‘Christian’ advertisement for tribunal hearing

Press, 28 March 1980, Page 3

‘Christian’ advertisement for tribunal hearing

Wellington reporter

It is legal to advertise for “Muslim slaughtermen” but illegal to advertise for a “Christian petrol attendant,” according to the Human Rights Commission. To back its belief, the commission will take a case to the Equal Opportunities Tribunal against a Christ-! church car firm and garage,! Eric Sides Motors, Ltd; the firm’s proprietor (Mr Eric Sides); and “The Press” and the “Christchurch Star.” The commission is doing this because • neither Mr Sides nor the two newspapers would accept the commission’s opinion that they were in breach of provisions of the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977, which came into force on September 1, 1978. Both newspapers published advertisements from Eric Sides Motors. Ltd, which led to a complaint of unlawful discrimination. No settlement has been reached in the dispute. On March 3, 1979, “The Press” carried an advertisement for a service station attendant from the firm which said: “We have a vacancy for a keen Christian person, 16 to 18. who is not afraid of work, to assist on Our forecourt. Only permanents need apply.”’ 1 The original advertisement inserted by the firm called for a “keen Christian girl” but “The Press” of its own accord changed "girl” to “person.”

In its original placement of the advertisement, the “Christchurch Star” changed “keen Christian girl” to “keen person.” but Mr Sides objected to that and so on March 7 the advertisement appeared again stipulating that the keen person be “Christian.” As a result of the adver-

tisements, Mr lan Robinson, aged 16, applied for the job. He telephoned Mr Sides and told him he had had some experience on petrol pumps but had shortly before lost his job with another service station. I Mr Robinson and Mr Sides) do not agree exactly on'

what happened next, but both agree that there was a discussion about Mr Robinson’s religious beliefs, and that the lack of them meant Mr Sides would not employ him.

Mr Robinson told his parents what had happened and as a result, Mrs Robinson complained to the Human ) Rights Commission alleging discrimination against her son on religious grounds. During subsequent discussions Mr Sides, among other comments, has emphasised what he considers to be a contradiction between the freezing companies’ being able to specify Muslims as mutton slaughtermen for the Iranian market and any suggestion that he could

not similarly specify Christians as petrol station attendants. “This misunderstanding of the position seems surprisingly common, and the commission has been widely criticised,” said the commission’s report. It contended there had been a misunder-

standing of what the legislation did. The commission said the legislation did not simply outlaw all differences on religious grounds. No woman could legally complain that it was contrary to the act for her to be refused admission to a Roman Catholic institution for the education of priests.

The act applied only to work that was available and for which the complainant was qualified, the commission said.

“Since for most people in New Zealand the slaughter of animals for food is a religiously neutral act, there seems to be a presumption that this is or should be true for everyone. “But this is erroneous,” the commission said.

“For many Jews and for many Muslims the slaughter of God’s creatures for food is a solemn and rel-i

gious act. Thus the act of killing must be done in accordance with a particular religious ritual that only believers of the faith could perform.”

The commission said that no religious significance attached to putting petrol into the tanks of motor-vehicles. “There is thus no possible analogy between the two situations in fact, and the legislators in relating discrimination to job qualifications had avoided the possibility of any such confusion,” the commission said.

The commission held that: — the advertisements by Eric Sides Motors, Ltd, seeking “a keen Christian per* son” were discriminatory in terms of section 32 of the act; — Mr Sides had refused to consider Mr Robinson for employment on the grounds of his religious belief in contravention of section 15 (1) of the act; and — “The Press” and the “Christchurch Star” in carrying advertisements containing the words “a keen Christian person” were in breach of section 32 of the act.

The commission said Mr Sides and both newspapers had been given the chance to make submissions as to why the commission should not institute proceedings, but had not wanted to do so. The commission is therefore instituting proceedings before the Equal Opportunities Tribunal. Damages for the pecuniary loss which may have been suffered by Mr Robinson will be sought, and are available if the commission wins its case.