An unstoppable force meets an immovable object – philosophical beliefs in the workplace – Q&A

Christine Quinn from Legal Island and Seamus McGranaghan Director, O’Reilly Stewart, will discuss your questions on “an unstoppable force meets an immovable object – philosophical beliefs in the workplace”.

Did you attend Seamus’ session on philosophical beliefs in the workplace at the Annual Review? If not, now’s your chance to catch up on what you missed!

Recording:

Transcript:

Christine: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Employment Law at 11, sponsored by MCS Group. My name is Christine Quinn. I'm a Knowledge Partner here at Legal-Island. I'm joined as usual by Seamus McGranaghan of O'Reilly Stewart Solicitors. You're all very welcome this morning.

So, what are we talking about? Some of you would've been at Annual Review last week and would've attended Seamus's session on "An unstoppable force meets an immoveable object". It was all about philosophical beliefs in the workplace. I'm going to put some of the questions that we didn't have time for at Annual Review to Seamus today.

For those of you who weren't there, this is your chance to catch up. We're going to get you up to speed on what was talked about, and it's your chance to ask your own questions, so please do drop them in as and when you think of them.

Thanks as always to our sponsors, MCS Group. MCS help people find careers that match their skillsets perfectly, as well as supporting employers to build high-performing businesses by connecting them with the most talented candidates in the market. If you're interested in finding out how MCS can help you, head to www.mcsgroup.jobs.

Let's introduce our cast of characters for the case study that we're going to be talking about. So, first of all, if we just move the slides on there, Gosia, if you can.

We've got Ted. Ted is employed by our company, Nimbus Ltd. They were set up in Belfast in the year 2000. Ted believes that immigration is a good thing for Northern Ireland. It makes us more diverse. He really is supportive of immigration.

We've got his colleague, Luna. She takes a different view. She's concerned about the economic impact of immigration on local communities.

And then we've got poor old Dennis Mooney. Now, Dennis is HR. He is responsible for refereeing between these two individuals.

That kind of sets the scene for you.

So, a conflict develops. Ted decides he's going to put up a poster in the office kitchen that details about an anti-racism rally at Belfast City Hall. That might sound familiar to a lot of you. He puts his phone number and office email on the poster and says, "Please contact me if you want to go to this rally".

Luna sees this. She's none too pleased. She has a chat with Ted in the open plan office, expresses her concerns, and this quickly escalates into employees taking sides. There's a bit of a heated debate. Some take Ted's side, some take Luna's side, and the atmosphere starts to spill over into meetings and poor old Dennis has to intervene.

So, Seamus, this is really quite a classic scenario now, isn't it? I mean, we are encouraged to bring our whole selves to work. It seems to be since COVID, really. And maybe sort of the rise of social media and everyone giving their opinions on everything on Twitter, and Facebook, and Instagram, and everything. So can employers simply say, "Listen, don't talk politics at work. We're banning this"?

Oh, I'm not able to hear you there, Seamus. Let's have a look.

Seamus: Can you hear me okay?

Christine: Yeah. That's you now. Go for it.

Seamus:  So just to say that, yeah, there's the absolute potential that you could say to employees that, "We're not to discuss politics or issues that are of current affairs", or any of those sorts of issues, Christine, that arise that seem to be consistently arising, and those sorts of controversial issues that we all have in the workplace.

I suppose my thought process goes back to the fact that . . . And look, I know our demographics of our listeners, but we all sort of started off in work at a time when we had a very troubled past here in Northern Ireland and there were certainly strong political views held by people in the workplace. Legislation developed in terms of dealing with those kinds of matters that would've gone on, but generally, things were probably done successfully.

Thankfully, we've moved on beyond that. I think here in Northern Ireland, we probably do have a little bit more experience in dealing with these sorts of controversial matters. But I suspect that you might look at any country around the world and there will always have been issues bubbling in the background.

But in saying that, the employer could say, "These are issues that we're going to avoid, and here's a list of things that we don't talk about at work". I just don't think that's a realistic point to take, particularly given that there's so much of ourselves that appears online and in other ways. And sometimes it can be down to the clothes that you wear and the symbols that you have on your lapel.

People do put so much of themselves out there, and there are indicators for people in relation to certain stances that they might have. Even somebody that might carry . . . you see people with bags that they carry with animal rights information on it and things like that.

I think it's very difficult for an employer to try to monitor and to be involved in that and make sure that nothing has happened.

The key point for all of that has to come down to that you need to have a policy and procedure in place. And your policy should be clear about what the expectations are from an employer's point of view in relation to whether it's behaviour or whether it's how we respect each other's opinions. We can disagree with opinions, but we can also respect and treat that in a respectful manner.

So, we're seeing an issue here where this poster has gone up in the workplace. Questions that we talked about and things that we talked about at the session were "Why did he just go and put a poster up? Did he not go and get consent? What does the policy say about putting posters up in the workplace?"

He's tagged. He's put his name on it and his contact details. We know that it is Ted that has put the poster up. So, is there an issue in relation to that? What is the policy for people to put information? Should you go to a manager, first of all, and say, "Is it okay if I do this?" And maybe reflective looking back, you could say, "Well, here are the concerns that we have around something like this happening".

And it probably is a position whereby if there's going to be any literature up or people putting posters up in a workplace, that they do come and speak to . . . Whether it's HR or whether they speak to their line manager, I think that that's good practice.

The other concerning aspect of this really is around the fact that this has happened in an open area of the office, this dispute. As you were saying and as part of the scenario, we have issues that are arising now with groups of employees and people taking sides and debate opening and the like of it, and that's where the concern would be from an employer. Is that going to affect operational issues in a business? Can it be divisive, and is it going to create further issues down the line?

I suppose there's an important point here: that any employer needs to be seen to be strong and robust when it comes to these sorts of issues. I think the thing that you should not do is ignore it. And that was one of the options that we had on the poll on the seminar, was "Do you just ignore it?" And I think the answer has to be no.

Maybe you look at other options around, "Well, look, do we need to take our policy out again? Do we need to go through it and refresh it? Do we need to do further training in relation to it? Is there a communication that needs to be issued to our staff about what the expectations are around these sorts of issues and how we conduct ourselves?"

But it is a really challenging and difficult issue, and it brings me back to we did a podcast a number of months back in 2024 around ESG. There is very much an onus on employers, and I think there's an expectation from employees . . . And again, it kind of feels like it all emanates from in and around COVID time. It's that aspect of you, in a way, for employers, have to put your cards on the table as to what your ethos is and what your stance is.

Now, that's not to say that every employer has to write a list out and say where they stand politically on issues across the world. But I think that you do need to be clear about what your position is around environmental issues and social issues.

I think that there's a demand, particularly if we look at recruitment and the difficulties that we have and that we still have with recruitment and retention. There's no doubt that for . . . And I don't want to just say just for younger folk because I think it equally applies to older folk as well as these issues have come to the fore, where they might think, "Look, my values don't sit well with this company. I'm not happy about what they do".

And whether that's even from looking at what your social enterprises are, what steps you're taking, and what charities that you're adopting for your business, all of those sorts of issues are all really important. It is one of the issues that we identified as staff seeing it, and it's an important issue for staff.

I think that we have to accept that you can't really prohibit and you can't legislate against people bringing their whole selves. And part of that is it's the talent that they're bringing. You want that in a workplace, but it's getting the balance right. And it has to come back to "Where's our policy and procedure? What is our stance, and what training have we provided?"

It always brings me back to the Alley case and getting down the lines of reasonable, practical steps and stuff like that.

We have to have a policy well done. But if you haven't looked at it in two years, if it hasn't been revised, if you haven't taken the needle in the thread and sewn it through the culture in your organisation, it's all that aspect of making sure that it is a joined-up process. And one that when these problems arise, you've got the gear and the boot to deal with it, essentially.

Christine:  Yeah. And that brings me to . . . You have touched on it. One of the questions on the day was . . . So I've referred to Gen Z. Gen Z'ers are wanting to know about the ethics of the company, but we've also seen companies getting into trouble. One of my favourite things is the gender pay gap bot that is on Twitter. On International Women's Day, when all these big companies are saying, "Oh, we champion women", it automatically publishes their gender pay gap and embarrasses them. You've never seen PR teams move so fast. So, it really is a difficult one.

So, this person was asking, "Should companies just be silent and bland in their support for topical campaigns just to kind of save themselves a hassle?" But it sounds like you're saying that's not really an option if you want to recruit the best people.

Seamus:  Well, I just don't think that's realistic. Even if the business isn't involved in the creative side, it's those sorts of attributes that really help bring about development in the business.

It sounds to me that it would be very restrained and that it would create many issues in relation to even challenges from employees, and particularly around issues that arise with difficult topic issues that come about.

Christine: Yeah. Seamus, I'm having a wee bit of trouble with your mic if you want to lean in. It's kind of gone a bit muffled, but we'll keep going and we'll see how we get on.

So, we've got our cast of characters here at, and poor old Dennis is kind of being thrown in the deep end a wee bit here. Each year, the company, Nimbus, have a nominated charity. It's Dennis's job to kind of collate the charities that people might want to support. So, he sends out an email to everyone in the company asking for suggestions.

Luna suggests a charity local to her home that helps elderly people, but she inadvertently sends her suggestion to the whole company instead of just Dennis and makes a joke that, "You know who probably won't be happy with this suggestion as it's not helping the 'blow-ins'". So Ted is extremely angry about this, says it's obviously about him, and complaints to Dennis. So, Seamus, what should Dennis do about this?

Seamus: Well, it's a tricky and a difficult one that arises. I think the key thing here is that . . . And it could be a bit of a red herring in the scenarios, Christine, maybe that you went about in your thought process. But it's the inadvertent aspect, that Luna has inadvertently done this, but the damage is done once she sends. The offence is taken.

Use of the word blow-ins, there are questions that would come to mind. Why would Luna feel comfortable or feel that it would be okay to email the HR manager in that way? And that would say to me that there is absolutely a training piece that is needed within the office or within this workplace, particularly where you have an employee using language like that in a company email to another colleague who is the HR manager. It just doesn't sit right in relation to that, and that tells me that there are issues and immediately identifying training.

I'd be going back to look at our social media policy as well that we have and looking at the issues in and around whether this is a lead-on from the first scenario where there's been a build-up of tensions and Luna is then saying, "Look, this is clearly about me".

But I think that, again, it's that balance of saying, on the one hand, "This is inadvertent. She's made a faux pas". But I think when you look at the language of it, it would concern me where she's using words like blow-ins, because that is offensive for anybody else that would read that.

So, I think that there's probably a job to do around if this email has been sent around the office. Again, the voice of the employer needs to be heard. I think a response is required. I don't think it's one that you can ignore or push under the carpet in relation to it.

I think that there does need to be a response provided, whether that is a reminder as to how colleagues address and speak to each other, or use of the company email system, or back around again to training around respect and dignity and things like that in the workplace.

One of the questions on the day was whether Luna deserves a disciplinary arising as a result of this. And that's a tricky one because there is that inadvertent aspect to it. It doesn't appear that it has been intentional.

I think we've all in life had the odd faux pas where we've done something silly and by mistake. And sometimes you just have to put your hands up and apologise and accept the wrongdoing and give an undertaking that it won't happen again.

Possibly the other way is that Dennis needs to bring the two parties together at this point and try to work through some of the issues, whether you're looking at that done internally or by mediation, Labour Relations Agency or a private mediator coming in.

And worst-case scenario, you're having a training day. You're bringing somebody, a third party, into the organisation. You're bringing everybody into your meeting space or your boardroom, wherever it is, and saying, "Look, let's face it, we have issues in our workplace around this. Let's do some training around it. Let's do some discussion around it so that we can all leave today with a clear understanding of how we should behave going forward". I think those are the options for you.

I think, ultimately, at the day of the seminar we decided that disciplining Luna mightn't be the best idea, particularly if there has been a wider issue arising in the workplace and sides have been taken. It could really look to be further divisive and cause issues. I don't know if I would necessarily recommend that on the basis of this scenario as it sits, but action needs to be taken. It's not sufficient to ignore it.

The idea of this is it's the charity of the year, it's a goodwill point, it's a positive step for the workplace, and you don't want it being soured by something like this, or equally for the company to come around and say, "That's it. We won't be having a charity of the year going forward, or you won't get an opportunity to participate".

Christine: So, if we change it up slightly, I suppose we could imagine a scenario where maybe Ted suggests a charity that supports people arriving in the country or whatever. How would it sit if somebody's philosophical beliefs directly conflict with a workplace diversity and inclusion initiative like that? The company is trying to do a good thing, but then maybe Luna would object to the charitable donations going to an immigrant charity. How would they deal with that type of scenario?

Seamus: I suppose it's that aspect of everybody having their right to their opinion and everybody being entitled to their view versus being respectful of other people's views along the way too.

In this scenario, I think it's a piece whereby if there has been a discussion and an agreement and the majority of people have said, "This is the charity that we want to go for" . . .

So, in my office, we'll do that. We'll say, "Give us your suggestions", and then we'll pick the ones that are mentioned the most. Then we'll put it out to a poll within the office and say, "Which charity would you like to go for?" And generally, they're all goodwill, good-natured charities and there are no issues that that arise.

I think circumstances where something like that has happened and there's one person that objects to it, you can kind of take the objection under notice, but say, "Look, this is the view of where our office is at, and this is something that we would support".

Ideally, you want to stay away from any sort of controversy around it, but it is difficult to do. Look, you're never going to satisfy it everybody and that's just the way of the world. But I think that ultimately, it's a reasoned position that you're taking, and if someone is going to lose their head over it and resign or leave, it could be a difficult position for the employer to stomach that as well.

Christine: Brilliant. So Ted and Luna take things a wee bit further then. Ted takes to social media and adds a well-intentioned, but poorly worded post to his personal social media talking about the need for compassion in immigration policies. Luna obviously has her back up already. She interprets this as a direct criticism of her views, and she decides the best thing to do would be to confront Ted in the office.

The confrontation happens publicly, other employees are watching, and it quickly escalates because both sides are feeling under attack.

So social media is kind of the bane of HR's life now, isn't it, Seamus? It's a very common scenario, people saying ill-advised things on social media. So is this type of scenario preventable? And if so, how, Seamus?

Seamus:  Yeah, I think the key aspect for this is your social media policy that you have in place and what the social media policy says. It's a tricky one. There's loads of case law in relation to social media. We talked around the various cases that are out there as well in the public forum.

If you think of the Gary Lineker issue around his use of X at the time, or Twitter, and views that he held, and the sort of controversy that that brought around. A big organisation like the BBC, obviously, are very careful.

And no doubt what we learnt from it was that there were in-built clauses in the contract of employment or the service contract that specifically would exclude those in normal contracts, but it wasn't in Gary Lineker's contract.

So again, you'll often see at the top of people's social media postings and their LinkedIn, "These views are my own and are not affiliated with the company that I work for or anything like that". So, you see those sorts of cautions that are put up in relation to it.

But in general, even if this was a scenario where this was on . . . I mean, we're also aware of the position where social media postings outside of the workplace, even though they don't happen in work, can have direct impact for employees at work.

I think in my grievance scenarios for the post-graduate employment course at Ulster, I have something along the lines of the dispute around football teams and the one person feeling ostracised and then comments up in somebody's Facebook, or wherever it is that they're posting. And although it happens outside of work, it can result in an impact in their work, and sickness arising, not coming into work, grievances, and things like that.

So, there's definitely an impact of where social media can be used by someone in a deliberate and in a detrimental way.

Lots of arguments around whether Ted here is doing this deliberately to wind the other party, Luna, up or whether or not it's a genuine position. Key thing here is it happens in the office. It escalates. I think the quick point would be to try to nip it in the bud and deal quickly with it. Don't let it fester.

I think, again, the employer needs to show its voice in relation to these matters and how that would be unacceptable. Any aspect where there is confrontation in the workplace needs to be resolved. There needs to be resolution to that.

If there's an escalation in the workplace where behaviour of such a level happens and it's in breach of what you would consider what's in your policy and procedure, I think both parties would be open to disciplinary action in relation to it.

I don't think at that point you can say, "But it's their fault because they put the post up and I only raised it with them". If it gets to a level where the two of them are screaming and shouting, and there is poor use of language and all of that, they both have to be disciplined as a result of it.

Again, it comes back to probably that mediation point. I think from an employer aspect, you're probably reinforcing what your social media policy is and, again, what those expectations are. You're nipping it in the bud quickly so that somebody else the following day or that evening doesn't decide to put something up as well. And I think you're implementing your training, you're notifying about what your social media policy says, and you're having that open-door policy for people to come and raise it.

That's the other thing with this. Why doesn't Luna go to her line manager and put a grievance in or say, "Can I speak to you informally about a manner?" She chooses to go down the path of speaking directly with Ted, and that'll be born out of anger, frustration, all of those things. But that's not the right way to approach it.

And again, the employer will have policies and procedures in place in order to deal with those types of issues.

If she's feeling that this is deliberate act, looking at possible mediation to bring the two parties together, or at least to find a way . . . I mean, they're never going to agree, but at least a respectable way that they can work together going forward in the future.

Christine:  Seamus, we have our own homegrown social media case here in Northern Ireland with the McDade case. Do you want to talk a wee bit just around that and what happened? It's not a philosophical beliefs case, but I think it's useful because it's directly involving a social media incident, isn't it?

Seamus:  Yeah, it is. So this is a well-reported and well-known case, and I think recently it moved along the issues around costs and stuff like that. I did see mention of things that there were further elements in relation to this case. But this is a well-known case.

What we had was the Michaela McAreavey issue that had arisen during a sort of cultural event and that got out of hand. There were social media postings in relation to it, and it went down very badly because [inaudible 00:28:14] and was reposted and shared.

Ultimately, the employer in relation to this one had people approach them and say, essentially, "Look, we we're not going to do business with you going forward because we can't condone this type of behaviour". So, you had the Norman Emerson Group in a very difficult position and had to react quickly in relation to what had happened.

And there are lots of arguments around, "People are entitled to their culture. They're entitled to attend events". But the difference in this one was, I think, that there was a direct link between the employee and where he worked, and the impact that that was going to have on the reputational aspect of the employer.

So, lots of issues in the case. Lots of commentary about different assets and facets of the law.

But the one for this case, I suppose, was it's that balance of somebody saying, "Look, I'm entitled to a private life. I'm entitled to activities outside of work. I'm entitled to have my culture and be part of that", and those sorts of similarities in relation to philosophical belief for someone to say, "Look, I'm entitled to this", versus then the reputational damage that can arise for an employer.

The classic scenario is of whether you're on the front of a newspaper or whether you are in a social media post that is reshared and posted again and again. But I think the clear issue in that case . . . there were broader issues, but one of the important aspects of it was this idea of the reputational damage to the employer and the direct examples that the employer was able to provide during the hearing in their evidence, specifically around the fact that there was a community issue.

This was an employer that employed, in the classic Northern Irish term "employed", employees from both sides of the community in that sense. And also, there were community issues. There were economic issues going to arise because other people were saying, "Look, we're not going to work with you going forward", and supplier issues in relation to some of the suppliers saying, "We're not going to supply your company".

And a real issue of concern for the employer and the employer having to act swiftly, act fairly, and act robustly, but also act quickly to try to deal with the matter.

I can see some of those types of issues arising in and around the philosophical belief, and particularly where it over-spills out into a public forum.

Christine: Brilliant. Thanks for that, Seamus. So our scenario moves on. Ted attends the anti-racism rally at Belfast City Hall that he was promoting within the office. And Luna unsurprisingly attends the opposing anti-immigration rally at the same time and location. So, neither is involved in any trouble, but they both appear in local news coverage.

The CEO is unimpressed by this and approaches poor old Dennis saying, "What on earth are these two up to? They're making us look terrible here". "Get onto them", essentially.

What should Dennis do in this scenario, Seamus? There's a very fine line to be walked, isn't there? They're both absolutely entitled to be at those rallies, but what do you do about the CEO's worries?

Seamus: I mean, I think it leads on nicely from the McDade and Emerson case because you've got a situation where you have two employees of your business on a newspaper. I suppose the key aspect is you're exactly right. If they choose to attend the rallies, they're entitled to their views.

Now, it looks from the scenario that neither is involved in any sort of criminal behaviour or negative behaviour in that sense. But the CEO's knee-jerk reaction . . . And one of the points I was saying at the seminar was that this is the sort of difficult situation that the HR manager can find themselves in, where the CEO comes in and says, "Sort that out. Get rid of them. I don't want them here any longer".

There's an element of that you have to be strong and be able to say, "Well, look, that's not the right thing to do in relation to this scenario", and sort of talk the CEO, your boss, down off the ledge of instant dismissals and all those sorts of things.

HR managers will be familiar with those circumstances arising, but it is a tricky one when the incident has happened in a public way and there is risk to the business.

Ultimately, we call them sometimes commercial decisions that have to be made. And sometimes businesses will just say, "Look, whatever the legal cost of this, we need to make a proper decision here for the commerciality of our business". So those decisions can happen as well.

The job obviously of the HR manager, of the lawyer, is to reduce the risk as much as possible in relation to legal cases arising and stuff like that.

So, I think specifically in relation to this, there is a fine line. You're absolutely right. You've a right to attend a rally. You might be at a rally and it might become very violent, if you think of the rallies that we had in August, and that sort of collision of the anti-immigration protest that took place along with a protest that was happening at the same time at City Hall in relation to supporting, I think, Middle East issues and things like that. Perfect storm in relation to a collision happening, and there were riots.

You could very well have attended in a peaceful capacity to show your support or your views for either side of those with no intention of being involved in any way in anything negative arising out of it. I think that you do need to put the brakes on an instant position of, "We're going to see head roll here".

Going back through the normal steps, you'd be possibly looking at investigation and if something was warranted after that.

Now, I think the scenario would be different if one of them was showing with a weapon in their hand or some sort of brick or some sort of petrol bomb or something like that, whatever goes on.

I think that's a different scenario, then, altogether because there is that link of criminal activity and the impact the reputational damage could have. But it is an unsettling one and it is also possibly going to provoke.

Look, we've had scenarios in all workplaces where there's a story in the "Sunday Life" on a Sunday or in the "News of the World" . . . it's not the "News of the World" any longer, but the "Sunday World" or something along those lines . . . about somebody in your workplace. And it's not spoken about, but everybody's whispering around the water cooler in relation to it or sending text messages and photographs of it over the weekend.

Again, it's that aspect of showing leadership and showing what the company's expectations are around the behaviour of employees both in work and outside of work.

So, I think that you can look at certainly investigation in relation to it, but I think that you'd be treading a thin line where somebody could very well say, "Hold on a minute here. I'm being treated less favourably", or "I'm being treated detrimentally, and I'm being harassed at my workplace because of what my philosophical views are".

And that leads you down a real risky path of tribunal claims, resignations, and that ultimately could end up a bigger piece in the press and the media as well.

So, I think that you have to just be balanced in relation to that approach. I don't think that there's anything ever to fear from having a simple conversation with somebody rather than it just being swept under the carpet and ignored. And you might want to follow it up with both individuals just to check that there wasn't anything more sinister happening or anything like that

Christine: But if we do go down the route of disciplinary, a lot of the cases . . . Universities in England, barristers' chambers over in London have got themselves into hot water basically by taking almost a position on somebody's philosophical beliefs. And this is where you're seeing people losing the cases on philosophical beliefs.

So, if you do have to go down a scenario where one or both of these individuals need to be disciplined, how do you go about that fairly? Do you have to discipline both of them for it to be fair? Or say Luna was up to a bit of no good at the protest, and when you dig deeper, it appears that's what was happening. Can you just discipline her on her own? But then does that look like you're saying, "Your views are wrong"?

Seamus: I mean, I suppose that there's always that risk around it, and there's that confidentiality piece as well where you don't get the opportunity during a disciplinary to say, "Oh, no, but we're disciplining X because of this". You don't get that opportunity to say that to your wider staff.

I think that you do need to be careful. You do need to look at the tests in relation to whether the view is in fact a philosophical belief and looking at those Grainger tests that you have. But those are really complex and difficult matters to manoeuvre and to get right, and you can see the end result sometimes whenever you come to tribunal hearings.

I think, where it's warranted, you need to go back to the simple positions in and around investigation, your outcome report on your investigation, what exactly it says, and if there's more to it in relation to someone just being there on the basis of their philosophical belief.

If there's criminal activity happening outside of that and that has reputational damage and all the rest, then I think that's a different matter.

I mean, the key thing for any of that is always that you take a consistent approach, and that should be your approach in general to philosophical views in the workplace as well, that it is a consistent approach. But the circumstances where they can be differentiated, I think that you can look to take a different path for each.

Christine: We've got a question here. It's really around disciplinary and suspension being initiated. So, is it okay to email a letter suspending somebody without first speaking to them?

Seamus: Well, I think good practice would be that you do have a conversation with them in the first instance. I think that has to be the way of it. We've come across scenarios before where employers had sent letters out and the person turns up to work anyway and says they didn't get the letter. So, I think good practice is that you do have to have that conversation, whether that is in-person or if it's by telephone.

If worse comes to worst, I think if you can't get them, then you should issue the letter. I think that you should make reasonable efforts to get in contact with them. And if they do show up at work when they're suspended and have been told not to come to work, you can point to the fact that you had sent an email and that you had been making attempts in order to discuss it with them.

But I think the best way would be that you communicate that directly to the person and then follow it up in writing.

Christine: Brilliant. Thanks. I've got another question here. I think this is almost certainly inspired by the Enoch Burke stuff down in the Republic of Ireland. So can you require an employee with gender-critical philosophical beliefs to use pronouns that they fundamentally disagree with?

Seamus:  Where do you start? I think I can remember saying at the conference about one of the scenarios. I was like, "What does Dennis do? Dennis should phone in sick for the day". Because it really is difficult and complex stuff to have to deal with.

I mean, the Enoch Burke case, I think, is somewhat fascinating. It's a hamster wheel that just keeps moving and going. Where's the resolution to it and all the rest?

But fundamentally, the case is about a teacher in a school who refused to use the pronouns that a pupil had required, and which he'd received direction by his employer to use and refused to use. And I think that's the key aspect. You can't force anybody to use a certain pronoun.

There are lots of issues ongoing. We could have delved into transgender issues equally as well as what we did with the immigration issues. But you can't force anybody.

If you have a policy and a procedure in place that requires that and the person is in breach of that . . . You can clearly see from the Enoch Burke case what the Court's views and findings were in relation to all of that as well.

And again, I think going back to the very start of this, it's setting your stall out and being transparent about what your position is on issues.

You'll see emails that you'll get from certain organisations that have the piece at the bottom that says, "My pronouns are", and, "I would like you to refer to me as". That doesn't mean that every customer, supplier, or person that they deal with is going to respect that. Does that lead, then, to the employee complaining to their employer?

We look at the case law about vicarious liability and all those sorts of issues arising. It is a difficult, thorny issue. It's one to get legal advice in respect of. That would be my views in relation to it.

Certainly, you cannot force something. You can have a policy and procedure and you can have training in relation to being respectful and adhering to what the what the policy of the organisation is. But ultimately, you can't force anybody.

And then your alternative options are that you're backed into a corner. You're left with disciplinary proceedings, and you end up in a tribunal or worse in relation to it.

So really difficult issues. I think it's one that you take legal advice in respect of.

Christine: Yeah, and I think what came out at Annual Review . . . We had certain questions dotted throughout your presentation, and a lot of the time there's not a right answer and there's not a wrong answer. It's such a difficult issue, and I think that really came out at Annual Review.

I'm just very mindful of the time, Seamus. I'm just going to wrap up with a few of my takeaways for this session.

So, a first takeaway would be it's important to have robust policies on equality and diversity, anti-harassment, as well as email, internet, and social media policies. They need to be kept up to date and they need to be reviewed regularly. And all employees should be aware of the policies and the consequences of breaching them.

Secondly, provide equality and diversity training for your workforce and specific training for managers and supervisors in how to deal with equal opportunities and harassment issues. Refresher training must be provided to avoid an argument that the training has gone stale. We see that time and time again in tribunal.

And thirdly, if an employee is found to be harassing another employee, take the appropriate legal steps to rectify the situation immediately. Don't let it fester the way we have done with Ted and Luna. That situation got out of control because nobody stepped in. Poor old Dennis.

But yes, thank you very much for that, Seamus. Thank you, everyone, for tuning in today. If you'd like to catch up on Employment Law at 11, we are on Spotify, Amazon, and Apple Podcasts.

You will also find Seamus and me on LinkedIn, so please do drop us a message. Connect to us. I had quite a few people come up to me at events during the week saying they listen in, and it was really nice to talk to you in person. So, thank you for doing that.

But all that's left to be said is I hope you all have a merry Christmas. I hope your Christmas parties go well and you don't have a Ted or Luna situation to deal with at the parties. Seamus and I will see you in the new year.

A big thank you to Seamus for these podcasts all year. It's been great doing them with you. And a big thank you to Gosia for working in the background doing all the technical stuff for us.

Everybody, have a lovely Christmas and we will see you in the new year. Thanks now.

Sponsored by: