Tim Nicholson brought an action against his former employer, the large property company Grainger Plc, claiming that his redundancy last year was due to discrimination against him over what he asserts is a philosophical belief about climate change and the environment.

The question was whether a belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a ‘philosophical belief’ for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations.

The Regulations set out in paragraph 2(1) that:

i. “religion” means any religion.
ii. “belief” means any philosophical belief.
iii. a reference to religion includes a reference to lack of religion, and
iv. a reference to belief includes a reference to lack of belief.

As Lord Nicholls said in R. (on the application of Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment UKHL 15 [2005] 2 A.C. 246 it is not for the judge to decide whether the belief is “valid” by some objective standard, only that it is made in good faith. However the belief asserted here was not one of religion but a philosophical one, so a cross examination was needed and it was not done correctly by the first judge in the regional court.

Three main questions were set out by the judge:

1. How far, if at all, does the ‘belief’ have to be similar to a ‘religious belief’ in order to qualify for protection under the Regulations?

2. What limits of any should be placed on the words ‘philosophical belief’?

3. Are the authorities in relation to the ECHR relevant or even persuasive in this field?

Mr. Justice Burton relied on ECHR jurisprudence, in particular Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom [1982] 4 ECHR 293 and previous cases decided by the EAT, including McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs [2008] IRLR 29 in which Elias P suggested that the test for determining whether a belief is philosophical or not is to determine whether this belief has sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and whether it is worthy of a democratic society.  He concluded that Nicholson’s belief fell within the ambit of the 2003 Regulations, meaning that he will now be able to take action against Grainger Plc.

Grainger Plc v Nicholson raises a new area for concerns for employers: environmental convictions will now have the same protection as religious beliefs under employment law.