Observance by religious employees of the requirements for appearance and business etiquette established by the employer

Abstract

In Russia, labor disputes are increasingly arising over the fundamental admissibility of employees observing the norms of the religion they profess, ethical teachings and the possibilities for obliging employers not to interfere with their observance by creating appropriate conditions for the use of labor. Law enforcement practice, in the absence of clear guidelines in the legislation, “disguises” such disagreements as disputes about dismissal for violation of labor laws, ignoring their true discriminatory nature. The article analyzes in detail one of the sections of the designated problem of reconciliation of labor and religion - the observance by religious workers of the requirements for the appearance and rules of business etiquette at the employer. Considering the problem, the author starts from the three main religious needs of the employee, which he seeks to satisfy in a controversial situation of contradiction between the employer's requirements and religious norms. Drawing extensively on materials from foreign practice and analyzing Russian legislation, the author comes to the following conclusions. The ability of an employee to satisfy a need such as the wearing of religious clothing, symbols, or other external manifestation of religious commitment will depend on what regulation is established by the employer in this regard. It also gives an assessment of the so-called policy of religious neutrality, established at the local level. As for the need for an employee to verbally express his religiosity and views, the employer has the right to prohibit such actions if they cause inconvenience to other employees or customers, threaten to lose customers, the image of the employer, and also to prevent proselytism in the team of employees. Finally, an employee for religious reasons may express a desire to refrain from participating in the employer's corporate events: coercion by the employer to the contrary clearly constitutes indirect discrimination.