Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Employment law solicitor Chris Hadrill takes a look at the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Act 1989, and how these interact with the Equality Act 2010

In this post we’re going to have a look at how attempting to force a Sikh to wear a safety helmet in the workplace is potentially discriminatory and, in particular, how the Employment Act 1989 affects the complaint of indirect discrimination under s.19 of the Equality Act 2010. The writing of this post has been inspired by an Employment Tribunal case that I acted in which was recently settled for a large five-figure sum where my client (who is Sikh and wears a turban) was dismissed from his employment for (among other things) his “refusal” to wear a safety helmet on his employer’s construction sites.

Sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Act 1989

Section 11

Section 11 of the Employment Act 1989 stipulates that if  Sikh who is on a construction site is wearing a turban then any requirement to wear a safety helmet (by virtue of any statutory provision or rule of law) does not apply to him. Effectively, section 11 of the Employment Act 1989 waives the obligation of a Sikh to wear a safety helmet on a construction site (whether this construction site is ‘active’ or not).

This exemption was widened earlier this year by section 6 the Deregulation Act 2015 (which came into force on 1 April 2015), which amends sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Act 1989. Under section 6, Sikhs are exempted from having to wear a safety helmet in any workplace, rather than just on a construction site. However, there are certain exceptions stipulated in section 6, which states that Sikhs working in the following occupations are not exempted from wearing a safety helmet:

  • In occupations that involve (to any extent) providing an urgent response to fire, riot or other hazardous situations; and where the Sikh is at the workplace to provide such a response in circumstances where the wearing of a safety helmet is necessary to protect the Sikh from a risk of injury or to receive training in how to provide such a response in circumstances of that kind
  • Members of Her Majesty’s forces or a person providing support to Her Majesty’s forces and is at the workplace

As can be noted from the above, there are still limited exceptions where safety helmets will be required, such as for specific roles in the armed forces and emergency response situations. However, there is a bit of ambiguity regarding the wording of “other hazardous situations” which employers may try and exploit.

Section 12

Section 12 of the Employment Act 1989 has a direct effect on section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, in that it removes the employer’s ability to rely on the defence of “objective justification” if a Claimant proves that there has been prima facie discrimination. Section 12 has also been recently amended to extend it from applying only to construction sites to all workplaces.

Section 12 of the Employment Act 1989 applies if:

  • Any person applies to a Sikh any requirement or condition relating to the wearing by him of a safety helmet while he is at a workplace; and
  • At the time when this requirement or condition is applied that person has no reasonable grounds for believing that the Sikh would not wear a turban at all times when at such a workplace

Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010

Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 defines indirect discrimination. Under s.19 indirect discrimination occurs where a person (A) applies to another person (B) a practice criterion or provision (“PCP”) which is discriminatory. This PCP is discriminatory where it is applied to all persons but puts persons of a certain protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage to persons who do not possess that protected characteristic, with B also being put to that disadvantage.

With regards to this post, indirect discrimination would occur in the workplace if a Sikh (who wears a turban) was dismissed from his job because he was unable to comply with his employer’s requirement that he wear a safety helmet on construction sites. This would constitute indirect discrimination as:

  • The Sikh (“B”) has a protected characteristic: his religious beliefs
  • The employer (“A”) has put in place a requirement (a “PCP”) that safety helmets must be worn on construction sites
  • This PCP applies to all workers, whether they are Sikh or not
  • The PCP potentially places Sikhs at a particular disadvantage because (as a result of the PCP) they may not, for example, be recruited or they may face dismissal because they wear a turban (and therefore cannot comply with the PCP); and
  • The PCP has put B at that disadvantage as he has been dismissed for his inability to wear a safety helmet on a construction site

As above, if section 12 of the Employment Act 1989 applies then the employer cannot defend a claim through the use of the “objective justification” defence – if a claimant in the Employment Tribunal can utilise this provision then it places them at a distinct advantage in making a claim. If section 12 doesn’t apply then the employer can use the “objective justification” defence: that any discriminatory PCP was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It will be difficult for the employer to succeed in this argument, though, unless it can show that it actively considered alternatives to requiring Sikhs to wear a safety helmet ‘on site’ and/or seriously considered alternatives to dismissal (such as placing the Sikh in an alternative position or providing them with further training, for example).

Conclusion

Employers must be extremely careful in implementing requirements for all employees (or workers, contractors etc.) to wear a safety helmet in the workplace as this blanket requirement may cause a claim to be brought against it for indirect discrimination by turban-wearing Sikhs who are disadvantaged by it. If a turban-wearing Sikh commences employment in a role where they may be required to wear a safety helmet then they should be exempted from having to do so, unless the exceptions stipulated above apply (i.e. they are members of the armed forces or, alternatively, acting in response to or training in response to emergency response situations.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog. Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

    Your first name (required)

    Your last name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Your telephone number (required)

    Brief details of your enquiry

    Testimonials

    4.79 Average

    274 Reviews

    Mary B

    I was very happy with the work Chris did for me. I believe with his help I secured a more favourable outcome both financially and in terms of clauses contained in the legal agreement I ultimately signed. I had utmost trust and confidence in the advice Chris provided throughout. Chris kept me informed at every stage and I found him very efficient at bringing matters to a conclusion without unnecessary delay.

    Posted 1 day ago

    Mark M

    I found Redmans very easy to work with. Mel was very responsive, her advice led to an improved settlement. . Recommended.!

    Posted 3 days ago

    Anonymous

    Fantastic service. I would recommend Redmans to anyone who needed a Solicitor. The communication was second to none and consistent clear guidance was given.

    Posted 5 days ago

    Anonymous

    Everyone I dealt with at Redmans were professional, empathetic & always responded promptly and helped make the transition as smooth & efficient as possible for me. If you need legal advice, don’t hesitate & contact the team.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Anonymous

    Sacha was incredibly helpful and professional. Timely and accurate advice at a time I most needed it. I was extremely impressed and grateful.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Sue W

    The people at Redmans talk to you with respect and make you feel like they take your situation personal. They clearly care and are extremely professional. I have recommended Redmans to many people.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Anonymous

    Redmans Solicitors were consistently prompt, efficient and professional from the start of my reaching out to them for support in relation to contentious negotiations of an employment matter that continued for almost two months resulting in a positive settlement agreement. Chris Hadrill was diligent, thorough, empathetic and objective in his advice and guidance, showing deep and broad knowledge of the law and legal processes plus extensive practical experience in handling complex matters, resulting in clear and pragmatic advice in ambiguous circumstances that resulted in a very good outcome. I fully recommend Chris Hadrill and Redmans Solicitors! I have made this review anonymous purely because of the confidentiality obligations in the settlement agreement concluded.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Michelle W

    Redmans solicitors provided legal support and advice for a settlement agreement. Excellent customer service, very professional. The senior associate solicitor kept me updated throughout the process, showed empathy and the agreement was signed-off / completed within the agreed timeline.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Mark W

    Redmans Solicitors were extremely professional and helpful! Chris Hadrill handled my case and was an amazing help! His guidance, advice and understanding to my redundancy settlement were always clear, concise and very helpful and I am very grateful to him, and glad I found Redmans to help with my settlement. I highly recommend them!

    Posted 1 month ago

    Alison M

    Very happy with the advice I received

    Posted 2 months ago

    Margaret A

    I found everything about the company to be extremely professional and efficient. During my initial contact with Chris, he listened well and was reassuring, so I felt confident that my case would be well handled. Caroline was excellent at explaining all the legal points and answering my questions, as well as being very supportive and understanding throughout the process. I would definitely recommend this company.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Sanja K

    Very efficient and professional service.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    I found the advice I was given by Redmans Solicitors to be clear and useful and found the solicitor on my case to be both knowledgeable and approachable.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Karen T

    Great service. Thank you.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    Excellent service from Chris & Mel Chin. The best outcome was achieved from the redundancy process. They were extremely thorough, listened carefully and acted swiftly on my behalf. I highly recommend Redmans Solicitors

    Posted 2 months ago

    Shanine M

    Excellent service, thank you so much!

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    I found Caroline and Chris very Helpful and provided excellent service. Caroline especially provided great legal advice and made me feel at ease with the whole process. I would highly recommend them. Thank you!

    Posted 2 months ago

    Gayle B

    Excellent company very professional would definitely recommend

    Posted 2 months ago

    Alex K

    Redmans provided an excellent service, timely and effective. Will definitely recommend.

    Posted 2 months ago

    Anonymous

    Great job done on my employment law

    Posted 2 months ago

    Dominica S

    Caroline & Chris were very prompt and efficient.Very happy with the service and will definitely recommend Redmans Solicitor to everyone !

    Posted 2 months ago