| Employers can rely on health and safety grounds for dismissing an employee, provided that they can prove this is the genuine reason for the dismissal. The employee in this case was employed as a quality inspector in a chicken processing factory and worked in the food production area of the factory. He was a Russian Orthodox Christian and wore a crucifix on a chain close to his chest to signify his commitment to his religious beliefs. His induction training covered the company’s ‘foreign body control policy’, which stated that, other than a single, plain ring, jewellery must not be worn, with the exception of religious jewellery, which would be subject to a risk assessment. His line manager noticed his necklace and asked him to remove it because it breached company policy, and he did so. She did not conduct a risk assessment, as she believed the matter to be closed. The employee did not request an assessment because he believed his line manager understood the necklace was worn as part of his faith. Around this time, the employee had a meeting with a manager to discuss a complaint he had made about bullying by colleagues. The manager noticed he was wearing the necklace and asked if it had been risk assessed. On learning there had not been a risk assessment, she said she would ask his line manager to carry one out. His line manager concluded that there was a risk of contamination because the chain was made of links; she also considered the risks of entanglement, entrapment and tearing. The employee refused to remove the chain and was consequently dismissed on misconduct grounds for refusing to obey a management instruction. He was told that his probationary period and thus his employment would be ended immediately. The employee brought an employment claim on the basis that he had been subjected to indirect religious discrimination due to his dismissal for wearing his religious jewellery. The employment tribunal noted that at the time of the risk assessment, the employee’s line manager did not discuss the chain in any detail with the employee nor inspect whether the chain was in good condition. There was no conversation with the employee as to whether any steps could be taken to mitigate the risk, such as ensuring that it was tucked into his clothing at all times, or that his Personal Protective Equipment could be fastened up to ensure it was not exposed. The tribunal heard that his line manager had not conducted such a risk assessment before, that she did not complete all the sections of it and did not consider mitigation such as tucking the necklace securely beneath clothes or under the employee’s Personal Protective Equipment. The employee’s evidence on this, which the employment tribunal accepted, was that he was not consulted on the risk assessment and that the risk assessment was cursory. Accordingly, the employer was unable to show that the health and safety rule which required the necklace to be removed was justified and proportionate based on the evidence. The employment tribunal concluded that the employer had failed to produce evidence which indicated that the health and safety of staff and customers had outweighed the discriminatory effect on the employee of being prohibited from wearing his necklace. This was because the risk assessment had been inadequate. The employee in this case was awarded just over £22,000 for indirect discrimination. Health and safety measures in the workplace must be based on a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, rather than a cursory and insufficient one and the management response should be proportionate to the identified health and safety risks. | 