Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

AbsenceLatest NewsEmployment tribunalsHolidays and holiday payReligious discrimination

Jewish worker dismissed following Passover absence wins £26k

by Ashleigh Webber 7 Mar 2022
by Ashleigh Webber 7 Mar 2022 Andy Paradise/Shutterstock
Andy Paradise/Shutterstock

A Jewish employee who lost his law firm job for failing to attend work during a religious holiday has won more than £26,000 at an employment tribunal.

Mr Bialick, who was a litigation executive at Manchester-based personal injury law firm NNE Law, is of Orthodox Jewish faith and strictly observes Jewish holidays – on some of which no work is permitted.

His relationship with his employer became strained when he did not turn up at the office on 24 March 2020. This was the day following the prime minister’s direction for everyone to stay at home unless they were carrying out essential work, in order to curb the spread of Covid-19.

Bialick was urged to come into the office as the firm deemed his work as “essential”. Despite expressing his fears for his safety, especially as the firm’s office was small and social distancing was not possible, he returned to the office on 25 and 26 March 2020 as he feared losing his job.

The claimant started to feel ill when he returned from work on 26 March. He contacted the NHS and was instructed to stay at home. He informed his employer of this on 27 March and later that day sent a copy of his isolation note, which said he would isolate up to, and including, 1 April. A second isolation note was later issued, extending the period to 8 April.

The prior February, Bialick had booked annual leave for Passover in April 2020. His request had been approved. Of these days off, 8 and 9 April were particularly important as those were the days of Passover on which his Jewish faith did not permit him to work.

On 8 April he received a letter from his employer, dated 2 April, challenging his unauthorised absence on 24 March and noting that although he had been self-isolating, it could no longer authorise his annual leave from 7 April to 17 April “due to company policy” and the fact the pandemic had caused “staffing issues”.

“We look forward to your return to work on 09/04/2020,” the letter concluded.

Religious observance

Religious festivals: five-week holiday rejection not discriminatory

Policy on religious observance during working hours

Creating an inclusive workplace around religion and belief

The tribunal heard that NNE Law had a company policy that insisted on no more than two weeks away from the office. This meant that even where an employee has a holiday booked and agreed, they were required to cancel the holiday if they had been unable to attend the office in the previous two weeks. . Bialick had not been aware of this policy.

He emailed the company, noting that the annual leave had been for a religious festival, stating “I hope you will continue to honour this”. He said he would return to the office “when my health allows for it”, as his Covid-19 symptoms continued.

He explained that he was even breaking his religious observance on 8 April by being required to reply to the firm’s letter, which he did not want to do but decided he needed to so that he could ask that his religious observance be respected.

He later received a letter, dated 9 April 2020, dismissing him without further contact or discussion. The letter said: “As you have decided to not come in, we are left with no alternative but to end your employment contract with NNE Law Ltd. You will be sent your P45 in the post shortly. We wish you all the best.”

The employment tribunal found that the company’s policy of requiring staff to cancel holidays if they had been absent to ensure they returned to work after two weeks put employees who observed religious holidays other than Christian festivals – which are public holidays in the UK – at a disadvantage.

The judgment says: “The practice of cancelling holidays booked for that purpose or to face dismissal therefore requires Jewish employees to choose whether to work when they are not permitted to work or be dismissed. That places Jewish employees whose faith requires they do not work on certain days, at a particular disadvantage when instructed to cancel annual leave.”

It noted that while the firm’s policy had a “legitimate aim” of meeting client needs, it provided no evidence that those client needs were not being met when it dismissed Bialick.

“The respondent did not provide any instance of, for example, a court deadline or hearing that was missed or nearly missed as a result of the claimant’s absence. We accepted the claimant’s evidence that he was well organised and up to date.

“Further, and in any event, there are less discriminatory ways of meeting the legitimate aim, for example sharing work calendars with colleagues, applying for postponements or extensions of time or even the step that the respondent noted on its response form it had to take as a last resort following the claimant’s dismissal; engaging a locum.”

His claim for indirect discrimination on religious grounds was successful, however a complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was dismissed.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Bialick is to receive compensation totalling £26,479.86, including awards for injury to feelings and loss of earnings.

Latest HR job opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more human resources jobs

Ashleigh Webber

Ashleigh is a former editor of OHW+ and former HR and wellbeing editor at Personnel Today. Ashleigh's areas of interest include employee health and wellbeing, equality and inclusion and skills development. She has hosted many webinars for Personnel Today, on topics including employee retention, financial wellbeing and menopause support.

previous post
Gender equality in finance ’30 years off’
next post
Sharp fall in hepatitis C deaths in England

You may also like

Law firm HR professional embroiled in ‘anti-Islam’ row

12 Mar 2025

Top 10 HR questions February 2025: Supporting employees...

4 Mar 2025

Ramadan in the workplace: top tips for employers

21 Feb 2025

Free speech: Kristie Higgs triumphs at Court of...

12 Feb 2025

Higgs’ victory has ‘profound’ implications for employers

12 Feb 2025

Christmas leave: should HR enforce a ‘Christmas shutdown’?

18 Dec 2024

Church of England: lack of role models hinders...

6 Nov 2024

Christian wins discrimination claim after job offer rescinded...

1 Jul 2024

Top 10 HR questions March 2024: Ramadan, carer’s...

3 Apr 2024

Women and ethnic minorities ‘on B roads’ to...

5 Mar 2024

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+