Veil Threat Removed

Kirklees Council has been praised by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). This was for the 'measured, careful and sensitive way' in which a headteacher and the Education Authority handled a difficult issue concerning a devout Muslim bi-lingual support worker (the employee) who had been suspended for disobeying an instruction not to wear a veil when assisting a male teacher. For on 30 March 2007 in Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council Wilkie J in the EAT found that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had been entitled to dismiss the employee's claims of direct and indirect discrimination.

When the employee was interviewed for the post in question she had worn a black tunic and headscarf and her face was not covered. At no time during the interview had she indicated that her religious beliefs required her to wear a veil or placed any limitation on her working. However, during the first week of term the employee asked if she could wear the veil when teaching with male teachers or whether arrangements could be made so she would not have to work with male teachers at all. The School concluded that it was not possible to isolate the employee from male staff since all the classes had some male teachers and in addition the employee was periodically required to liaise with other male members of staff.

Following advice on this issue produced by the Council's Education Department (which amongst other things indicated that wearing a veil in the workplace by teachers or support workers 'will prevent full and effective communication being maintained') the headteacher decided to undertake an observation of her work whilst she was wearing the veil. His conclusion was that it was readily apparent that the children in question were seeking visual clues [cues?] from her which they could not obtain because they could not see her facial expressions. He also thought that her diction was not as clear as it would have been if she were not wearing a veil. Consequently, the headteacher told the employee that she should not wear the veil when working directly with children in a classroom. Further observation of the employee took place (with and without the veil) which supported the earlier conclusions. A management instruction to the employee was subsequently issued that she be unveiled in School whilst working with children although there was no objection to her being veiled in other areas of the school providing she was not communicating with the children...