- Nohad Halawi says she was unlawfully dismissed from T3 duty-free shop
- Claims she and other Christian staff were systematic harassment victims
- 49-year-old alleges friend was even reduced to tears for wearing a cross
- Noticed 'significant rise in Islamic fundamentalism at Heathrow Airport'
Heathrow worker: Nohad Halawi, 49, says she was wrongly accused of being 'anti-Islam'
A Christian working at London Heathrow Airport has claimed that harassment by fundamentalist Muslim colleagues led to her dismissal.
Nohad Halawi, 49, says she was wrongly accused of being ‘anti-Islam’ and unlawfully dismissed while working as a uniformed beauty consultant in the duty-free shop at Terminal 3.
Having now taken her case to the Court of Appeal, she is appealing against employment tribunal decisions that, because she was self-employed, she was not a ‘worker or employee’ entitled to seek the protection of unfair dismissal and anti-discrimination laws.
Mrs Halawi, from Weybridge, Surrey, asserts that she and other Christian staff were victims of systematic harassment, with one friend reduced to tears for wearing a cross.
She has consistently argued there was ‘a significant rise in Islamic fundamentalism at Heathrow Airport’ in the period leading up to her dismissal, but management was ‘unwilling to stand up to this because of fears of being labelled Islamophobic’.
She said in a statement to the tribunals she was ‘well-known for standing up on behalf of those Muslims bullied by the extremists’.
In one incident, a Muslim colleague ‘misheard’ a conversation she was having and mistakenly thought she had criticised Islam.
Soon after she was accused of being anti-Islam, and faced an internal investigation followed by dismissal in July 2011 from a job she had held for over 13 years.
Her case of unlawful religious discrimination was rejected by an employment tribunal in 2012, and then by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in October last year.
With the support of the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), she is challenging the EAT decision in the Court of Appeal.
Mrs Halawi, who came to Britain from Lebanon in 1977, worked for Autogrill Retail UK, which trades as World Duty Free (WDF).
Paul Diamond, appearing for Mrs Halawi, told three appeal judges - Lady Justice Arden, Lord Justice Christopher Clarke and Mr Justice Barling - it was a case of ‘workplace religious discrimination’.
Although Mrs Halawi provided her services through a limited company she had set up, she was entitled to protection under EU employment law because she ‘for all intents and purposes was a shop worker’.
Mr Diamond said she was paid a fixed standing wage by WDF and was in ‘a position of subordination’.
Mr Diamond argued that it was a case of ‘disguised employment’. When WDF took away her store pass allowing her to work ‘airside’ she was no longer able to continue her job.
He argued that WDF ‘liberally uses the power of removal of the pass as a tool of employment control’ believing its use was ‘beyond the purview of employment tribunals’.
Legal action: Mrs Halawi, of Weybridge, Surrey, came to Britain from Lebanon in 1977
Mrs Halawi is appealing against a ruling by EAT judge Mr Justice Langstaff.
He said in an October 4 judgment that he shared an ‘uneasy feeling’ that the airside arrangements were such that Mrs Halawi ‘could have been the victim of discrimination and yet have no right to complain to a tribunal’.
But she could not sue as an employee as she did not have a contract of employment and could not be classed as a worker, the judge ruled. WDF is opposing her appeal and arguing that the judge was right.
Mr Diamond said the case raised ‘wide-ranging and important issues’ which had not been fully analysed or tested by the employment tribunals.
The CLC says 22 of Mrs Halawi's Heathrow colleagues, including other Muslim workers, signed a petition saying they were ‘shocked and saddened’ by her dismissal ‘as a result of malicious and unfounded allegations made against her’.
CLC chief executive Andrea Williams said: ‘This is a clear case of injustice involving a Christian worker which was obvious to many of Nohad's colleagues - including some Muslim colleagues - who signed a petition protesting against her dismissal.
'This is a clear case of injustice involving a Christian worker which was obvious to many of Nohad's colleagues - including some Muslim colleagues - who signed a petition protesting against her dismissal'
Andrea Williams, Christian Legal Centre
‘In order for us to challenge Nohad's unfair dismissal, and the unequal treatment of Christians in the workplace, we need a judge to rule that she was in fact employed.
'This is why we're supporting Nohad as her case goes to the Court of Appeal.’
Ms Williams added: ‘This is an issue of justice affecting thousands of people and their right to proper protection if they work at the command of others and are subordinate to them, even if they have self-employed status.’
Diya Sen Gupta, appearing for WDF, told the judges there was no suggestion that Mrs Halawi had been forced into the working arrangements she had made with WDF.
She had gone to an accountant for advice and accepted a self-employment package with tax and flexibility advantages.
Ms Sen Gupta said: ‘There is no suggestion by the claimant that WDF forced her in any way to enter into this arrangement. This was not a disguised employment relationship.’
The appeal judges reserved judgment to a later date.
No comments:
Post a Comment