INDUSTRIAL COURT FINDS THERE ARE LIMITS TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN THE WORKPLACE

[Bible Speaks]

INDUSTRIAL COURT FINDS THERE ARE LIMITS TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN THE WORKPLACE

• Kejan Haynes
•  
• Sep 26, 2017 Updated Sep 27, 2017
•  (40)

Trinidad and Tobago
Elder of congregation fired from his company for revealing to the congregation private data from a sister.

The Industrial Court considers that there are limits to freedom of religion in the workplace

Editor's note: due to the nature of this story we have changed the names of the parties involved. We're calling them John and Jane.

The Industrial Court confirmed the decision of an important commercial bank to dismiss an employee who accessed and disseminated personal information from another employee to members of his church.

It is a case that reflects exactly the lightness that exists in the right of a person to freedom of religion.

His Excellency Mr. Herbert soverall presided over the case and rendered his judgement on July 28 The documents were made public.

In August 2012 (according to a statement written by John to his union) while working the night shift, he and two other employees reviewed the bank's hard disk security in search of checking form.

Inside the units, John said he stumbled upon sexually explicit material from a colleague who participated in sexual acts with a man, who was not her husband.

In the statement, John said that he is " an old man in the organization of Jehovah's witnesses ". he said that in his religion such acts are prohibited and " would bring reproaches to the name of our holy Lord Jehovah and also would the free flow of the spirit Saint in the Christian congregation ".

John approached Jane on more than one occasion telling him what he knew. He begged her to clean up the elders in the church.

He wanted to "remind him of the vows he made about his baptism and help him restore his relationship with his GOD JEHOVAH".

In the third attempt, Jane had already had enough, and told her that "out of her business". she reported John to her supervisor, adding that she would even report it to the police if the information he had was made public.

However, it persisted. John told the elders of the congregation what he had seen on the hard drive that night in his "desire to protect the cleansing of Christian congregations".

This took three elders from the church to visit the woman's home to confront her on her day off. He wasn't home at the time.

In December 2012, the bank fired John for "misconduct".

He had disclosed confidential information to a third party, had accessed information about a staff member without authorization, and had copied the information into an external storage device.

In the letter of termination, the bank said that it had "violated or violated the staff's rights", which was in violation of the bank's policies. They had lost confidence in him, and they believed he had discredited the bank.

The General Union of banking insurance workers never sought to justify John's sense of justice in his defense. Instead, they argued that their disciplinary hearings were not properly conducted. The Court ruled that after having filed a written confession, the bank did not have many options, and any attempt to postpone the hearings, as he had tried, was "to waste time and delay the process".

In the written judgment, the court ruled that it was not appropriate to apply the principles of religion itself.

"There's a time and a place for everything under the sun", says the trial. "the place of work simply cannot be treated as a church where religion can be observed and practiced with minimum control".

The Court argued that without control, the workplace could become "devoid of peace, stability and tranquility". each religion would want to be paramount, but no one could be.

The trial also says, " because of his behaviour and his testimony, the worker was adamant that he was right to reveal the information to the older person of his church. His defence was based on his religious persuasions. Industrial Relations Systems, as any worker could present such a defence in response to an act of misconduct and hope to be exonerated ".

The Union has not appealed the decision.

https://www.tv6tnt.com/news/local/industrial-court-finds-there-are-limits-to-freedom-of-religion/article_5a485b94-a327-11e7-9c32-57b15184bc6a.html

[Melinda Mills]

Most employers would have fired him, especially in banking where confidentiality is a serious prerequisite.  As one commentor said, there is a right way to do the right thing.  Even if he had resigned in order to report what he saw, he would still be indebted to his organization to keep confidential anything he saw. It would be a difficult situation regardless.  If he told them to investigate her without giving them a lead or the source of his information, they would still be after him; then it might still get back to her that he said something,  so it would still be detrimental to him. She might even sue him.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Interesting ....

Everywhere I have ever worked it was assumed that you did not discuss ANYTHING that went on with outsiders.

If it bothered your conscience, give two weeks notice, and quit, .... or suck it up and keep on keeping on.

Lawyers have the moral and legal obligation to keep client secrets forever, even if they quit being Lawyers.

If I understand the sentence structure here, MY MORAL obligation would be to have told the husband, not the congregational elders. 

Morally, copying a companies hard drive security cameras, except in self defense, is despicable and is the same as adultery.

He betrayed the "mouth that feeds him".

It is morally wrong to steal from one's employer, except in self defense against that employer.

 

 

[David Normand]

I too would have fired him. He was without authority to divulge such information to anybody as he had no right to the information in the first place.