‘My pro-Palestine colleague refused a task on ethical grounds – can I make her do it?'

Telegraph

7 days ago

Do you have a legal question to put to Gary? Email [e-mail] or use the form at the bottom of the page.
Dear Gary,
I manage a team of content creators. One of my colleagues has recently returned from sabbatical. We have not worked together before. I asked her to film an interview with a visiting VIP, but she refused, citing personal objections to his stance on Gaza when he held public office.
I understand she may have family in the region, and her line manager believes the request was emotionally taxing. However, I think she was being unreasonable and should have done the task as instructed. My predecessor may have allowed this sort of opt-out.
Who is in the right?
– Vicki, by email
Dear Vicki,
It's quite understandable that, as a team leader and manager, you expect professional responsibilities to be carried out regardless of personal political beliefs. Employees are, after all, hired to do a job. And unless there is a lawful reason why they cannot perform a task, refusing a reasonable instruction could be viewed as a disciplinary matter.
However, in this case, before you upset the apple cart and potentially get yourself in difficulties because your team member ends up complaining about you and your conduct towards her, you do need to consider if there is a lawful reason for refusal of the task you have asked to be performed.
While the law, regrettably, does not always provide the kind of moral clarity we might wish for when workplace duties collide with personal conscience, it does give a framework which focuses on specific responsibilities set out in an employment contract.
These responsibilities do not operate in a vacuum and are tempered by the concept overarching employment law – that actions on each side should be reasonable and consistent, as well as whether an employer has made appropriate accommodations.
So first, go back to and check the employment contract in place for this team member and, in particular, see if there are any specific exclusions from a general duty to carry out all tasks asked of the employees. It is unlikely there are, but best to check.
Subject to any exclusions in the contract, from an employment law perspective, you, as her manager, are within your rights to assign her tasks that fall within the scope of her role. That is unless there is a compelling reason not to, which is grounded in principles of employment law.
For instance, no matter what an employment contract may say, it is a principle of employment law that certain 'protected characteristics' are respected. These are set out in the Equality Act 2010. If your colleague has family affected by events in Gaza - which your question indicates is the case – she could argue that being forced into such an assignment without sensitivity to her personal circumstances could amount to indirect discrimination, particularly if her ethnicity, religion, or belief system are relevant factors.
That said, objection to the political views or past actions of a public figure does not, in and of itself, constitute a legal exemption from carrying out professional duties. Unless (as I have said) her contract explicitly allows for such opt-outs. Or unless the task could reasonably be viewed as causing serious emotional distress. Such distress and detriment to her health may be evidenced by a medical note or report. Without such a note or report, this is a judgement call on you, but one where you would be well-advised to tread carefully.
You suspect your team member's previous manager may have set a precedent. While you are not necessarily bound by what has gone before, consistency is attractive in the world of employment law and HR, and departing from it abruptly could still raise HR eyebrows if it causes unnecessary conflict.
If you believe your team member's refusal sets a problematic tone for team discipline and role clarity, you might consider a mediated conversation involving HR to draw clear boundaries going forward. This could cover both what is expected and how exceptions will be handled.
In a wider context, you have identified what's at the heart of this issue – namely, a possible workplace culture of selectively opting out of assignments on moral or emotional grounds. While some sensitivity in management is always advisable, particularly if someone has direct ties to a dreadful conflict, it does not follow that every objection creates a veto. Again, subject to what it says in the employment contract, employment law does not grant a blanket right to avoid tasks because they are emotionally uncomfortable or politically disagreeable.
Also, past indulgence by a previous manager does not create an entitlement. If anything, it may have bred unhelpful habits that now require correcting for the sake of team cohesion and fairness. You are within your rights to clarify expectations going forward that professional duties must be fulfilled unless a formal exemption is agreed in advance. Again, the best forum for this conversation is most likely a mediation with HR involved.
In summary, unless the team member can demonstrate that carrying out this work would cause a genuine detriment to their health or well-being (for example, backed by a medical note or HR intervention), or unless a protected characteristic is being engaged in a discriminatory way (which would need to be clearly established), then refusing a legitimate instruction could be considered a disciplinary matter.
From what you have said in your question, no one is unequivocally 'right' here, but balance, compassion and clear communication are your best legal and managerial safeguards. And your instinct to uphold a consistent standard certainly is legally sound, as well as essential to managing a team effectively.
However, you need to manage this situation to protect yourself as well, and involving HR to document the situation and set clear parameters for future conduct would be prudent both for the team member's understanding and your own protection as a manager.