The equalities watchdog has warned of the risk of curtailing freedom of expression (Image: Getty)
There are fears that pubs could be forced to ban customers from discussing controversial issues due to planned .
has warned the government rules could “disproportionately curtail” freedoms and could even extend to “overheard conversations.”
The proposals aim to protect workers from being harassed by “third parties” whilst at their place of work with people at risk of being sued if found to do so.
However the has warned of the ambiguity of the proposals and the difficulty involving a “philosophical belief” in issues such as women’s rights or religion, citing that many business owners do not understand that such topics are protected by law.
They said: “The legal definition of what amounts to philosophical belief is complex and not well understood by employers.
:
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has long pushed for Workers’ rights reforms (Image: Getty)
“It is arguable that these difficulties may lead to disproportionate restriction of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR.”
Currently, a philosophical belief may include religious beliefs, views on women’s and transgender rights as well as political ideology and ethical veganism.
The acknowledged that many of the reforms have “the potential to reduce workplace inequalities”.
The watchdog believes that it supports plans to protect workers from sexual harassment, something it says is a “significant issue”, especially for young people and those in customer-facing roles.
However, it has raised concerns about other forms of discrimination, citing concerns that “it could disproportionately curtail the right to freedom of expression”.
Don’t miss… [REPORT] [REVEALED]
The plans aim to reduce harassment of those in customer-facing roles (Image: Getty)
Ministers have admitted that this could be the case, especially in instances where there are “areas of legitimate debate which are carried out in a contentious manner”.
The government believes that the threshold of what constitutes harassment is high, meaning that mere discussion of a contentious subject would not be enough to cross the line and constitute harassment.
Currently, its definition states that harassment is: “Unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating the recipient’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”
has urged ministers to continue working to strike a balance to ensure protection for workers does not come at the expense of freedom of expression.
John Kirkpatrick, chief executive of the , said: “The UK government has acknowledged the potential for unintended consequences in its economic analysis and summary impact assessment. We have invited the Committee to consider carefully the balance between, for example, rights to freedom from harassment and freedom of expression.”
The watchdog has warned about the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes harassment (Image: Getty)
He added: “For this legislation to have the desired effect, it needs to be enforceable. For it to be enforceable, we need clarity on the role of regulators — including the EHRC — and sufficient resource to ensure compliance.”
An Office for Equality and Opportunity spokesman said: “Free speech is a cornerstone of British values but of course it is right that the Employment Rights Bill protects employees from workplace harassment, which is a serious issue.
“As with all cases of harassment under the Equality Act 2010, courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of a particular case, including the rights of freedom of expression.”
Kate Nicholls, chief executive of UKHospitality, said she agreed with the issues identified by the EHRC. She said: “These are complex legal issues, which employers are not equipped to navigate and could impose disproportionate restrictions. We agree with the EHRC’s concerns and we don’t believe that the burden of policing these issues should fall upon employers.”