Three Christians, Chaplin, Ladele and McFarlane who lost their cases in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) earlier this year, lodged appeals to the Grand Chamber of the Court. These were key test cases in the battleground between individual rights to express religious belief as against the Convention rights of others.

These were key test cases in the battleground between individual rights to express religious belief as against the Convention rights of others, or in the case of Mrs Chaplin, the validity of denying her the right to wear a cross on health and safety grounds. A panel of five European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Grand Chamber judges has now rejected these appeals. The original decision is now final. Back in January this year, Nadia Eweida won her case against British Airways at the same time as these three Christians lost their claims. Her rights were infringed by the ban on her wearing a cross at work. In a majority judgment, the ECHR decided that her wearing of a cross did not impact on the interests of others, and there was no evidence that it damaged the corporate image of the airline as she maintained a professional image at all times.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court have now rejected the notion of giving Christians any greater freedom in the workplace. Mrs Eweida's case can therefore be seen as only a small step in the right direction for those promoting wider religious freedoms. In effect, these three appeal cases tried to take the argument to another level. Chaplin's wearing of a cross as a nurse was the most difficult to overturn given the finding by the ECHR that the hospital managers were well placed to make decisions about clinical safety and so the UK courts had weighed up the concerns correctly. The other two cases of McFarlane and Ladele, arguably had a better prospect of potential success. Both resisted tasks that they saw as condoning homosexuality, McFarlane as a Relate counsellor and Ladele, as a marriage registrar. Ms Ladele had two dissenting judgments in her favour strongly backing her right to act with her conscience in being excused from performing civil partnerships. McFarlane never actually refused to do anything. He simply commented on his wish not to conduct sex therapy sessions with same-sex couples.

However, the boundaries have been tested and now firmly rejected. This sends a stark message that religious freedoms have very limited parameters when they potentially or actually infringe the rights of others. When different Convention rights compete in different factual scenarios, the line has to be drawn somewhere. What is now certain is that one set of rights, here for religious freedom for Christians, does not automatically trump the others.” 44 percent Jump in unfair dismissal claims before new government measures kick in. Incoming Government restrictions to unfair dismissal claims have helped prompt a 44 percent spike in such claims in one quarter*, as sacked employees rush to bring a claim before restrictions come in, says EMW, the commercial law firm. EMW says that 15,300 claims for unfair dismissal were made in a three month period last year, up from 10,600 the quarter before.

EMW explains that, from summer 2013, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is expected to introduce a fee for bringing a claim at an employment tribunal and cap the maximum pay-out for a successful unfair dismissal claim. Taylor, Principal at EMW, says: “The Government’s proposals will significantly limit the advantages of pursuing an unfair dismissal claim against an employer. The Government hopes this will reduce dissuade ‘spurious’ claims in future, but the impending deadline has helped prompt a spike in claims.” “People have been racing the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill through parliament since it was announced last May, to get their claim in under the current claims regime.” Jon Taylor adds: “There will have been a spike in very lightweight claims for unfair dismissal. The incoming changes increase the incentive for sacked employees to launch a ‘free’ unfair dismissal claim now; some people will be trying their luck while they still can. Working through all these extra claims will add to the pressure already on the employment tribunal process. The system is struggling with an ever-growing backlog of cases still to be heard, leaving employers and employees in limbo as they wait for their cases to be resolved.”

The spike will also include some genuine claims that people have bought earlier than they would otherwise have done. This includes those choosing to resign from a role before the changes come in order to bring a constructive unfair dismissal claim on more favourable terms. EMW says that under the proposed changes: Former employees will only be able to claim up to one year’s pay or £74,200 (whichever is lower) from their former employer for an unfair dismissal. The Bill allows this cap to be lowered in future; Former employees will now have to pay a fee of £250 to make a claim and a fee of £950 if the case proceeds to a tribunal. EMW says that the Government has struggled to make an impact with its previous attempts to ease pressure on the employment tribunal system. In April 2012, the Government doubled the amount of time, from one year to two years, that a person has to have been employed by a company before they can claim for unfair dismissal after a sacking. In an analysis of over 100 unfair dismissal cases in which it was involved, EMW says that just one case was affected by the changes. Jon Taylor says: “The Government’s previous attempts to ease employment tribunal congestion haven’t been a runaway success, while the latest changes appear to have had the opposite to the desired effect, at least in the short term. It will be interesting to see what the impact of these new changes will be.”