English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The point of departure of my paper is the case of the IKEA employee who lost his job for criticizing the workplace policy followed by his employer. In the paper I analyse two possible versions of the objection discrimination on the ground of belief that can be raised with respect to the employer’s decision. In my opinion neither of these two versions can withstand scrutiny. Regarding the first of these versions – the allegation of belief harassment – I claim that the employer’s action should not be recognized as a form of belief harassment. The criteria that I propose in the paper suggest that the ‘Inclusion of LGBT+...’ regulation was a permissible workplace policy, within the scope of the employer’s authority. Regarding the second version of the allegation of discrimination – the lack of respect for special needs resulting from beliefs – I argue that in this situation the employer was under no obligation to accommodate the employee’s needs resulting from his beliefs. In the light of the criteria formulated in the paper, the employee’s claim for accommodation was weak and it could be overweighed even by a relatively small burden on the employer’s part.

Kontrowersje światopoglądowe w miejscu pracy – uwagi teoretycznoprawne do sprawy pracownika krakowskiej Ikea