Religious Recruitment - Legal?

The answer to any religious question is, of course, ‘Well, that would be an ecumenical matter’.

Drink!

sure, good points. It's not about money though it's about what organisations are legally allowed to say in ads, and choose at interview.

Quite some contradiction that, isn’t it?

Not really - the first part is you need to be a Christian before they give you any money, the second part is they don't care what religion you are if you're giving them money.

Interesting stuff. The other thing that is nuts is how many qualifications they are looking for, and the level of management responsibility, for £23k a year.

Say what now? How much? Ok, I guess if the applicant is single without a mortgage or anything. Suit a religious studies student straight from college or uni.

Would it be acceptable to do the opposite? Set up an atheist organisation and deliberately not recruit anyone who is at all religious?

Well, there’s the Satanic Temple; they are non-judgmental, and fully support the LGBTQ+ community. I keep meaning to fully join and get my membership card and a tee shirt.

I’m not sure how you’d fix a broken boiler without the laying on of hands…

Chapeau! 🎩

The answer to any religious question is, of course, ‘Well, that would be an ecumenical matter’.

Oh, well done! 🍷

I’d assume that the outdoors instructor might need to believe in the raising of the dead. It would certainly save a lot of boring safety procedures.

At some point someone will ask something like why did Jesus kill my gran or baby sister or why does god give kids cancer.
It would be unreasonable to either expect someone to lie and pretend some sky fairy exists and unreasonable on the kids to burst their bubble with the truth

Well, there’s the Satanic Temple; they are non-judgmental, and fully support the LGBTQ+ community. I keep meaning to fully join and get my membership card and a tee shirt.

I've just checked it out, and my (Christian) MiL would really love me to wear one of those t-shirts! (She doesn't like halloween, Harry Potter..) 😀

Jesus saves, but so do buoyancy aids and climbing helmets…

reminds of a joke...

A religious man was drowning in the middle of the sea.
A boat stopped by and the sailor said:
"Hey there, do you need help?"

"I sent you two boats you idiot."

I'm reminded of a former workmate who before joining us had failed to get into a Roman Catholic teacher training college. Her interview involved a bit of back and forth which it turned out was establishing whether she was RC. When asked her religon "Christian" wasn't the right answer. As a Christian of Indian origin who wasn't that long in the UK she hadn't appreciated the ins and outs of our Christian sects.

hadn’t appreciated the ins and outs of our Christian sects.

Clearly not altar boy material then.

Would it be acceptable to do the opposite? Set up an atheist organisation and deliberately not recruit anyone who is at all religious?

Does atheism rank equal to religion as a protected characteristic? If so, yes!

I worked in a Local Authority run and funded, but Denominational (RC) school. I was an employee of the LA.

I held an 'acting' promoted post for 5 and a half years. When the job was advertised on a permanent basis, the local Bishop, who had never met me, not raised any concerns during the previous five and a half years, blocked my application. I was denied even the chance to be interviewed for the role that I had been doing, with no complaints from pupils, parents, colleagues, the LA, or the even the Church for over half a decade.

For a body that places so much store in "values", that stinks. Imoved elsewhere and never looked back.

Rock are a Christian charity and all staff are Christian, quite strongly so some of them. Rather unsurprisingly they’re very nice guys and do a lot of good. Yes, it’s perfectly legal.

Interestingly the local CoE schools that use the centre don't require their teachers to be Christian, only to follow christian values

Rock are a Christian charity and all staff are Christian, quite strongly so some of them. Rather unsurprisingly they’re very nice guys and do a lot of good. Yes, it’s perfectly legal.

^ that. I've good friends who have worked for RockUK, and I've worked for the competition at Abernethy and (now non existent) Tarf Trust.

It's legal and normal. Falls under protected characteristics. Plus, if you didn't have a faith, why would you want to work there?

The bigger issue you should all be upset by is the shockingly low pay across outdoor industry and the low levels of competence and qualifications in some of the larger centres who never leave site. Pay peanuts, get a monkey. But then ask everyone to send their dahlings there for a week under a poorly trained, low paid "groupie" or "gapper"....

Interesting thread- I have a close family member who works at one of the Rock centres, and my biggest concern is now how little they are paid for what they do, compared to my non-managerial desk job!

if you didn’t have a faith, why would you want to work there?

Because you need a job, are qualified, and are passionate about their supposed primary purpose of educating outdoors?

Because you need a job, are qualified, and are passionate about their supposed primary purpose of educating outdoors?

Indeed. There's a dozen other outdoor centres in the area. They pay more too.

Ah sorry I thought the OP said that opportunities locally were sparse.

Indeed. There’s a dozen other outdoor centres in the area. They pay more too.

This is Newcastleton, it’s very isolated with few employers in the area, the next nearest outdoor centre is Calvert in Kielder. Nothing else at all in the area, not accurate at all to say there are a dozen other centres in the area.

It’s legal and normal. Falls under protected characteristics.

A "protected characteristic" being something that you cannot discriminate against, not something that you can discriminate in favour of.

I'm opening a childcare centre next week and I'm only employing heterosexual women of childbearing age.

Plus, if you didn’t have a faith, why would you want to work there?

Because it's a role wholly independent of a belief system? I can't erect a tent because I don't believe in god, said no-one ever.

Interesting thread- I have a close family member who works at one of the Rock centres, and my biggest concern is now how little they are paid for what they do, compared to my non-managerial desk job!

They have the love of Jesus to compensate. Win some, lose some.

if you didn’t have a faith, why would you want to work there?

At one level that's innocuous and at another one of the most disturbing comments I've read in a long time.

Is this a Marie Antionette moment ??? or is it as a prefer to believe Matt trying to justify to himself why he does this for shit pay?

^ that. I’ve good friends who have worked for RockUK, and I’ve worked for the competition at Abernethy and (now non existent) Tarf Trust.

So what afterlife insurance are the competition selling or more to the point really what is actually going on at these outdoor pursuit centres?

Their website says open to all faiths or something... so assuming they perhaps start the day with some sort of prayer presumably those customers who don't share the faith can just opt out?? So why wouldn't/shouldn't the staff who don't share the faith also opt out?

I don't there's any suggestion that some-one who doesn't believe can't do the job. The employers have just stated that they will discriminate (legally) towards candidates that can demonstrate shared beliefs and against candidates that cannot.

Seems perfectly straightforward?

I don’t there’s any suggestion that some-one who doesn’t believe can’t do the job.

Read the job adverts (or this post), all bar one say exactly that.

The employers have just stated that they will discriminate (legally) towards candidates that can demonstrate shared beliefs and against candidates that cannot.

If a candidate's religious beliefs aren't directly relevant to the job role then it is unlawful to even ask the candidate what their religious beliefs are. For exactly that reason, it enables discrimination.

If the role involves some sort of spiritual guidance then being of a given faith seems a reasonable requirement. But compare the wording on the first two jobs listed on the page linked earlier:

"Maintenance Technician
The successful candidate will need to have an understanding of the organisation’s Christian ethos and a willingness to work within an environment that seeks to promote that ethos."

This sounds perfectly reasonable, right? You're working for a Christian organisation and expected to follow their "Christian ethos" (whatever that is, it doesn't appear to be explained anywhere). There's little difference here between this statement and most other 'corporate values' drink-the-Kool-Aid bollocks.

"Administrator
This role is subject to an Occupational Requirement (OR) that the successful applicant is a Christian who is committed to the values, beliefs and behaviours set out in our ethos statement."

Here though... this is an admin role, why is a particular religious belief a requirement in order to answer the phone and take bookings? This is surely shaky ground legally.

All the other vacancies have the latter wording. I can kinda see the justification with the instructors, in a slightly uncomfortable "captive audience of impressionable minds" sort of way (though it does look an awful lot like C&P boilerplate text rather than having had any thought put into it). But what's the justification with the Admin role above, "OK Mr Smith, that's a family of five booked in for 3pm on Saturday; just one more thing before you go, have you heard the good news about Jesus?"

Have a look at the legislation Cougar. This type of discrimination is legal provided certain conditions are met. I suspect rock uk are on the edge of what is acceptable legally but i couldn't find the right legislation or guidelines

I can’t erect a tent because I don’t believe in god, said no-one ever.

Anyone who has enjoyed the spectator sport of watching couples/families erect a tent on a campsite, especially in wind, rain, or with the "assistance" of children, will be well aware that Jesus Christ is invoked regularly throughout the process.

Jesus saves - but Simon Peter scores from the rebound.

Cougar

This sounds perfectly reasonable, right? You’re working for a Christian organisation and expected to follow their “Christian ethos” (whatever that is, it doesn’t appear to be explained anywhere). There’s little difference here between this statement and most other ‘corporate values’ drink-the-Kool-Aid bollocks.

I think if organisations want to act on not having drunk their very specific coolaid they need to provide training ??
An engineer for example might be required to have a good working knowledge of ISO 123456 or IEEE best practice for x,y,z but not for example know their parking policies. (for example reverse parking)

I can kinda see the justification with the instructors, in a slightly uncomfortable “captive audience of impressionable minds” sort of way

Except their wesite say's (the customers) can be of all faiths and non. (and even the customers bit is vague)

GUIDED BY FAITH
Rock UK is a Christian charity who have a passion to invest in young people. We welcome people of all faiths and none and provide a safe and friendly environment for them to be themselves.

Im astonished that anyone would think it is not ok for a Christian organisation to want to hire Christians in roles like this. To me, this shows a total lack of appreciation of just about any faith based organisation. I get that the UK is secular. And most people are extremely distanced from religion, and so have very little understanding or appreciation of religious organisations. But this thread shows a lack of willingness by many folks to appreciate or understand faith issues.

But even so, Honestly, I’m flabbergasted that anyone would think there is a problem with an organisation like this wanting to ensure they recruit practicing Christians.

To me, this shows a total lack of appreciation of just about any faith based organisation.

It amazes me that this sort of scam set up to prey on the vulnerable is even allowed

But even so, Honestly, I’m flabbergasted that anyone would think there is a problem with an organisation like this wanting to ensure they recruit practicing Christians.

It’s the 21st Century. I’m flabbergasted that this is allowed.

Some places irs right. You wouldnt want an atheist vicar. Obviously absurd. Sime places its not ok. Nhs hospitals.

This seems to me to be an edge case but has anyone read the law?

IANAL, but have read (some of) the legislation behind this.

If the company has a genuine religious ethos (typically presented as a statement, mission statement etc, but must be backed up in reality) AND tasks within the role require the holder to be religious then yes, it is legal.

an outdoors instructor or administrator would NOT typically meet that requirement (A priest, for example, obviously would)

but, there have been cases where the whole company ethos is so strong (all staff offering religious support to each other, and all staff participating in religious observance as part of the working day etc) that it is deemed legal.

All depends on the strength of the ethos at court.

muhammed-v-leprosy-mission 2009 won, sheridan vs prospects 2006 lost.

FWIW, I'm atheist.

Im astonished that anyone would think it is not ok for a Christian organisation to want to hire Christians in roles like this.

In roles like... an admin assistant?

I’m flabbergasted that anyone would think there is a problem with an organisation like this wanting to ensure they recruit practicing Christians.

Because it is discrimination and is likely illegal. Would your flabber be equally gasted if people were questioning an organisation wanting to ensure that they only recruited white people?

organisation wanting to ensure that they only recruited white people?

There is really no comparison between someone's deeply held personal beliefs and the level of melanin in someone's skin.

Which why skin colour isn't usually a barrier to joining a political or religious organisation.

Anti-discrimination legislation simply recognises that everyone has the right to be different, whether it's through personal choice or whether it's through birth.

I bet you’d get in a world of trouble if you only tried to employ people who weren’t religious.

deeply held personal beliefs

My deeply held personal belief is that religion is a personal matter and should not impact the workplace. However that view is not protected by law and if id asked either of the people I've employed recently about their religous beliefs or practices at the interview id have been in contravention of equality legislation. However once started they can ask for access to pray rooms and special dispensation around their (in my opinion unfounded) beliefs which impact working life but I can't ask that before employing.

Equality should mean treating all candidates equally so if skin colour, religion or disability have no impact on ability to carry out a role they should not be considered when deciding on who to employ. If it does gave a material impact it should be. Think if it the other way around, an employer doesn't mention during interview stage that they expect a candidate to be available to work in their own time, unpaid but don't reveal that until the candidate has left a previous job and committed to the new employer. Not exactly moral behaviour is it.

However once started they can ask for access to pray rooms and special dispensation around their (in my opinion unfounded) beliefs which impact working life but I can’t ask that before employing.

in most cases it's unlikely you'd 'have' to give special dispensation, but you'd be expected to make reasonable allowances.

It's exactly the reason I've read some of this legislation - a religious employee asked us for special dispensation regards working hours (certain days). As it was a key part of the role, we said no.

Which why skin colour isn’t usually a barrier to joining a political or religious organisation.

But we're not talking about "joining a political or religious organisation" are we, we're talking about applying for a job at an outdoor activities centre. I'm reasonably confident that there are many workplaces still where the colour of your skin would absolutely prejudice the recruitment process.

This is why protected characteristics are protected. I've read comments on this very forum previously along the lines of "their face wouldn't fit" as justification for rejecting interviewees (though not specifically referring to race). Which is understandable to a point, but if that 'fit' means you're not employing Mohammed because the existing shop floor is predominantly Daily Express readers then the problem is the culture not the candidate.

In the case being discussed here, there is a difference between "you must adhere to our Christian values" and "you must be a Christian." The former is perfectly fine, the latter would require justification in order to be lawful (AIUI).

Seems a darn goid idea if it is important to the employer. It is immoral to force employers to consider people they don't want.. Going by some many political comments here most here will agree. I know one business who had 4 applicants for a job. 3 female. Fair enough but he knew that one and probably a second had a family planned in the near future. The disruption caused by maternity leaves would have caused huge problems. The bloke got the job. More amusing,in tne 80's a friend applied for a London post that required an African langauge,understanding of cultural issues and concern for abused women. The job could have been made for them. Interview board were somewhat peturbed when a kilt wearing, ginger bearded,very obviously public school boy turned up for an interview in some ghetto in London. He didn't get the job.

Cougar. Is the culture a problem if the work force are happy. Terribly unfair to inflict a political or social view point on someone surely?

Matt. Your pal just broke the law.

Religion is not a political or social view.