A receptionist training to be a vicar has had his claims of religious discrimination and unfair dismissal rejected after suing his employer over Sunday shifts and reading the Bible at work.
Erich McElevey, who worked at Wycombe Badminton Centre from June 2016, argued he faced discrimination by being scheduled for shifts on the “Lord’s day”.
He also claimed he was prevented from reading the Bible to pass the time and was disciplined for allowing free entry to the sports centre as an act of “love my neighbour”.
However, an employment tribunal in Watford dismissed all his claims, including those for religious harassment, discrimination, and unfair dismissal.
Mr McElevey alleged that from May 2020, his boss Alistair Jones told him not to read the Bible while working at the not-for-profit sports facility.
“In his view, this meant that he had to sit for hours ‘watching paint dry’,” the tribunal heard.
A text from Mr Jones to Mr McElevey in February 2022 said “Erich, not a single player was checked in throughout your whole shift on Sunday … please stop bringing in computers and doing other things other than the receptionist duties.”
Mr McElevey told the tribunal that he was again stopped from reading the Bible at work on Sundays from May 2022.
The tribunal heard: “Under cross examination, [Mr McElevey] expanded his case on not being allowed to read the Bible on Sundays by stating that Mr. Jones had ripped up his theological notes (for his theological studies to be a vicar).”
Mr Jones told the tribunal that he would never have ripped up an employee’s notes because this would have damaged his reputation and been “out of character”, and in any case it would have been caught on CCTV.
He added that it was the centre’s policy that no employee could read a book or use the internet for personal purposes at work.
Mr McElevey also alleged that Mr Jones changed his working hours so that he worked more on Sundays.
He alleged “from November 2022 onwards Mr Jones changed his working hours so that he worked less during the weekday evenings and more on weekends including Sundays”, adding that it was “related to religion”.
He also alleged and that he was subjected to a disciplinary process because he tried to help customers, “which is part of his living his Christian values”.
The tribunal was told: “In [Mr McElevey]’s view, he was helping customers by allowing them to go through to the courts without paying and by allowing members to cancel a booking on the day and to rebook without paying the cancellation fee.”
Mr McElevey told the tribunal: “I was expected to exert a hostile attitude to the players.
“The centre’s purpose was to promote the sport. I was told constantly not to do things.
“I got to the point where I was just trying to live out my faith and love my neighbour as myself.”
The badminton centre said this caused a “loss to the business”, and held a disciplinary hearing in early 2023 about this and other issues which Mr McElevey had previously received a final written warning for.
He resigned in February that year following the hearing.
Employment Judge Elizabeth Coll found it was not “plausible” that Mr Jones had ripped up Mr McElevey’s study notes, and there were no messages found relating to the Bible – Mr Jones had simply told Mr McElevey not to read books or the internet at work.
EJ Coll said: “[Wycombe Badminton Centre] had reasonable and proper cause for forbidding [Mr McElevey] from reading nonwork material at work and for prohibiting the use of the internet and mobile telephones for personal purposes.”
The judge also found that working on Sundays was not “imposed” on Mr McElevey, and instead he had actually requested to work on those days.
EJ Coll said: “[He] worked Sundays before November 2022. Mr. Jones said under cross examination that he offered up additional shifts “across the board” and [Mr McElevey] accepted numerous weekend shifts, possibly 60-70 over a 6-year period.
“A number of the text exchanges showed that [Mr McElevey] had no issue with working on Sundays and in fact wanted to.”
EJ Coll continued: “The Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary process was not taken out for trying to help customers but for a deliberate refusal to follow the IT procedures for noting that and when members and non-members had arrived.
“This resulted in inaccurate recording of monies due. The Tribunal also note that [Mr McElevey did not relate his actions to any Christian beliefs, during the disciplinary hearing.”
All his other claims were dismissed.