Erich McElevey, a receptionist in training to become a vicar, sued his employer, Wycombe Badminton Centre, alleging religious discrimination for being rostered on Sundays and for being barred from reading the Bible at work. An employment tribunal in Watford ruled that the Sunday shifts were not imposed on him and dismissed all of his claims, including unfair dismissal.

Sunday shifts requested by Erich McElevey

The tribunal heard that McElevey had actually asked for weekend duties. Judge Elizabeth Coll noted that he worked “60‑70” weekend shifts over six years and that his text messages showed he welcomed Sunday assignments. This directly contradicted his assertion that the centre forced him to sit idle on the Lord’s day.

No evidence of Bible bans found by Judge Elizabeth Coll

According to the tribunal record, there were no messages from manager Alistair Jones ordering McElevey not to read the Bible. The judge emphasized that the centre’s policy prohibited all employees from reading books or using the internet for personal purposes during work hours, a rule applied uniformly and not aimed at any religion.

Disciplinary action tied to IT policy, not faith

The disciplinary hearing in early 2023 focused on McElevey’s failure to follow the centre’s IT procedures for logging member arrivals, which the judge said led to “inaccurate recording of monies due.” The tribunal concluded that the process was not a retaliation for his Christian values but a legitimate response to breaches of operational policy.

Alistair Jones’ policy on personal material at Wycombe Badminton Centre

Manager Alistair Jones testified that allowing personal devices or books would damage the centre’s reputation and that CCTV would capture any misconduct . the judge found this stance “reasonable and proper” and rejected McElevey’s claim that Jones had ripped up his theological notes,noting no CCTV evidence supported the allegation.

Did the centre’s policy disproportionately affect religious staff?

The tribunal did not find any proof that the blanket ban on personal reading singled out Christian employees. However, the case raises the question of whether a universal policy might unintentionally clash with the devotional practices of staff members who seek to read sacred texts during quiet periods.