Shirley Chaplin a Christian nurse re-assigned to an office role after refusing to take off a necklace bearing a cross will take her case to an employment tribunal next week
Oh no, just when you thought it safe to get back in to the water…shudder….
This was the eChurch statement on this particular case, back in September:
The eChurch Blog will not be promoting this current popular news item, as we believe that if a protruding necklace constitutes a heath and safety risk (in terms of infection control, and the risk of the necklace being grabbed by a patient etc) in the medical environment, then all medical workers (including Christians) should abide by the rules.
We at the eChurch Blog have extensive personal experience working within the medical profession, and can certainly accept that a protruding necklace could potentially cause a problem, with infection control and could constitute a potential risk in terms of manual handling.
If the health trust is simply asking for this necklace (and ALL protruding necklaces) to be concealed underneath the clothing, or removed, then we see no problem with Christians following this instruction for health and safety reasons.
I would now add to this statement the fact that wearing religious symbols is not a requirement of Scripture, nor is it a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith and therefore, should constitute no infringement of Christian religious freedoms, when requested to remove.
As long as these health and safety rules are enforced uniformly, then what’s the problem?
A Christian nurse re-assigned to an office role after refusing to take off a necklace bearing a cross will take her case to an employment tribunal next week, a hospital said today.
Shirley Chaplin, 54, claims the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital was trying to prevent her from expressing religious beliefs.
In response to the controversy last September, the trust said the policy was nothing to do with the crucifix specifically, and instead motivated by health and safety concerns about patients grabbing necklaces.
Mrs Chaplin’s case for discrimination on religious grounds will begin in her home city of Exeter tomorrow.
The court must decide if her employer “subjected her to discrimination on grounds of her religion” after attempts to resolve the matter failed, the trust said today.
Previously employed on the infection and isolation ward caring for the elderly and vulnerable, she has been redeployed to a nursing administration role.
That is “with full pay protection, pending ongoing attempts to find an acceptable compromise”, the trust added.
Lynn Lane, the trust’s human resources director, said: “The trust has fully acknowledged that this has become an important issue for Mrs Chaplin, which is why we offered her a number of different options in the hope that a mutually acceptable solution could be agreed.
“We are very disappointed that this matter could not have been resolved before now. For the trust, this has always been about compliance with our agreed uniform policy and the safety of staff and patients. Our policy on necklaces accords with most other trusts’ dress codes and Department of Health guidelines.
“Sadly, it appears that Mrs Chaplin may have been deflected from agreeing a sensible and pragmatic resolution of this dispute by the involvement of other parties outside the trust.”
Did you notice that last statement:
“Sadly, it appears that Mrs Chaplin may have been deflected from agreeing a sensible and pragmatic resolution of this dispute by the involvement of other parties outside the trust.”
So who are these “outside parties” stirring up trouble?
I wonder which Christian legal group is representing Mrs Chaplin?
I made this comment in a recent post analysing the “persecution of Christians” in the UK:
I’m going to be forthright, are Christians more persecuted today in the UK, or is it that Christians have developed a persecution complex over the last 10 years as a result of certain Christian organisations who thrive on such legal cases? (Editors note, these Christian organisations have not been named for fear of incurring the wrath of their fearsome litigation departments)
I’ll say no more for fear of legal reprisals 
March 28th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I’m perplexed by this. Can anyone explain just what the the legal argument might be?
March 28th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
It will be based around an infringment of her religious freedoms of expression. I think she will lose frankly.
March 28th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Cranmer takes completely the opposite view to me:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/03/bishops-criticise-labours-anti.html
March 28th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
This might answer your questions Webmaster:
The Christian Legal Centre is supporting the case of Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was banned from working on hospital wards for wearing a cross around her neck.
This week she will take the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust to an employment tribunal after she was told last year that she must hide or remove a small cross on her necklace if she wanted to continue working on hospital wards. We are requesting your prayerful support for a successful outcome.
While the trust refused to grant her an exemption, it makes concessions for other faiths, including allowing Muslims to wear headscarves on duty.
Shirley Chaplin, 54, had spent all her career at the Exeter Hospital and had never been challenged before over the necklace, which she has worn since her confirmation 38 years ago.
Mrs Chaplin is supported in her case by 7 leading Bishops who have written a letter to The Sunday Telegraph published today (28 April). In the letter, the bishops express their deep disquiet at the double standards of public sector employees, claiming that Christians are punishes while followers of other faiths are treated far more sensitively.
The bishops who signed the letter are Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury; the Rt Reverend Michael Scott-Joynt the Bishop of Winchester; Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali the former Bishop of Rochester; the Rt Rev Peter Forster, the Bishop of Chester; the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, the Bishop of Hereford; the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, the Bishop of Blackburn; and the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill, the Bishop of Lichfield.
In their letter the bishops criticised the way in which Mrs Chaplin had been treated and stated that she should not be prevented from expressing her faith by wearing her cross.
“This is yet another case in which the religious rights of the Christian Community are being treated with disrespect” they say.
“To be asked by an employer to remove or ‘hide’ the cross is asking the Christian to hide their faith”
The bishops said that it was “deeply disturbing” that the NHS’s uniform policy permits exemptions for religious clothing, but appears to regard the cross as “just an item of jewellery”.
The bishops also expressed their surprise that the Court had asked for evidence to be submitted to verify that Christians wear crosses visibly around their neck.
Shirley Chaplin is being represented by leading human rights barrister Paul Diamond.
Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre supporting the case commented: “It would seem the Exeter Hospital would rather use its money to deny Christians their rights than using its scarce resources to treat patients. The money the trust is spending on lawyers in this case could employ Shirley Chaplin in front line nursing for many a year or two.
“It is ridiculous that in our country with such a great Christian heritage the court require evidence to prove that the cross is a Christian symbol whilst not applying the same standards to other faiths
“It is time for common sense to prevail and to allow Shirley Chaplin to return to front line nursing duty, the job she loves and has carried out diligently and successfully for over 30 years.
If you would like to donate to support the Christian Legal Centre in Shirley Chaplin’s case, we would be very grateful. To do so, please click the button below, or visit http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/donation.php
March 28th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
What ever happened to ‘“render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” ?
To me this means obeying civil authorities. Adherence to a trust’s policies is essential, and not a pick and mix basket, allowing staff to chose which ones they like. Policies are in place for the safety of patients and staff alike. They are based on the latest research, and not put there to persecute people.
CCFON and Shirley Chaplain would have a case, IF the NHS trust insisted that she renounced her faith, whilst constructing a pyre to encourage and ensure her obedience.
This really is getting out of hand, and makes a complete mockery out of Christians around the world, who are actually suffering real life threatening persecution.
Shame on them.
March 29th, 2010 at 11:52 am
If she was really asked to remove it for health and safety reasons (and if the rule was applied consistently to all jewellery) then that’s fair enough.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
The policy of no ‘hanging’ jewellery is pretty standard stuff, across the trusts.
Small stud earrings and a plain gold band wedding ring, are acceptable and are pretty much the normal guidelines particularly for nurses. As we can get very up close and personal with our patients! This ensures we cause no harm or injury to our patients or pass infection. Or on the other side of the coin, we have to have our own safety in mind. A confused and disorientated patient can easily snatch out and grab at us, and I for one wouldn’t want to suffer injury by someone swinging on a metal chain near my windpipe!
March 29th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Ah I see – well that’s completely different, then, and she cannot claim it is “persecution”.
If they had prohibited it because it was a religious symbol, then that would be wrong; but prohibiting it on health and safety grounds is different.
April 10th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
I was nearly strangled when someone (another Christian !) grabbed my crucifix. She should stop playing the persecution card – they are trying to help. A lot of religious folk seem to want to make a big fuss with anyone who doesn’t agree with their faith, yet they don’t mind waking people up door knocking or public preaching/ranting… That’s persecution of the nonreligious.