BBC News – Newtownabbey firm discriminated against non-Brethren.

A tribunal has found that a County Antrim firm discriminated against an employee because he was not a member of the Brethren religious community.

Gavin Connolly, 30, from Newtownabbey, took a case against printing and merchandising company Oakdene Services.

The Fair Employment Tribunal found the firm unlawfully discriminated against him on grounds of religious belief and that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Mr Connolly was awarded £15,618 compensation.

He joined Oakdene Services in August 2010 and worked in sales and marketing.

Throughout his employment he believed that employees who were members of the Brethren community were treated more favourably.

Mr Connolly was told in June 2012 that he had been selected for possible redundancy and, following an unsuccessful grievance procedure and a period of sick leave, he resigned his post in August of that year.

The tribunal held that Mr Connolly’s selection for redundancy in June 2012 was an act of religious discrimination and also that the decision, together with the way his grievance procedure was handled, amounted to constructive and unfair dismissal.

Company cars and pay rises

The tribunal also held that during his employment Mr Connolly had been subjected to religious discrimination through Brethren employees being given better treatment in the provision of “tangible” benefits such as company cars, pay rises and mobile phones.

It also found they were differences in “intangible issues” such as Brethren employees going on separate lunch breaks, having out-of hours meetings on company premises and receiving motivational emails not sent to other staff.

In reaching their decision the tribunal said: “It is clear to us that there was very much a culture of ‘sheep and goats’.

“We were left with the clear impression from the respondent’s witnesses that they saw it as desirable and preferable to be Brethren and, by implication, undesirable not to be Brethren.”

Mr Connolly, whose case was backed by the Equality Commission, said: “I’m just glad the process is over and I can get on with my life.

“It has been a very stressful time but ultimately what matters to me is the recognition that I was treated unfairly at work.”

Richard Stay: The Charity Commission Conundrum!.

The Charity Commission are still considering their position in respect of the decision not to grant charitable status to the Exclusive Brethren’s Preston Down Trust in Torquay.

They are in confidential talks with lawyers representing the brethren & regularly get letters from the group of MP’s who strangely think this sect warrants tax-payer support.

But the conundrum is this – if the Commission bows to the incredible lobbying campaign mounted by the brethren & grants charitable status they will rightly face a barrage of criticism from those harmed by the brethren’s edicts & beliefs. If they continue to refuse charitable status the brethren & their dwindling band of supporters will equally scream blue murder.

So the solution is simple – refer the matter to a Tribunal, it then becomes a legal test, not just around charitable status but also the more important matter of harm. That is the more critical matter that requires a proper public airing & to be tested by a senior legal expert.

We know the brethren do not want to go to Tribunal (cost was stated as the reason), but we believe that the brethren do not want the mountain of evidence gathered by the Commission to be aired in public.

These include hugely personal tragedies inflicted on people by the unfeeling & callous decisions taken by this sect & frankly most of which have never been put right.

So the right outcome would be to let the matter go to a Tribunal for a proper test of the Exclusive Brethren’s public benefit & accordingly their charitable status along with the test of harm.

The Church of Scientology were refused charitable  status on these grounds, we could & will argue that the same circumstances apply here.

It is the stated desire of the Commission for this matter to be tested at Tribunal – so just get on with it!

Regulator’s review changes.

Last August, the Charity Commission consulted on changes to its decision review service and in April this year some of those changes were made. The service, established in 2008, allows charities that are unhappy with commission decisions to have them reviewed internally by the regulator.

Since 2008, charities wishing to challenge decisions have also been able to appeal to the charity tribunal. The types of decision that the tribunal can consider are listed in Schedule 6 of the Charities Act 2011. Before the recent changes, the commission’s decision review service would refer only to the same list of decisions, except in exceptional circumstances.

One of the changes is that the service can now review commission decisions to exercise, or not to exercise, its legal powers – something not listed in Schedule 6 – providing these decisions are capable of judicial review. This change, the commission says, will be assessed after a six-month trial period.

The regulator can also now refuse to carry out a review in certain “appropriate” circumstances – for example, if the decision has already been reviewed or was made at a senior level.

Another change is that applicants are no longer automatically entitled to speak to the person reviewing the decision. They will be able to do so only if the decision directly affects the rights of the applicant, or when the reviewer requests it.

The person reviewing a decision is now allowed to have previous knowledge of or involvement in the case, but cannot be the person who made the original decision.

Michael King, chairman of the charity solicitors Stone King, is concerned that, by widening the scope of the service, the commission is creating a rod for its own back. “Increasing the proportion of decisions it reviews sounds good, but where are the resources?” he says.

King says that preventing large numbers of people speaking to the reviewer might speed up the process. On the other hand, he says that allowing people with an interest in the case to speak to the reviewer can avert litigation further down the line.

Stephanie Biden, a partner at the charity law firm Bates Wells & Braithwaite, says that giving the commission the power to refuse to review decisions in certain cases is not new. For example, she says, in the case of the Preston Down Trust, a Plymouth Brethren congregation in Devon, the commission refused to review its decision not to register the trust as a charity on the basis that the decision had been made at a senior level. “If that is the commission’s practice, it is helpful that the formal policy acknowledges this,” she says.

But Biden says charities should not be forced to go straight to the tribunal just because a registration decision has been made at a senior level. “Sometimes decisions, even those made at a senior level, can be based on a misunderstanding about the proposed charity that can be resolved quickly and cost-effectively through the decision review process.”

In cases that involve a particularly unusual aspect of charity law, she says, the commission often prefers charities to go directly to the tribunal. “That is likely to hinder the development of charity law and the evolution of new charitable purposes, because it is expensive to go to the tribunal in those circumstances,” Biden says. “The tribunal also doesn’t allow for the same degree of negotiation to reach a compromise position as a decision review meeting with the commission.”

Students’ good character can’t prevent disqualification | Central Western Daily.

HIGHER School Certificate student Benjamin Alderton, described by the magistrate in Orange Local Court as a young man of exemplary character, has lost his licence for 12 months after crashing on White Rocks Road near Lewis Ponds and injuring an elderly man in December last year.

Magistrate Bruce Williams told the accused he was bound by the law to disqualify the 17-year-old and had no way of reducing the minimum disqualification period for negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm.

Mr Williams told Alderton, who is in year 12 at the Exclusive Brethren School in Orange and a house captain, he was to be congratulated for the high regard in which he was held by people who provided references to the court, including the victim who requested leniency saying he didn’t want to see a young man burdened with a criminal conviction.

In his client’s defence solicitor Mark Ireland told the court as a HSC student Alderton, who travels to Orange from Bathurst to attend school, was required to be at school outside normal core hours as part of his studies.

In evidence presented to the court police said Alderton was travelling below the speed limit of 80km/h on the White Rocks Road on December 12, just a few weeks after getting his licence on October 22, when he lost control on a bend and braked heavily. This sent the vehicle into a skid and it collided heavily with a Barina being driven by the victim in the opposite direction.

Police said they recorded skid marks of 21 metres at the crash site and the rear tyres of the vehicle were smooth and offered no traction on the road.

The victim, who broke his leg and had to undergo surgery to have a plate inserted at Orange hospital, faces a long rehabilitation period in a wheelchair, according to police.

Alderton’s father Gavin, in a statement tendered to the court, said his son had been on the road to pick up a pressure washer to help out with some cleaning at his school.

His father also emphasised to the court the importance of his son retaining his licence so he could attend daily Bible readings, gospel preachings and prayer meetings.

Mr Williams told Alderton despite his fine character he couldn’t escape being responsible for a serious accident.

Imposing the disqualification and a fine of $300, Mr Williams warned Alderton not to drive without a licence.

“Although I am sure you won’t be doing that,” he said.

Brethren meeting hall wins approval | St George & Sutherland Shire Leader.

THE Exclusive Brethren can build a $1.27 million, 900-seat meeting hall as a place of worship in bushland at Heathcote on the edge of the Royal National Park.

Sutherland Shire Council spent more than $117,000 in legal costs in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the hall being built, it was revealed at a council meeting this week.

The NSW Land and Environment Court approved the application after the Exclusive Brethren made a number of amendments to its original design.

The Heathcote Gospel Trust representing the Exclusive Brethren lodged the application in December 2011 for a meeting hall on a 2.35-hectare site at the western end of Forum Drive, Heathcote.

The site had been vacant Crown land and since 2000 was managed by Landcom, which proposed to subdivide the site for residential allotments.

The Exclusive Brethren bought the site in 2009.

The proposed 645-square-metre hall would host meetings ranging from 35 worshippers on Mondays and Sundays to 130 on Tuesdays and 250 on Thursdays. Regional meetings of between 250 to 400 people would be held every three weeks and an occasional meeting for a maximum of 900 invitation-only worshippers would be held ‘‘not more than once a year’’.

Residents living near the site formed a committee, Heathcote Residents Against Inappropriate Development, and the council received more than 1300 objections.

The council said the development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the locality due to its visual prominence. It also said the development would have adverse impacts on the natural features and character of the area and there was an unacceptable level of bushfire risk for users and adjoining property owners.

Amendments were made by the Exclusive Brethren but the council still had concerns.

An appeal was lodged in the NSW Land and Environment Court in May last year on the basis of a deemed refusal by the council.

A number of amendments were made, including reducing the height of the building from 14 metres to 9 metres, removing a car park close to residences and proposing acoustic barricades.

While these amendments went some way towards resolving concerns, they did not bring the proposal to a level which could be supported by the council.

A major concern was the bushfire danger.

The council referred the application to the Rural Fire Service for consideration.

The RFS supported the application, subject to the building not being used on days when there was a high, extreme or catastrophic fire hazard. A bushfire management plan was drawn up that included prohibiting meetings for 900 people during the declared bushfire season and closing the building on days when there was a total fire ban.

Residents who made a submission were allowed to address the court.

A number of residents were quite emotional about the proposal and its impacts on their property and the surrounding area.

But the court upheld the appeal, noting the amendments and the bushfire management plan.

The court was “satisfied that while there are identified likely adverse impacts of the development, they are not such that consent should be refused”.

Residents’ spokesman Warren Lang said it was disappointing that “privacy, the amenity of the area, quietness and traffic concerns have been overlooked by the court”.

“And we are really disappointed with the RFS, who appeared to make the decision without considering the community or the local emergency services,” he said.

A NSW Rural Fire Service spokesman said the council requested advice about the bushfire safety aspects of the application.

“The NSW RFS is not the consent authority for DAs of this nature. It is important to note that the NSW RFS can only provide advice on bushfire safety issues and that advice is based on the planning for bushfire protection standards that apply across NSW,” he said.

Flush New Zealand Charities Failing To Pay Out To… | Stuff.co.nz.

Last updated 05:00 18/05/2013

New Zealand charities not required to give money back to the community are exaggerating the gap between the “haves and the have-nots”, critics say.

Under current law, private schools, fee-charging hospitals and food giants reap the rewards of tax relief with no obligation to donate some of their profits.

The Government is $600 million out of pocket each year as the charities sector swallows $400m through income tax exemption and $200m in tax credit refunds, yet Cabinet decided against reviewing charity law last year through “fiscal cost” fears.

Recent calls to urgently review the sector were once again quashed by Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Jo Goodhew yesterday.

Labour’s charity spokeswoman, Louisa Wall, and Christchurch charity expert Dr Michael Gousmett have slammed the lack of accountability in the multimillion-dollar, publicly subsidised sector.

Today’s regulations give tax relief to private schools, fee-charging hospitals, Ngai Tahu’s 38 limited liability companies (including Shotover Jet and Whale Watch Kaikoura) and food giant Sanitarium with no public benefit test holding them to account.

Under current law, charities are not obligated to give even $1 a year from their surplus to charitable causes.

Merely operating as a hospital or school meets the criteria of charitability as it relieves pressure on the public system, even if the charity is charging fees largely unaffordable to most people.

Wall said charitable trusts that benefit only the wealthy were “creating divisions between the haves and the have-nots”.

“Those who least need charity are benefiting the most. It is helping those who can afford to pay to go to private hospitals and private schools, not those who actually need the help.

“We as a country are giving these organisations up to $600m worth of tax relief under the assumption that $600m should be reinvested back into the community, and if that is not happening we desperately need to change the law.”

Wall fought against the disestablishment of the Charities Commission into the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) in 2012 and was outraged when the Government decided to quash a review of the Charities Act.

“They are going against all the other international moves in this area which are holding charities accountable to being charitable.”

Gousmett, a member of the Australian Charity Law Association (ACLA), agreed the law was creating “inequality in our tax system”.

Legislation let charitable trusts benefit from tax exemption while public organisations were obliged to pay 8 per cent of their net worth to the Government as a capital charge, a cost that bled the Canterbury District Health Board of $15m last year.

Kiwi charities must make their financial accounts publicly available under the charities register but do not have to explain what they do to justify their charitable status, Gousmett said.

“In New Zealand there is a presumption that if you are a charity, therefore you are charitable, but if charities cannot demonstrate that they are doing something that contributes to the community they should not have charitable status.”

The United Kingdom and the US both introduced a public benefit test for their charity sectors recently and the ACLA will be discussing current taxation implications for charities in July, he said.

Goodhew admitted the New Zealand public “may not understand” the definition of charity under current legislation and that they might be “surprised” to find some charities listed on the charities register.

“The important thing for the public to have confidence in is that we have a robust system that ensures that within the Charities Act 2005 charities can’t actually be registered unless their purpose is charitable.”

Charitable purpose relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion or any other matter beneficial to the community, she said.

The Charities Registration Board determines whether or not an organisation fits within the Charities Act 2005 and the DIA Charities Services monitors charities to ensure they operate for exclusively charitable purposes.

“Irrespective of what a charity looks like, as long as they are operating within the law, that is what we should be assuring ourselves on,” she said.

The Government decided against reviewing the law relating to charities last year through fears more organisations may have expected to be eligible for charitable status which could have “increased fiscal costs”, an Inland Revenue spokeswoman said.

Inland Revenue was aware of “the public concerns relating to charities” and would be monitoring them to ensure they were operating exclusively for charitable purposes, she said.

Editorial: Late but welcome Cup Trust inquiry.

The Charity Commission’s decision last week to open a full statutory inquiry into the Cup Trust inevitably prompted much hollow laughter and a remark from Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, about closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. To the critics, the inquiry looks very much like a posterior-covering exercise.

But better late than never, and there is now an opportunity for a detailed and, one hopes, instructive dissection of a charity that seems to have been set up primarily as a tax-avoidance vehicle. The interim manager appointed by the commission to run it in place of the sole corporate trustee should have full access to records that could tell the whole story.

The commission says the inquiry is prompted by the receipt from HM Revenue & Customs, under a specific information-sharing power, of new details. These presumably relate to the decision by HMRC, mentioned by an official to the Charity Tax Group meeting last week, not to agree payments under a circular Gift Aid tax-avoidance scheme referred to as Project 2010 – a scheme that looks very much like the Cup Trust. The terms of the commission’s inquiry are focused strongly on the charity’s Gift Aid claims.

The commission has said all along that it could not find any legal holes in the structure of the Cup Trust, and there is no reason to doubt that. But there is more to life than the letter of the law, and a commission that was more pragmatic and hungry to chase down abuse would surely have seen through this charity’s apparent game early on and found a way of challenging it before it became a scandal.

The commission’s hesitancy over the Cup Trust, combined – paradoxically – with its relatively tough stance on charitable status for the Plymouth Brethren and the parliamentary brouhaha that has caused, has brought it to a low point. It now has a good chance, under a new chair with new board members, to regroup and rebuild for the future; but some habits will no doubt prove hard to change.