Archbishop of York Criticises British Airways Cross Decision

The Archbishop of York has criticised the "flawed reasoning" of British Airways after one of its employees lost her fight to openly wear a cross necklace while at work at Heathrow.

|PIC1|Check-in worker Nadia Eweida, 55, of Twickenham, was told in October that she must not display a small necklace cross over her clothes, but instead hide it under her blouse or cravat. Since that time she has been on unpaid leave.

After meeting with airline bosses on Monday, Eweida was told that she had lost her internal appeal against the decision.

The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, today appealed to British Airways, which allows make Sikh staff to wear turbans and Muslim staff to wear hijabs, to reconsider its decision.

He derided the BA statement which said that the decision was "purely a question of practicality", suggesting that its explanation meant that employees turning up for work with a "three foot cross must be allowed to wear it because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical".

Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship also criticised the British Airways decision, saying, "This application of BA's uniform policy is clearly inconsistent. We would like to see a level-playing field. BA has allowed some employees freedom to express their faith but Nadia has been denied this right."

Ms Eweida, 55, had appealed against the decision, saying that she should be entitled to openly proclaim her Christian faith.

"In seven years I have not had any complaints from passengers about my cross being visible," Eweida told Sky News.

BA, however, denied it had banned the wearing of crosses and said Eweida had a right to a second appeal. The company has come under heavy criticism from leaders of other faiths but has said its uniform policy stated that such items could be worn if concealed underneath the uniform.

Eweida told reporters that she was effectively "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to hide the symbol.

During Monday's meeting, British Airways explained that it respected her faith and accepted the cross was not jewellery, but would stand firm on its original decision.

Eweida said following the verdict: "I am fairly disappointed but I'm looking forward to the next stage because the cross is important and the truth will be revealed. It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

At the centre of Ms Eweida's fight has been the fact that people of other faiths are allowed by BA to wear visible religious symbols such as headscarves, and she is dismayed at why Christians should not be allowed to do so also.


BA released a statement saying: "British Airways has 34,000 uniformed staff, all of whom know they must abide by our uniform policy. The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy.

"The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths.

"In Nadia Eweida's case, she is not suspended and we want her to come back to work. We have explained to her the need to comply with the uniform policy like all her colleagues whatever their faith."

BA also added that it had tried to compensate Eweida by offering her a separate non-uniformed post where the company would have no problem allowing her to wear her cross but she refused to accept.


The Archbishop of York's statement can be read in full here:

"This decision by British Airways is a nonsense and is based on flawed reasoning.

"The basis for the decision should not be "practicality", as BA suggests in its statement, but rather whether it impacts on Nadia's ability to do her job. It is clear that Nadia's cross does not form an impediment to her ability to carry out her duties at the check in counter.

"Under BA's current reasoning, an employee who turned up to work wearing a three foot long cross must be allowed to wear it, because to hide such a cross under their uniform would be impractical. Yet in Nadia's case a cross of less than three inches is deemed a problem.

"For me, the Cross is important because it reminds me that God keeps his promises. This horrible instrument of torture now carries something other than the body of that man whom to me is a Saviour and to others is a prophet.

"Wearing a Cross carries with it not only a symbol of our hopes but also a responsibility to act and to live as Christians. This symbol does not point only upwards but also outwards, it reminds us of our duties not only to God but also to one another.

"British Airways needs to look again at this decision and to look at the history of the country it represents, whose culture, laws, heritage and tradition owes so much to the very same symbol it would ban.