Tim Nicholson: A green martyr
Sacked executive can argue he was discriminated against because of his belief in climate change, judge rules
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
An executive sacked from a giant property company can claim he was unfairly dismissed because of his "philosophical belief in climate change", a judge ruled yesterday.
In the first case of its kind, employment judge David Sneath said Tim Nicholson, a former environmental policy officer, could invoke employment law for protection from discrimination against him for his conviction that climate change was the world's most important environmental problem.
That conviction amounted to a philosophical belief under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, 2003, the judge ruled on a point of law at a pre-hearing review of an employment tribunal in London.
Mr Nicholson, 41, had been head of sustainability at Grainger plc, Britain's biggest residential property investment company, until he was made redundant in July last year. He is now bringing a case for unfair dismissal, claiming that one of the reasons for his sacking was his strong belief about the importance of the environment – which put him at odds, he said, with other senior executives within the firm.
Grainger had good written policies both on the environment and corporate social responsibility, Mr Nicholson told the hearing – but there was a "mismatch" between the policies and the way in which the firm was managed. When he tried to get it to act in a more environmentally responsible way, he said, senior company executives obstructed him.
In a written statement submitted to the hearing, and then in oral evidence, Mr Nicholson listed a series of examples where, he said, Grainger's practices were very different from its proclaimed environmental stance. One of his jobs, he said, was to try to establish a carbon management strategy for the company – which had been listed as a target in the annual report and accounts. But when he tried to work out the firm's carbon footprint to implement it, senior staff from the human resources and financial departments refused him the necessary data.
Grainger's green policies would sometimes be shown to potential clients as part of a company package, he said, but the firm's executives would turn up at the meetings in "some of the most highly polluting cars on the road".
There was no control on how many flights people took, he said, so, "given the carbon intensity of flying", he raised his concerns with the company's chief executive, Rupert Dickinson, but never received a direct reply to his email. Eventually he was told by another member of staff that there would be no change to existing policy. In his written statement Mr Nicholson said: "He [Mr Dickinson] showed contempt for the need to cut carbon emissions by flying out a member of the IT staff to Ireland to deliver his BlackBerry that he had left behind in London."
Grainger had sought to have Mr Nicholson's attempt to use the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations struck out. Counsel for the company, Harry Trory, contended at length that Mr Nicholson's views on climate change and the environment were based on fact and science, and did not constitute a philosophical belief. But the judge found in favour of Mr Nicholson. "In my judgment, his belief goes beyond a mere opinion, he said,
Mr Nicholson told the hearing that his green beliefs affected how he lived his life, "including my choice of home, how I travel, what I buy, what I eat and drink, what I do with my waste and my hopes and my fears".
He said: "For example, I no longer travel by airplane. I have eco-renovated my home. I try to buy local produce. I have reduced my consumption of meat. I compost my food waste.
"I encourage others to reduce their carbon emissions and I fear very much for the future of the human race, given the failure to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale."
Aged 41, and married with a small son, Mr Nicholson now works for a green medical charity in Oxford. He said after the hearing: "I am pleased with the result, and I hope this sets a predecent that will support anyone who shares my views on climate change and the environment."
The full employment tribunal is now set to take place from 4 June. Grainger might consider an appeal against yesterday's ruling, Mr Trory said.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
It's called lying.
This is NOT just about this one employee.
It shows that this company propagates lies into the world in order to gain contracts.
A very contentious 'development' in Seven Sisters, N London is being lauded as in the best interests of the community.
On the developments website there are various documents including 'Sustainability Checklist' and 'Energy Strategy'
What can we believe any more???
Can they just make things up, then get a slap on the wrist when they are found out.
The comments on this page are reflective of a distrust and confusion with the 'green' agenda.
How about people standing by what they say?
How about the Independant, then picking up the baton and uncovering some or ;crazy thought' ALL of the muck relating to this company of liars.
The judge believes Mr Nicholson, so get out there and start digging!
Check www.wardscornercommunity.org.uk for starters.
Thanks.
What next - burning heretics (i.e. climate change skeptics and 'carbon polluters') at the stake?!
Perhaps the reason Mr Nicholson's colleagues got rid of him was simply that they had finally had enough of this neurotic eco-miserablist's self-righteous, sanctimonious lecturing and his endless banging-on (and on...) about carbon footprints and the deadly sin of energy consumption. To be honest, I'd have felt like drop-kicking him into the nearest recycling bin, too! (Okay, his employer shouldn't have boasted about being a green company when they weren't, because that's false advertising, but that is another issue).
you're saying that if a person is hired to do a job that is at the root of a company's "false advertising" and they get fired for actually trying to do that job.... that's OK????
K
But those issues aside, I know how eco-fanatics can make a complete pain of themselves by parading their own green credentials at every opportunity and trying to make everyone else feel guilty for not being equally zealous. I've lived with a few of these people myself, and did grow quite tired of being lectured about recycling when I knew for a fact that the whole thing is an elaborate, revenue-raising scam by local councils who aren't the least bit concerned about the environment, but simply cutting costs and finding new ways to penalize council tax payers for using the services they've actually paid for!
And I suspect that Nicholson pissed a lot of his colleagues off in a similar way, and it was a 'clash of personalities' that finally got him the boot.
you're saying that if a person is hired to do a job that is at the root of a company's "false advertising" and they get fired for actually trying to do that job.... that's OK????
Sicko says :
"What next - burning heretics (i.e. climate change skeptics and 'carbon polluters') at the stake?"
No - this is likely to release a great deal of carbon dioxide and other pollutants.
Surely shredding and composting would be a more responsible option. This could help sequester some of the carbon they have ingested in the form of food.
Furthermore Mister/Mrs/Ms Stupidity: what is wrong with councils trying to save money ?
It seems to me you're pedalling backwards
"Furthermore Mister/Mrs/Ms Stupidity: what is wrong with councils trying to save money ?
It seems to me you're pedalling backwards "
Listen, idiot. Our already exorbitant council taxes are supposed to cover ALL refuse removal services, PERIOD.
For councils to then start restricting the amount of refuse that people can throw away, and to FINE them for throwing away the 'wrong kind' of refuse, or for the cardinal sin of mixing different refuse types instead of sorting them into countless colour-coded bags or bins for SUPPOSED recycling, is just a devious ploy to cut down on the refuse service we have already paid for, and to introduce further surcharges on top.
This is BLATANT PROFITEERING and EXPLOITATION by councils, to save or generate additional revenue (in the same way that many suspect certain traffic speed cameras and pointless parking restrictions are), nothing more.
There have been reported cases where bottles and glass recovered by councils from bottle banks were simply melted down at standard refuse incinerators and then BURIED IN LANDFILLS! Please tell me how this fits the definition of 'recycling'?! It is nothing of the sort, of course. But you can bet your life that if that same council had found those same bottles amongst people's household refuse they would have FINED them for not 'recycling' them.
It's a complete CON, and you are a fool for being taken in by it.
Perhaps that would not be a bad idea. Okay there would be a bit of smoke for a few minutes, but the long benefit to society and to the numerous species that are being wiped out by out-of-control humans who put themselves before everyone and everything else would far outweigh the short term pollution.
The fact that Grainger argued on the difference between scientific fact and philosophy reinforces their arrogance.
Did they really think the potential reputational damage was worth this going to court? Not a great time to be in property, and especially with Grainger.
Well done Mr Nicholson you have my (and many others) gratitude and support for standing up!
Jokes aside, good for him! The 'big' corporations are the worst wasters, much mroe so than any individual and it's about time companies started taking responsibility!
If the law is to be interpreted so widely that someone with 'a belief in climate change' can sue for discrimination if he claims it has been held against him, then so, logically, can anyone with a belief in fascism, flying saucers, nudism, royalism, republicanism, herbal remedies, Cornish nationalism, the Welfare State, abolition of income tax, free trade, keeping Land Rover British or taking halucinogenic drugs. So will those with a million other causes good, bad and looney. How will it be possible for even wel intentioned businesses, organisations and individuals to know how to keep within the law against discrimination when the law is so wide and ill defined that no one can tell them who all the different groups are that they must avoid discriminating against?
__________
Keith Price
Check out my review of the Belief Buster Kit, which helps identify and change limiting beliefs of all kinds.
__________
Keith Price
Check out my review of the Belief Buster Kit, which helps you identify and change limiting beliefs of all kinds.
sick of stupidity
I wouldn't add a thing except,
Bring on the nuclear power
Each Pagan is allowed to have slightly different beliefs, there's no "church" to go to, and for me it is nearly ALL about lifestyle and nature and living in harmony with nature, not clashing against it like most people on this planet seem to do.
I believe Paganism is recognised as a religion... If he's like me, he's been living a Pagan lifestyle, just didn't know the religion to pigeonhole himself into!
Best of luck Mr Nicholson!
Tim Nicholson needs to do some more research if he thinks the science is overwhelmingly in favour of this 'green' religion.
There is no bigger step to reducing personal and business emissions than cutting out non-essential flying.
Next we need to see:
Employees in universities and environmental ministries saying that they refuse to fly.
Airpoints made illegal.
stopflying.org.nz
Tom Bennion
Environmental lawyer
Father of 3