To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Stedman v United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stedman v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR CD 168 is a UK labour law case, which deals with religious freedom, and the duty of an employer to let religious people have Sundays off.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    Views:
    349
    33 956
  • Stedman Graham joins National University on Facebook Live
  • Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics

Transcription

Facts

Ms Stedman, a Christian, had worked at an employment agency since 1990. From December 1991 the applicant, along with other staff, was required to work on Sundays. In the period from December 1991 to May 1992 she worked on 10 out of a total of 25 Sundays. On 27 April 1992 Ms. Stedman gave the manager one month's notice that she was no longer prepared to work on Sunday. On 7 May 1992 she was told that her contract of employment was to be amended to include Sunday as a normal working day, on a rota basis, with no enhanced rate of pay. The applicant refused to sign the new contract and said that she would continue working under her existing contract. On 4 June 1992 she was dismissed after 22 months of employment, and paid one month's pay in lieu of notice.

She claimed this was a breach of her right to freedom of religion under Art.9 ECHR. Under Art.1 the MS must secure Convention rights. She also complained of breach of her right to a family life under Art.8, because she was bound to work some Sundays, and her husband did not.

Judgment

The European Commission of Human Rights (i.e. the case was not admitted to the actual court) stated by a majority that Ms Stedman resigned because she did not want to work. She was not dismissed because of her religion. Even if she had been employed by the state and dismissed in similar circumstances, there would not have even been an interference with her Art 9(1) rights. The application was ‘manifestly ill founded’ under Art 27(2) ECHR.

For Art 8, ‘given the almost inevitable compromise and balance between work and family commitments, particularly in families where both partners work’ there was no interference, to constitute any violation. Other challenges under Art.14 and Art.6 were similarly dismissed, and the case was inadmissible.

See also

Notes

External links

This page was last edited on 8 April 2023, at 16:46
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.