Power v Greater Manchester Police Authority

Direct discrimination on grounds of religion or belief requires treatment because of the protected belief itself. A distinction may be drawn between the belief and its manifestation or expression. An employer may therefore act because of the manner in which a belief is expressed, provided the belief is not itself the reason for the treatment. The Employment Tribunal is entitled to determine the reason for dismissal from the evidence and to conclude that conduct and the expression of beliefs, rather than the holding of those beliefs, caused the dismissal.

Mr Power, a spiritualist, was dismissed shortly after starting work as a Special Constabulary Trainer. The dismissal letter referred to information about his previous conduct and his work in the psychic field. The Employment Tribunal dismissed his complaint under the Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The majority accepted that he had passed the initial burden of showing a prima facie case, but found that the principal reason was his unsuitability arising from previous conduct and that the secondary reason was the inappropriate expression of his beliefs through posters and a CD-ROM.

He appealed, arguing that the Tribunal had found that his beliefs contributed to his dismissal. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had erred in law by distinguishing between the beliefs and their expression.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision disclosed no error of law.
2. Under regulation 3(1)(a) of the Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, the relevant question is why the claimant was treated less favourably. Regulation 6(2)(d) prohibits dismissal on the prohibited ground, and regulation 29 imports the reverse burden of proof.
3. The authorities establish a distinction between treatment because of a person’s religion or belief and treatment because of the manifestation or expression of that religion or belief. The former may amount to unlawful discrimination; the latter may provide a lawful reason for treatment.
4. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to accept that there were two reasons for dismissal. The principal reason was the claimant’s disruptive and unsuitable conduct during earlier volunteer activities. The secondary reason was not his spiritualist belief, but the way in which he expressed it by distributing material considered inappropriate for police premises and organisations.
5. The Tribunal had correctly directed itself on the distinction between belief and manifestation. Its factual conclusion was permissible on the evidence and could not be interfered with on appeal.

• Employment Tribunal: The complaint of unlawful discrimination under the Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 was dismissed on 8 December 2009.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal had made no error of law.