The case between me and Unibuss is above all that Unibuss has discriminated against me according to the Equality and Accessibility Act §6.
In Unibuss and other bus companies, all bus drivers choose the channel they want to listen to. That they should deny me, and now Per Christian Bing has stated that it is p.g.a. high sound. This is both a lie and not documented. Have never listened to higher noise than others, and had this been proven. Then of course I had turned the sound down. I have an excellent hearing, I do not party, fill myself or play loud music.
I actually live a little ascetic with minimal alcohol consumption, and other pleasures.
There is no indication that I need to have loud sound.
There are those who sit with the Star of David, Hijab and more. Others play powerful Muslim radio, others Rock and some classical.
That this should be allowed, but not to listen to religious / Christian programs is to me the crazy and "happy" frenzy!
Picture of me Jan Kåre Christensen as Per Christian Bing writes and states that I play high. None of this is documented, and had it been. Then of course I had the shot down or off the radio.
Unibuss has violated Norwegian law.
Here is the conclusion of the email in from my lawyer.
Conclusion
After this, it is stated that Christensen is discriminated against under the Equality and Accessibility Act §6.
Now the Labor Inspectorate is also inside as Unibuss has been discriminating, bullying and discriminating against me for a long time, which is unacceptable!
Ultimately, this case is not settled by me, my lawyer in YTF (the union), or Unibuss.
Here are some of the most important emails from Lawyer and me that illustrate the legal, which the case is in many ways ultimately about.
Unibuss AS
v / Linda Ellingsen
PO Box 210 Alnabru
0641 Oslo
Oslo, 150217
Your ref .: Our ref .: Case no .:
JW: 20170105 20170105
REGARDING. SERVICE prosecution
The undersigned represents Jan Kåre Christensen through his membership in the Professional Traffic Association.
Christensen was presented with a new written service claim in replacement 08.02.17 to replace the previous service claim of 30.09.16, which was drawn at the same time.
The new service claim makes it necessary to make some comments of a general and more specific nature. I first consider the specific comments on the individual points in the legal action.
05.02.14: Christensen explains that he did not ask anyone to leave the bus. He explains that it was detour that day and that two stops were temporarily closed. He therefore stated this at the last stop before the detour. Many people then decided to step down. He didn't talk to anyone. Christensen further explains that this case was brought up when the complaint came up, and that he felt that the case was open and settled, having heard that he was not to blame for the complaint, and that it had to be due to a misunderstanding.
At that time, personal leader Dag Frode Lundeby thought I had done the right thing, even though some might have misunderstood.
Here we see the review melody with this service claim, that one turns everything into something negative even if it is "normal" and positive!
21.10.14: Christensen explains that he has used the washroom for washing his own car, but cannot remember that he has been told that this is not allowed. He has not been in the way, and has never had any counter-notions to this until 2016, see below. There are several drivers who have at least washed their own cars in the washroom before.
11.02.15: Christensen does not recognize the description of driving style. At the continuing education course on October 15, he was the best at economics.
That said, he accepts the criticism and will try to be even more conscious. He feels in any case that it is undeserved to get a service claim for this feedback, since he has a generally good driving style.
04.02.16: This customer complaint too, Christensen has experienced was taken up and checked out. About the incident he explains that he usually listens to P1, and then there is a devotion that also goes on the radio. He does not remember that there was any criticism of other religions or that he said he decided, but he can remember that it was a passenger who wanted him to change radio channel. Christensen states that he usually goes very far for the sake of the passengers, but the sound from the radio does not reach very far, and he does not think he has done anything very clandestine in this case.
12.02.16: As mentioned above, Christensen does not recognize in this description of driving style, and indicates that it is a single complaint, which can not be taken into account for driving recklessly.
23.02.16: Christensen explains that on a couple of occasions he has reported on a wrongly parked car, which was then moved before TL and OPL have managed to do something about it. He understands that TL and OPL have a lot to do, but believes it is necessary for traffic safety reasons to report these types of situations. Beyond this he can in not see what he has reported that he should not, and have difficulty identifying what it is that makes him feel difficult to work with. Instead, he asks for a more detailed description of what conditions he / she should not report, and more specific feedback on what he must improve in communication with TL.
15.03.16: Christensen asked if he could get one of the tires on his own car. He accepted this, and could not see that this was a disadvantage or that it was not allowed. After this, however, he was told that it was not okay even if he agreed with those in the washroom. He has aligned himself with this message from the time he received it, and will not wash the car in the laundry hall again.
17-18 March 2016: Question is asked why an additional training service has been given. Christensen received positive feedback during the training.
21.09.16: Christensen acknowledges that he should not stop in the bicycle field, and accepts this correctly, but believes there is something strict on written service claim, cf. dispute with the service claim that was drawn, v. Attorney Birgitta Onarheim.
The following are general objections:
- All conditions, except one, are of older date. It is stated that the service charge was given too late. Once a decision is made to close the case without warning / written service claim, this is binding and the service claim must lapse. In other words, "catches the table" what applies to the reaction form in personnel matters. In support of this rule, reference is made to Rt-1982-1729:
"When the school authorities in 1977 complied with a warning, this meant that A could not be dismissed later without something new coming."
- It is stated that customer complaints should not be given warning without a certain degree of certainty that they represent the objective truth. From the service claim, it appears that Christensen has received a total of 3 customer complaints. It doesn't seem like much to a bus driver in Oslo, who carries many passengers, daily. It is questioned whether it is good personnel policy to provide service portals for all customer complaints, or whether this should be reserved in case the driver receives a striking number of complaints in a short time for the same conditions, citing aml. §4-1 and 4-3. It is also stated that including customer complaints in a service complaint, without the complaints representing a marked deviation from the normal, is a disproportionate measure under the Personal Data Act, cf. popl §11 letter d.
After this, you are asked to consider whether the service claim should be maintained, withdrawn or converted into an oral / written warning for bicycle parking.
If the service claim is maintained, request that this letter be enclosed in the staff folder.
With best regards
Josefine Wærstad
Lawyer
Unibuss AS
to Linda Ellingsen
Oslo, December 4, 2017
Regarding service charges
I refer to the service claim of November 08, 2017.
Firstly, I would like to point out that it is unnecessary to give warning of things that I would like to address by a simple request from the nearest manager. Blue. that I leave the bus "grumpy" and that I've been to SAS Nydalen.
That said, I dispute the warning on the following points:
- I do not recognize that I leave the bus grumpy.
- I haven't run on a red light.
- I haven't stolen food / drink at SAS Radisson Nydalen. I've occasionally stopped by and bought a coffee at the hotel, and sometimes I've had a coffee and maybe an apple. The service has been very nice, until there was someone who suddenly thought I had to pay for the full buffet for a cup of coffee, something I said willingly. I don't think that warns me, and I won't go back there anyway.
Request that this written be stored along with the warning in the staff folder.
With best regards
Jan Kåre Christensen
Unibuss AS
v / Abdullah Hatay
PO Box 210 Alnabru
0614 Oslo
Oslo, 20.11.19
Your ref .: Our ref .: Case no .:
JW: 02132 02132
REGARDING. SERVICE prosecution
The undersigned represents Jan Kåre Christensen through his membership in the Professional Traffic Association.
Christensen received a written service complaint on 11 November 19. This is contested and it is requested that it be waived and shredded.
The service charge is disputed on the grounds that Christensen has not broken any guidelines. Furthermore, it is unclear what the service charge orders Christensen to do differently.
Christensen and union representative Leif Arne Myhre state that it is allowed and accepted that employees get to listen to music or radio while driving a bus. Headphones are not allowed. There are no guidelines for how loud you can listen to radio / music, or whether you are required to switch off if a passenger requests it. There are also no guidelines for what one is allowed or not allowed to hear.
Christensen states that he has not listened to any volume higher than usual. The complaint e may be due to the content of the radio program. If it is not allowed to listen to Christian content programs, please clarify this.
The warning is required to be withdrawn and replaced with some guidelines that apply to everyone.
We would also like to point out that it is very unfortunate that it takes so long from the first complaint until Christensen is informed that such a complaint has come. He did not hear anything about these complaints until he was given a service charge for the circumstances.
Their prompt feedback is met.
With best regards
Josefine Wærstad
Lawyer
Oslo, 12.03.20
Your ref .: Our ref .: Case no .:
20 / 42-9 JW: 02132 02132
Support letter in complaint 20 / 42-9
Complainant: Jan Kåre Christensen
Complaint party: Unibuss AS
Reference is made to the complaint in the above-mentioned case, as well as Unibuss's reply with date 04.03.2020
The warning given by Unibuss AS to Christensen is discriminatory. The complaint is based on warnings from customers sent to Routes. Unibuss AS therefore points out that the request for discrimination cannot be addressed to Unibuss AS.
When Unibuss AS receives complaints, they choose which complaints they choose to disregard, and which ones they choose to take up with the employee to moderate their behavior. They also have decision-making authority regarding the changes they impose on their drivers.
It is thus not the complaints themselves, or Ruter's handling of those who are the subject of the case, but the warning Unibuss AS has chosen to give.
Religion Expressions
Listening to Christian radio must be considered a religious expression and treated similarly to the use of religious symbols such as hijab, cf. Ot. Proposition. Ranked. 33 (2004-2005) p 103, or cross, cf. LDN 46/2014.
Fact - volume and content
The warning is based on a combination of volume and content of what Christensen has heard on radio.
Christensen states that he has not had a very high volume, and that the complaints would not have been given if he had listened to other content. Unibuss AS assumes that the volume has probably been too high based on the information in the complaints.
The question whether Christensen has listened to high volume or not is not relevant in the case because the warning according to its content also touches on the content of what Christensen has heard.
Clarification of the subject matter of the dispute
When the warning deals with both volume and content, the warning means that Christensen feels that his working conditions are in danger if he listens to radio with Christian content, regardless of volume.
The warning must therefore, for Christensen's part, be regarded as a prohibition against listening to radio with religious content.
This is a prohibition that is not practiced consistently, as there is no general prohibition on listening to religious content on the radio in the business. In other words, other employees, who have not already received a warning, can freely listen to what content they want.
Direct / indirect discrimination - Sections 7 and 8
The warning must be judged as directly discriminatory.
The complaint does not apply to the generally drafted rule in the personnel manual, but the specific warning that also includes the content of what Christensen has heard.
The warning thus has a direct and inextricable link to the religious content. The case would have been different if the warning was only about the volume.
Purpose and proportionality - Section 9
Unibuss AS refers to the consideration of the passengers, and that these should be exempted from being forced on the outlook of others.
The question of the purpose is objective is not decisive. The warning must nevertheless be regarded as a disproportionate measure.
The consideration of passengers will usually be taken care of by the fact that they can move in the back of the bus.
On Christensen's part, the warning is far-reaching as it is seen as a total ban on listening to religious content on the radio. It will be possible to safeguard the purpose of less restrictive measures. Some examples of alternative measures are:
- To define what volume the employees can listen to on radio.
- To change the instruction that it is not allowed to listen to religious content if the bus is so full that it is not possible to move backwards in the bus.
- To change instructions that the driver is obliged to turn the radio off or on if the customer complains about the content / volume.
Christensen has requested other, less restrictive measures, cf. Appendices 1 and 2.
The fact that clear guidelines for volume and content have not been provided, in itself, indicates that the warning constitutes a disproportionate interference with religious freedom, cf. LND 46/2014:
"The NRK's ban on news program leaders from wearing religious symbols during television broadcasting is termed" a rule, "but this, according to the committee, does not understand written formalization. As the Board sees it, the rule should have been written in the form of guidelines or similar. The concern for clarity and predictability for employees, but also the consideration of journalists seeking vacant news program management positions in NRK, indicates this. "
Conclusion
After this, it is stated that Christensen is discriminated against under the Equality and Accessibility Act §6.
Oslo,
12/3/20
Josefine Wærstad
Lawyer
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar