emphasised proportionality, transparency, and the need to justify any restrictions placed on employees’ rights.

How we can help

If you require help, we offer a no-cost, no-obligation 20-minute introductory call as a starting point and in some cases where appropriate, a fixed fee appointment.

Please email wewillhelp@jonathanlea.net providing us with any relevant information ensuring that any call we have is as productive as possible. After this call, we can then email you a scope of work, fee estimate, and confirmation of any other points or information mentioned on the call.

This article is intended for general information only, applies to the law at the time of publication, is not specific to the facts of your case and is not intended to be a replacement for legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before relying on any of the information given. © Jonathan Lea Limited.