M&S tells Muslim staff they CAN refuse to serve customers buying alcohol or pork
Marks & Spencer's policy applies to Muslim staff in more than 700 stores
Shoppers are being asked to wait to pay for certain items at different till
Highlights divide among mainstream food retailers over religious workers
Policy: Marks & Spencer has told Muslim staff they can refuse to serve shoppers buying alcohol or pork
In contrast to M&S, Sainsbury's has told Muslim staff that there is no reason why they cannot handle goods such as alcohol and pork - even if they are not allowed to eat or drink the products.
However, Morrisons - which is based in Bradford, where there is a large Muslim population - said it had a long-standing commitment to 'respecting and working around' workers' wishes not to handle certain products for religious or cultural reasons.
And Tesco agreed it 'would make no sense' to employ staff on a till who refused to touch specific items - but said it treats each case individually, with no specific policy in place.
Last week, shoppers buying alcoholic drinks for Christmas at a M&S store in central London were asked by a Muslim checkout worker to wait to be served by another member of staff.
One customer - who wishes to remain unnamed - told the newspaper she was 'taken aback' by the worker's request.
'She told me to wait until another member of staff was available.'
A M&S spokesman said the policy of tolerance acknowledges the beliefs of other religious workers, including Christians and Jews.
He added that the major retailer strives to promote 'an environment free from discrimination'.
In October this year, two Muslim workers won a discrimination case against Tesco after their bosses kept their prayer room locked.
In 2008, managers agreed to set aside a security office at the distribution depot in Crick, Northamptonshire, as a prayer room for Muslims.
But four years later, bosses set new restrictions on the use of the room which included keeping it locked when it was not in use.
Following an employment tribunal, Tesco was guilty of indirect discrimination - with the men awarded an undisclosed sum for ‘injury to their feelings’.



No comments:
Post a Comment