As reported on this website in May, when the case was heard in the Employment Tribunal, a Mr Tim Nicholson, aged 42, of Oxford, can continue his tribunal claim that he was unfairly dismissed because of his views on climate change. The Employer recently appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) on the grounds that his belief was not protected by the law but the EAT agreed with the original Tribunal and at the same time provided helpful guidance on the subject. Much of that guidance has been lost in the news reports of the case which often suggest that a general interest in green matters would qualify a person for protection. In the May hearing the only question had been whether Mr Nicholson’s (“N”) belief could be protected by the law, assuming that he could establish that he held the belief. Whter he did hold the belief or had been dismissed because of it still remain to be decided In Grainger v Nicholson, the EAT held that N’s asserted belief that carbon emissions must be cut to avoid catastrophic climate change is capable of amounting to a philosophical belief for the purposes of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. In reaching this decision, the EAT also held that, unlike the position with religious beliefs, N would probably need to be cross-examined on his belief in order to establish it. N claimed he was dismissed from his position as Head of Sustainability because of his belief in climate change and the protected disclosures he had made. N stressed that his views were not merely opinion - his philosophical belief in the danger of climate change affected most aspects of his life, including his choice of home, how he travels and what he eats. The tribunal found that N's beliefs about climate change did amount to a philosophical belief within the Regulations. It was plain that N's beliefs gave rise to a moral order similar to those 'derived from the major world religions that eschew certain types of meat, promote sexual abstinence and make a virtue of poverty'. In addition, the EAT noted that a belief based on political philosophy could qualify as a genuinely held philosophical belief. A belief in climate change, if established by N is likely to be thus characterised. Importantly, however, such an approach would not protect objectionable homophobic or racist political philosophies as these would not meet the criterion of being worthy of respect in a democratic society. To establish a philosophical belief it is not enough for the Claimant simply to make his assertion: cross-examination is likely to be needed, unlike a religious belief where a claimant need only show that he or she adheres to a particular religion.
