An atheist whose application to be a chaplain was rejected by the Defence Forces had been discriminated against on religion grounds, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has found.
John Hamill, a former officer with Atheist Ireland, complained to the WRC that he was discriminated against in the appointment of a military chaplain at Aiken Barracks and Gormanston army camp on November 6th, 2020. He was not considered for the post and told the WRC he wished to ensure that a post of chaplain was not filled in this way again.
He told the commission that he had written to the Defence Forces several times regarding its appointment of military chaplains and expressed an interest in the role. In this correspondence he noted that the Defence Forces was not a religious body or under the control of a religious body, so section 37 of the Employment Equality Act did not apply. It was also the case that the Defence Forces employed those of all faiths and none, he said, but that Christianity was being ‘imposed’ on members.
A WRC hearing on March 8th last year was told that currently “there are there are about 15 Roman Catholic chaplains and one Church of Ireland chaplain” in the Defence Forces, each appointed by a relevant bishop. In each case, it was told, the Defence Forces had “followed an established path of seeking a nomination from the relevant bishop, and then appointed the priest put forward by that bishop”.
Orla Tinsley: The reality of having to fight for basic rights from all angles is exhausting
Dancing with the Stars 2025: Who are the contestants, when is it on and more
When the Nazis occupied Paris, his colleagues fled, but 84-year-old Sparrow Robertson kept filing his sports column
Joe Humphreys: Lessons in philosophy from Sally Rooney’s latest novel that can help us make sense of the world
At the hearing, Mr Hamill questioned whether it was a genuine occupational requirement for the role to be a Christian appointed by a bishop. This excluded other faiths as well as non-believers. The evidence was that there were good humanist military chaplains in other militaries. He should have been able to apply for the role of chaplain and the role should be allocated to the best applicant, he said.
WRC adjudication officer Kevin Baneham ruled Mr Hamill had been discriminated against on grounds of religion. “I order that the respondent [Defence Forces] review the process of appointing military chaplains to ensure compliance with the Employment Equality Act [which prohibits discrimination on religion grounds] and to ensure that suitably-qualified candidates can apply for military chaplaincy roles in order to reflect and foster the diversity of members of the Defence Forces,” he said in a written adjudication.
“I have no doubt that religious leaders make very good military chaplains and would likely succeed during any assessment and interview process because of their pastoral work in the community,” he wrote. “It is not, however, proportionate that no one else can apply or be considered for appointment as chaplain, irrespective of that potential candidate’s qualities and competencies.”
In arriving at his conclusions, Mr Baneham made reference to Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces last year which found that “the Defence Forces’ chaplaincy service needs to be adjusted in line with international best practice to better reflect the religious/non-religious affiliations of younger Irish people today”.
That report also “noted a number of examples of outdated practices which should be discontinued,” in the Defence Forces. “These include, but are not limited to, the convening of a Roman Catholic Mass associated with an induction ceremony; treatment of pregnancy/childbirth as an irregular absence from duty; and not permitting certain styles of facial hair, such as beards,” it said.
Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland, who gave evidence at the WRC hearing, welcomed the ruling.
Praising Mr Hamill’s “tenacity”, he said the WRC decision “vindicates the arguments made in 2021 by Atheist Ireland, the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland in our joint submission to the public consultation commission on the Defence Forces.”
He said they had pointed out that about 9 per cent of Defence Forces personnel are non-Christian or have no religion, yet all chaplains are either Roman Catholic or Church of Ireland.
The WRC ruling “should result in a fair procedure for appointing chaplains and a wider reform of the influence of the Catholic Church on our Defence Forces,” he said.
In 2019 Mr Hamill, described as a member of the Congregationalist Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (CCFSM), failed in a discrimination action at the WRC over not getting free Luas travel on the day of the papal Mass in the Phoenix Park the previous August.
He claimed he had been indirectly discriminated against by the National Transport Authority (NTA) by refusing him free travel on the Luas on August 26th, 2018, to the Phoenix Park. This was on the same day the NTA allowed free travel to people who had tickets to attend the papal Mass in the Phoenix Park.
Mr Hamill paid €3.70 for his Luas ticket and told the WRC hearing that he had attended the CCFSM concelebration in a restaurant close to the Phoenix Park and that all those who attended were, like him, atheist former Catholics who were celebrating their non-Catholicism and discussing the benefits of not being Catholic.
He had written to the NTA in advance formally requesting that it should extend its offer of free public transport to those attending the ceremony to be conducted by his church at the Phoenix Park. The NTA responded that “the primary reason for making travel free for those attending the papal Mass is crowd safety at the main boarding locations”.
At that WRC hearing Mr Hamill produced photographic evidence showing that he had travelled on the Luas to the Phoenix Park station on August 26th, 2018, wearing a colander on his head as colanders are the headwear of CCFSM ‘pastafarians’, he said.
In that case WRC adjudication officer Emile Daly said that “even though the tone in the complainant’s correspondence is satirical and at times comedic, this belies a serious contention being raised and one that the complainant [Mr Hamill] is entitled to make. Consequently, I do not find this complaint to be frivolous, vexatious or misconceived” (as argued on behalf of the NTA).
However, she found Mr Hamill’s complaint failed “under the Equal Status Act 2000 ... for want of jurisdiction”.
