Green issues such as sustainability and corporate & social responsibility are increasingly important to employee engagement. Some employees take these issues more seriously that others and we asked the employment team at Carson McDowell to consider this question:

Our organisation is supportive of employees adopting “green” and environmentally friendly practices in the workplace. After all, it saves money as well as reducing our carbon footprint. However, one employee in particular is taking it to extremes and this is causing problems with his colleagues, whom he berates on an almost daily basis over their personal choices (mode of transport to work, number of cars in their households, eating meat, holidaying abroad, the extent of their recycling and so on).

We have tried several “quiet words” in the employee’s ear to tell him that he needs to tone it down, but within a week he is back to his usual vocal self. What should we do?

Whilst these circumstances may sound like classic territory for considering disciplinary action for misconduct (perhaps his behaviour is a breach of your respect and dignity at work policy, possibly even your bullying and harassment policy), before you jump in with two feet, it might surprise you to know that this employee may have some protection under fair employment legislation!

This is because, since 2003, the definition of “religious belief” in FETO specifically includes religion and “other philosophical belief”. Although the religious discrimination laws in GB are different than in NI, they also cover “philosophical belief”. There was a very high profile case in England a few years ago, where the Employment Appeal Tribunal said that strongly held beliefs about climate change were capable of amounting to a “philosophical belief” and thus protected by the religious discrimination legislation.

In that case Mr Nicholson, who was Head of Sustainability at Grainger plc, was made redundant. He brought a number of claims, including a claim that his selection for redundancy was influenced by his environmental views and thus amounted to unlawful discrimination. In essence, Mr Nicholson said that as part of his job he was responsible for promoting good environmental practices and sustainability, but his employer paid only lip service to this. In reality his views conflicted with those of senior management and he said increasingly he became viewed as a troublemaker.

Mr Nicholson said that he had a “philosophical belief that mankind is heading towards catastrophic climate change and therefore we were under a moral duty to lead our lives in a manner which mitigates or avoids this catastrophe... and to persuade others to do the same”. He said that his beliefs were not mere opinions, but core beliefs that affected “how I live my life including my choice of home, how I travel, what I buy, what I eat and drink, what I do with my waste”.

The EAT upheld an employment tribunal’s finding, at a pre-hearing review, that this was capable of being a “philosophical belief” for the purposes of the religious discrimination legislation. Unfortunately, from an advisory point of view, Mr Nicholson and his former employer settled their dispute before the full hearing of the case, but nonetheless it established the principle that such firmly held environmental views were capable of protection.

Obviously your situation is quite different from that of Mr Nicholson, but you should proceed on the assumption that his views are protected by FETO. That is not to say that the employee should be given free rein to impose his views on his colleagues, merely that your handling of the situation needs to be delicate and carefully balanced.  

I think the most important distinction to draw is between the employee’s beliefs and the employee’s behaviour. He is perfectly entitled to hold his firm environmental beliefs, and must not be subjected to discrimination because of them. What he is not entitled to do is to harass and harangue his colleagues in his attempts to convert them to his beliefs. If he persists, then by all means implement your disciplinary procedures but you need to make it clear to the employee that it is not his beliefs you are objecting to, it is his conduct that is causing the friction in the workplace.