Climate Change: A New Religion?

In a recent Employment Tribunal hearing, Mr Nicholson claimed that his former employer, Grainger Plc, had not made him redundant as they asserted, but had actually dismissed him because of his belief in climate change.

What did the Tribunal decide?

The Tribunal Judge reached the conclusion that Mr Nicholson's belief in climate change was one that was protected by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The Regulations were introduced in December 2003 to protect employees against discrimination on the grounds of their religious or similar philosophical beliefs. It was never quite clear what exactly would be classified as a "similar philosophical belief", but the Government's guidance was that such a belief would need to occupy a place in the person's life similar to that filled by the god or gods of a religion, and that a certain level of seriousness was required. It was envisaged that beliefs such as pantheism, atheism and humanism would be covered.

Very few cases made it to the Tribunal on this point, although in two cases, BNP membership was found not to be covered by the Regulations. In one of those cases, the Tribunal found that British Nationalism did not involve a clear belief system or affect in a profound way a person's life or view of the world.

The law changed slightly in 2007 when the requirement for a philosophical belief to be "similar" to a religious belief was removed from the Regulations. The argument from the Government was that this was simply redundant language and that the sense of the Regulations would not change, but it is inevitable that Tribunals will start to look at the Regulations and their interpretation differently, as illustrated by this case.

What was the Tribunal's reasoning?

The Employment Judge gave careful consideration to what amounts to a philosophical belief, noting that the wording of the Regulations had been influenced by the language of Human Rights. The Judge considered an Employment Appeal Tribunal case (McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs), in which an individual had tried (unsuccessfully) to bring a claim based on philosophical belief. The Employment Appeal Tribunal had decided in McClintock that, in order to be covered by the Regulations, a philosophical belief must have sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and be worthy of respect in a democratic society. The Claimant in McClintock failed to satisfy this test, as on the facts of that case...