Religion and work: Understanding the correlation

Introduction

Employment is a contract that is recognised by the government that outlines the duties, terms of payment, and workplace regulations between a person and another business. In layman’s terms, employment means that a person has made a verbal or written commitment to a party known as the employer under specific conditions, such as compensation, a set schedule, etc.

On the basis of secular principles, religion expands our knowledge of work. It complements cost-benefit calculations of the activity, not replaces them. Religion is more than just a way for those with low-paying occupations to justify their own meaningless labour to themselves (i.e., false consciousness). Instead, it offers a setting in which some individuals, particularly those with fulfilling employment, begin to view their work in sacred rather than merely secular terms[1]

Relationship between religious beliefs and workplace

The influence of religion in the workplace can lead to creative organisational ideas or provide additional support for established organisational practices, such as discernment and leadership, virtue as a foundation for organisational and management practice, and the use of workplace mentors and spiritual disciplines as tacit management learning.

Understanding how religion and work interact can help us better grasp the rich religious and non-religious meaning systems that shape global cultures and the potential for a global civil society in general. Compared to religious people with less desirable occupations, those with desirable jobs were more likely to see their work through a religious lens and to consider it as a calling.

Work-faith integration and the coping and transcendent aspects of religion can be practised without public acknowledgement by religious people in positions of influence or who work in a pluralistic environment.

This helps to maintain an egalitarian workplace. Integration of work and faith appears to be most strongly correlated with intention. Integration is stronger for people who have deep religious maturity, frequently attend religious services, and belong to stringent faiths.[2]

For determining what is good and bad behaviour in the workplace, religion is a crucial reference point. Religious people frequently take refuge in their faith at work in the middle of infamous workplace scandals that continue to undermine employee confidence and raise questions about the moral foundations of business as a whole.

This is not to argue that those who do not practise religion cannot be moral in the workplace; however, there are occasions when the culture of particular sorts of job may encourage employees to lie or cheat in order to make a profit. As a result, a religious worldview may motivate individuals to act in ways that adopt a different behaviour, ethic, and final result.[3]

Indian constitutional position

A secular state is required under Article 25 of the Constitution, which also guarantees everyone’s right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to proclaim, practise, and spread their religion, subject to restrictions on public order, morality, and health. It forbids governmental discrimination on the basis of religion, including in employment.

Equal opportunity is guaranteed to all citizens under Article 16 of the Indian Constitution when it comes to employment in the public sector. According to Article 16(1), all citizens shall have an equal opportunity to be employed or appointed to positions within the State. Only positions or jobs held by the State are subject to the equality provision.

The grounds for which people should not be subjected to discrimination for employment or appointment to any office under the State are outlined in Article 16(2). According to Article 16(2), discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, domicile, or any combination of these is forbidden. Clause 2 of Article 16’s reference to “any employment or office under the state” suggests that this provision solely pertains to public employment and work in the private sector.

“Equal pay for equal work” is an important concept that eliminates discrimination in terms of pay or renumeration based on gender, caste, religion etc.[4] In Randhir Singh v Union of India[5], the Supreme Court ruled that “Equal pay for equal work” is clearly a constitutional goal under Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution, which the Court can enforce in cases of unequal pay scales based on irrational classification, such as even on the basis of religion.

This is despite the fact that “Equal pay for equal work” has not been expressly declared to be a fundamental right. This idea applies to both temporary and casual workers who carry out the same tasks and functions.[6] When these provisions are closely analysed, it can be inferred that the constitution bars discrimination in employment in the ground of religion.

The freedom of religion and the prevention of discrimination based on religion are strongly related while discussing religion at work. In order to truly enjoy autonomy, equality, and dignity, it is crucial to defend both of these rights.

The significance of this is for understanding indirect discrimination. In the context of workplace discrimination, indirect discrimination follows the challenges that some groups face in adhering to what seem to be neutral rules because of their religious views.[7]

Religious rights at the workplace in the U.S. Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause declares. According to what this language has come to signify, much like many other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the ability to freely choose and practise one’s religion is unalienable. The Civil Rights Act of 1964’s Title VII specifically extended the right to freedom of religion to the private workplace and outlawed discrimination on the basis of religion.

The United States of America has effective federal statutes that support workers or employees in the public and private sectors that need assistance from their employers in the form of punitive damages or compensation, among other appropriate reliefs.

A significant anti-discrimination law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits any adverse employment action based on an employee’s religion. Additionally, it covers situations where a worker’s religious or sacred convictions contradict with company policy or directives. A “reasonable accommodation” that lessens the conflict must be made by the employer in these circumstances, but only to the amount necessary to avoid causing an “undue hardship.”[8]

Employees typically file lawsuits for religious discrimination based on one of three grounds: unequal treatment, religious harassment, or failure to make a reasonable effort to accommodate their religious views. Each time, it is the plaintiff employee’s responsibility to establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination.

The onus of proof then turns on the employer when the prima facie case has been established. The responsibility of reasonable accommodation is the main topic of this article, hence examples of unfair treatment and discrimination based on religion are not included. As a result, in Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co. v. Turpen (1984)[9], the obligation to accommodate is de minimis rather than absolute.

An employee must demonstrate three things in order to prove that they were the victim of retaliation for failing to comply with a conflicting employment requirement: (1) they had a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with the requirement; (2) they informed the employer of this belief and requested accommodation; and (3) they suffered an adverse employment action as a result.

Notably, the question of excessive hardship only arises when the employer asserts that it is unable to provide any reasonable accommodation without doing so. Any concession that would be excessively expensive, significant, disruptive, or that would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the firm is considered an undue hardship.

The specific factual circumstances of a given employer, such as the size of the employer, the nature of the business, the cost of the accommodation, etc., must be taken into consideration when determining what constitutes an undue hardship. A reasonable accommodation offered by the employer does not have to be the best option or what the employee desires; rather, it can be of a de minimis character.[10]

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that when an employer or supervisor explicitly or subtly coerces an employee to give up, modify, or adopt a religious practise in exchange for employment benefits or privileges or to avoid retaliation, it is a violation of Title VII.

Are religious institutions industrial establishments?

There are two parts to Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first component lists what is meant by “industry” legally; the second component specifies what is meant by “industry” as it is defined.

The Bangalore Water Supply case[11], which was a landmark decision, greatly broadened the term and rejected case precedents that supported a limited meaning. The core component of the 1982 modified definition of industry is the triple test from the Bangalore case.

According to the threefold test, industry is defined as a) systematic operations, b) organised by employer and employee cooperation, and c) for the production of goods and services designed to meet human wants and wishes. The industry does not include spiritual or religious services, and the absence of a monetary motivation or other gainful aim is irrelevant.

These are the exceptions to this rule (although an organisation will not cease to be a trade or business because of philanthropy animating the undertaking) All organised activities that pass the triple test, including undertakings, callings, and employment relationships, will be considered industry. The primary test is the nature of activity with an emphasis on the employer-employee relationship.

The Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee was not deemed to be a for-profit corporation by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee of Management Gurudwara Dukh Nivaran Sahib v. Presiding Officer Labour Court[12]. It does not provide people with the goods and services they want.

In order to supervise and manage all notified Gurdwaras under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, the Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee is claimed to act in a religious and spiritual manner and cannot be regarded as an industry.

The Court additionally ruled that the Committee of the Gurdwara Parbandhak is not subject to the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 since it operates a free kitchen, or langar, and distributes Karah Parshad. Of course, the Committee won’t be subject to the Industrial Relations Code of 2020.

The Puri Jagannath temple is not an industry, according to the Orissa High Court’s decision in Harihar Bahinipaty and Others v. State of Orissa[13]. It is not a location where fundamental necessities are not met.

It is a spiritual organisation that manages the prasadam distribution. It was found that the temple does not provide the function of a hotel in terms of serving meals. If the department’s principal goal is religious, it will make little difference if some of its operations have an industrial flavour.

Religious institutions fall under the category of providing charitable and philanthropic services without cultivating an atmosphere of an industrial undertaking and fully submitting to providing religious and spiritual activities without seeking any sort of returns or gains, so they do not meet the requirements under section 2(p) of the code to be considered as an industry.

Employees at religious institutions

When there are provisions to govern religious rights of employees at workplace, it also makes sense to learn about the condition of workmen at religious institutions. In Shri Satya Narayan Tulsi Manas Mandir v Workman Compensation Commissioner & Ors.,[14] in order to determine whether employees of Religious or Charitable Institutions and Establishments are covered by the Minimum Wages Act or other comparable statutory enactments, a Special Leave Petition has been filed with the Supreme Court of India.

The Indian Constitution is secular in nature, accords equal rights to all citizens, and protects them all in the area of pay under Article 21. In addition to helping with worship, Status Workers, who are employed by the temple as “Sevadars,” also take care of the Mandir’s grounds and sell literature and tickets to events, among other things.

The stores on the temple grounds also pay rent to the temple. Employees of the temple are not paid a minimum wage despite the fact that there are many ostensibly business operations taking place there and that Sevadars carry out similar chores to those performed by employees in any other commercial establishment.

The Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh filed a complaint in 1995 saying that the Mandir’s employees had not received minimum wage. Following an inspection by the then-labour enforcement officer, the temple received a notice from the Additional Labour Commissioner in Varanasi.

The Allahabad High Court received a writ petition from the temple administration. In a favourable decision, the Court ordered the Mandir to pay its workers the minimum wage retroactively to the day the dispute first arose and further ordered the State Government to enact appropriate legislation in this regard.

This order is being contested by The Mandir in the Supreme Court. A favourable ruling by the Supreme Court will uphold the egalitarian nature of the Indian Constitution, which views all citizens as being on an equal footing, in addition to awarding these workers their just compensation.

There is another interesting case law. As long as someone who is knowledgeable, properly trained, and qualified to perform the puja in a manner conducive and appropriate to the worship of the particular deity is appointed as Shantikaran outside of his pedigree based on caste, no valid or legally justifiable grievance can be made in a court of law, the Supreme Court ruled in N. Adithyan v. Travancore Devaswom Board.[15]

Suggestive ways to achieve religious harmony at the workplace

Training

Provide instruction to all workers. Conflicts are inevitable in a varied workplace, some of which may not be on purpose. Religion is a contentious topic on its own, and the effects of a clash between two religions can be disastrous.

It is essential to provide training to all employees and to go through what is appropriate when it comes to discussing religion at work. Employees could unintentionally try to push their beliefs on others.

Time off for religious obligations

Certain religions require that worship be performed at specified hours, which may conflict with a workday. Provide time off for these workers and be ready to deal with backlash from workers who do not share your faith but feel wronged since they get the same treatment. They should be reminded that many religious holidays, including Christmas and Easter, are often paid holidays.

Respect and accept diversity

Even if many religions are in direct conflict with one another, acceptance can lead to a shared understanding. Keep an eye on employees, and if it becomes clear that there is dissatisfaction over religious matters, encourage the two parties to discuss their beliefs and issues in private, away from other employees, so they can better understand one another. Encourage your staff to find areas of commonality.

Zero-tolerance approach

Employees must understand the types of conduct that will not be accepted and that any issues between co-workers will result in swift action. There is no justification for there to be serious religious conflicts among employees if they have received adequate training and education on company policies.

Conclusion

Since our nation is incredibly varied and multicultural, many different religions will inevitably interact in settings like workplaces and schools. Despite divergent opinions, ideas, and convictions, we must foster a culture of respect among religions.

Working with individuals of all faiths can be great because it gives you the chance to understand a different culture and set of beliefs from your own. Additionally, it could help you in your business because you and your team’s diverse consumer base bring a variety of viewpoints to it.

Workplace religious diversity can assist a business greatly by bringing in a variety of perspectives. However, managing religious diversity at work can be difficult from a human resources perspective. It is crucial to show tolerance and understanding of different religious viewpoints and to be prepared to make accommodations for people who might want additional time off or who might have particular demands caused by their chosen religion.

Thus, when it comes to employment, religious discrimination is treating workers differently due to their religion, their religious views or practises, or their desire for an accommodation a modification of a rule or policy because of their religious beliefs and practises. It also entails treating workers differently due to their lack of practise or belief in a particular religion. The law defends everyone who honestly holds religious, ethical, or moral beliefs, not just those who follow established organised religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or other faiths.

References:

[1]Davidson, J. C., & Caddell, D. P. (1994). Religion and the Meaning of Work. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33(2), 135. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386600

[2] Lynn, M. L., Naughton, M. J., & VanderVeen, S. (2010). Connecting religion and work: Patterns and influences of work-faith integration. Human Relations, 64(5), 675–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710386396

[3] Etherington, M. (2019). Religion as a Workplace Issue: A Narrative Inquiry of Two People—One Muslim and the Other Christian. SAGE Open, 9(3), 215824401986272. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019862729

[4] Rai, D. (2021, September 2). Right to Equality: Article 16, 17 & 18 under the Indian Constitution. iPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-to-equality-article-16-17-18/

[5] AIR 2008 SC 879.

[6] Daily Rated Casual Labour v Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 122.

[7] Gandhi. (2021). RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: UNPACKING THE CONTENTS OF RELIGION. IJCL, 10.

[8] Lamba. (n.d.). (2021). RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN INDIAN PRIVATE SECTOR: A COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES LAW. The Law Brigade (Publishing) Group, 7(2).

[9] Turpen v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 736 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1984).

[10]Kelly, E. P. (2008). Accommodating Religious Expression in the Workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 20(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-007-9059-6.

[11] AIR 1978 SC 553.

[12] (2003) 135 PLR 462.

[13] AIR 1966 Ori 35, 1965 (10) FLR 313.

[14] (2006) 05 AHC CK 0079.

[15] (2002) 8 SCC 106.

This article has been authored by Keerthana Krishna, a student at SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur.