BBC News – Newtownabbey firm discriminated against non-Brethren.

A tribunal has found that a County Antrim firm discriminated against an employee because he was not a member of the Brethren religious community.

Gavin Connolly, 30, from Newtownabbey, took a case against printing and merchandising company Oakdene Services.

The Fair Employment Tribunal found the firm unlawfully discriminated against him on grounds of religious belief and that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Mr Connolly was awarded £15,618 compensation.

He joined Oakdene Services in August 2010 and worked in sales and marketing.

Throughout his employment he believed that employees who were members of the Brethren community were treated more favourably.

Mr Connolly was told in June 2012 that he had been selected for possible redundancy and, following an unsuccessful grievance procedure and a period of sick leave, he resigned his post in August of that year.

The tribunal held that Mr Connolly’s selection for redundancy in June 2012 was an act of religious discrimination and also that the decision, together with the way his grievance procedure was handled, amounted to constructive and unfair dismissal.

Company cars and pay rises

The tribunal also held that during his employment Mr Connolly had been subjected to religious discrimination through Brethren employees being given better treatment in the provision of “tangible” benefits such as company cars, pay rises and mobile phones.

It also found they were differences in “intangible issues” such as Brethren employees going on separate lunch breaks, having out-of hours meetings on company premises and receiving motivational emails not sent to other staff.

In reaching their decision the tribunal said: “It is clear to us that there was very much a culture of ‘sheep and goats’.

“We were left with the clear impression from the respondent’s witnesses that they saw it as desirable and preferable to be Brethren and, by implication, undesirable not to be Brethren.”

Mr Connolly, whose case was backed by the Equality Commission, said: “I’m just glad the process is over and I can get on with my life.

“It has been a very stressful time but ultimately what matters to me is the recognition that I was treated unfairly at work.”

Richard Stay: The Charity Commission Conundrum!.

The Charity Commission are still considering their position in respect of the decision not to grant charitable status to the Exclusive Brethren’s Preston Down Trust in Torquay.

They are in confidential talks with lawyers representing the brethren & regularly get letters from the group of MP’s who strangely think this sect warrants tax-payer support.

But the conundrum is this – if the Commission bows to the incredible lobbying campaign mounted by the brethren & grants charitable status they will rightly face a barrage of criticism from those harmed by the brethren’s edicts & beliefs. If they continue to refuse charitable status the brethren & their dwindling band of supporters will equally scream blue murder.

So the solution is simple – refer the matter to a Tribunal, it then becomes a legal test, not just around charitable status but also the more important matter of harm. That is the more critical matter that requires a proper public airing & to be tested by a senior legal expert.

We know the brethren do not want to go to Tribunal (cost was stated as the reason), but we believe that the brethren do not want the mountain of evidence gathered by the Commission to be aired in public.

These include hugely personal tragedies inflicted on people by the unfeeling & callous decisions taken by this sect & frankly most of which have never been put right.

So the right outcome would be to let the matter go to a Tribunal for a proper test of the Exclusive Brethren’s public benefit & accordingly their charitable status along with the test of harm.

The Church of Scientology were refused charitable  status on these grounds, we could & will argue that the same circumstances apply here.

It is the stated desire of the Commission for this matter to be tested at Tribunal – so just get on with it!

Regulator’s review changes.

Last August, the Charity Commission consulted on changes to its decision review service and in April this year some of those changes were made. The service, established in 2008, allows charities that are unhappy with commission decisions to have them reviewed internally by the regulator.

Since 2008, charities wishing to challenge decisions have also been able to appeal to the charity tribunal. The types of decision that the tribunal can consider are listed in Schedule 6 of the Charities Act 2011. Before the recent changes, the commission’s decision review service would refer only to the same list of decisions, except in exceptional circumstances.

One of the changes is that the service can now review commission decisions to exercise, or not to exercise, its legal powers – something not listed in Schedule 6 – providing these decisions are capable of judicial review. This change, the commission says, will be assessed after a six-month trial period.

The regulator can also now refuse to carry out a review in certain “appropriate” circumstances – for example, if the decision has already been reviewed or was made at a senior level.

Another change is that applicants are no longer automatically entitled to speak to the person reviewing the decision. They will be able to do so only if the decision directly affects the rights of the applicant, or when the reviewer requests it.

The person reviewing a decision is now allowed to have previous knowledge of or involvement in the case, but cannot be the person who made the original decision.

Michael King, chairman of the charity solicitors Stone King, is concerned that, by widening the scope of the service, the commission is creating a rod for its own back. “Increasing the proportion of decisions it reviews sounds good, but where are the resources?” he says.

King says that preventing large numbers of people speaking to the reviewer might speed up the process. On the other hand, he says that allowing people with an interest in the case to speak to the reviewer can avert litigation further down the line.

Stephanie Biden, a partner at the charity law firm Bates Wells & Braithwaite, says that giving the commission the power to refuse to review decisions in certain cases is not new. For example, she says, in the case of the Preston Down Trust, a Plymouth Brethren congregation in Devon, the commission refused to review its decision not to register the trust as a charity on the basis that the decision had been made at a senior level. “If that is the commission’s practice, it is helpful that the formal policy acknowledges this,” she says.

But Biden says charities should not be forced to go straight to the tribunal just because a registration decision has been made at a senior level. “Sometimes decisions, even those made at a senior level, can be based on a misunderstanding about the proposed charity that can be resolved quickly and cost-effectively through the decision review process.”

In cases that involve a particularly unusual aspect of charity law, she says, the commission often prefers charities to go directly to the tribunal. “That is likely to hinder the development of charity law and the evolution of new charitable purposes, because it is expensive to go to the tribunal in those circumstances,” Biden says. “The tribunal also doesn’t allow for the same degree of negotiation to reach a compromise position as a decision review meeting with the commission.”

Students’ good character can’t prevent disqualification | Central Western Daily.

HIGHER School Certificate student Benjamin Alderton, described by the magistrate in Orange Local Court as a young man of exemplary character, has lost his licence for 12 months after crashing on White Rocks Road near Lewis Ponds and injuring an elderly man in December last year.

Magistrate Bruce Williams told the accused he was bound by the law to disqualify the 17-year-old and had no way of reducing the minimum disqualification period for negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm.

Mr Williams told Alderton, who is in year 12 at the Exclusive Brethren School in Orange and a house captain, he was to be congratulated for the high regard in which he was held by people who provided references to the court, including the victim who requested leniency saying he didn’t want to see a young man burdened with a criminal conviction.

In his client’s defence solicitor Mark Ireland told the court as a HSC student Alderton, who travels to Orange from Bathurst to attend school, was required to be at school outside normal core hours as part of his studies.

In evidence presented to the court police said Alderton was travelling below the speed limit of 80km/h on the White Rocks Road on December 12, just a few weeks after getting his licence on October 22, when he lost control on a bend and braked heavily. This sent the vehicle into a skid and it collided heavily with a Barina being driven by the victim in the opposite direction.

Police said they recorded skid marks of 21 metres at the crash site and the rear tyres of the vehicle were smooth and offered no traction on the road.

The victim, who broke his leg and had to undergo surgery to have a plate inserted at Orange hospital, faces a long rehabilitation period in a wheelchair, according to police.

Alderton’s father Gavin, in a statement tendered to the court, said his son had been on the road to pick up a pressure washer to help out with some cleaning at his school.

His father also emphasised to the court the importance of his son retaining his licence so he could attend daily Bible readings, gospel preachings and prayer meetings.

Mr Williams told Alderton despite his fine character he couldn’t escape being responsible for a serious accident.

Imposing the disqualification and a fine of $300, Mr Williams warned Alderton not to drive without a licence.

“Although I am sure you won’t be doing that,” he said.

Brethren meeting hall wins approval | St George & Sutherland Shire Leader.

THE Exclusive Brethren can build a $1.27 million, 900-seat meeting hall as a place of worship in bushland at Heathcote on the edge of the Royal National Park.

Sutherland Shire Council spent more than $117,000 in legal costs in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the hall being built, it was revealed at a council meeting this week.

The NSW Land and Environment Court approved the application after the Exclusive Brethren made a number of amendments to its original design.

The Heathcote Gospel Trust representing the Exclusive Brethren lodged the application in December 2011 for a meeting hall on a 2.35-hectare site at the western end of Forum Drive, Heathcote.

The site had been vacant Crown land and since 2000 was managed by Landcom, which proposed to subdivide the site for residential allotments.

The Exclusive Brethren bought the site in 2009.

The proposed 645-square-metre hall would host meetings ranging from 35 worshippers on Mondays and Sundays to 130 on Tuesdays and 250 on Thursdays. Regional meetings of between 250 to 400 people would be held every three weeks and an occasional meeting for a maximum of 900 invitation-only worshippers would be held ‘‘not more than once a year’’.

Residents living near the site formed a committee, Heathcote Residents Against Inappropriate Development, and the council received more than 1300 objections.

The council said the development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality due to its visual prominence. It also said the development would have adverse impacts on the natural features and character of the area and there was an unacceptable level of bushfire risk for users and adjoining property owners.

Amendments were made by the Exclusive Brethren but the council still had concerns.

An appeal was lodged in the NSW Land and Environment Court in May last year on the basis of a deemed refusal by the council.

A number of amendments were made, including reducing the height of the building from 14 metres to 9 metres, removing a car park close to residences and proposing acoustic barricades.

While these amendments went some way towards resolving concerns, they did not bring the proposal to a level which could be supported by the council.

A major concern was the bushfire danger.

The council referred the application to the Rural Fire Service for consideration.

The RFS supported the application, subject to the building not being used on days when there was a high, extreme or catastrophic fire hazard. A bushfire management plan was drawn up that included prohibiting meetings for 900 people during the declared bushfire season and closing the building on days when there was a total fire ban.

Residents who made a submission were allowed to address the court.

A number of residents were quite emotional about the proposal and its impacts on their property and the surrounding area.

But the court upheld the appeal, noting the amendments and the bushfire management plan.

The court was “satisfied that while there are identified likely adverse impacts of the development, they are not such that consent should be refused”.

Residents’ spokesman Warren Lang said it was disappointing that “privacy, the amenity of the area, quietness and traffic concerns have been overlooked by the court”.

“And we are really disappointed with the RFS, who appeared to make the decision without considering the community or the local emergency services,” he said.

A NSW Rural Fire Service spokesman said the council requested advice about the bushfire safety aspects of the application.

“The NSW RFS is not the consent authority for DAs of this nature. It is important to note that the NSW RFS can only provide advice on bushfire safety issues and that advice is based on the planning for bushfire protection standards that apply across NSW,” he said.