BY GIVING unscrupulous employers the legislative right to discriminate, the proposed equality legislation will make life a misery for decent, ordinary people.

The following is a true story with only the names changed. John is the well regarded and respected principal of a large and thriving primary school in a Munster provincial town. He is a middle aged father and is a practising Catholic.

Unfortunately, some years ago his wife fell in love with another man and they separated. The separation was painful but civilised. It was agreed that John would remain in the family home. Some of his children continue to attend the school.

Earlier this year he contacted the INTO with a serious problem. Over the past few years, he has struck up a relationship with Nora, a middle aged separated mother of some of John's pupils.

They were encouraged by their friends and the relationship developed openly.

They continued to live in their own homes but in every other way acted as a couple. Parents and community accepted the arrangement and there were no problems.

Until this year. Both John's wife and Nora's husband wanted their entitled share of the family homes. John and Nora decided to sell John's home and use his share of the money to buy out Nora's husband. They would then both live in Nora's home.

In conversation with the parish priest, who is chairperson of the school board of management, John, out of courtesy, outlined his arrangements.

The parish priest, who was well aware of John and Nora's relationship, stated unequivocally that if they set up home together, he would seek to have John dismissed on the grounds that such an arrangement might be seen to undermine the Catholic ethos of the school.

The INTO managed to protect his position. If the new employment equality legislation is passed into law he will probably lose his job! There are five parts to the Bill and schools and hospitals under religious control are excluded from two of those five sections. However, the two sections they are excluded from relate to "discrimination general provisions" and "specific provisions - as to equality between other categories of persons".

So perhaps it is necessary to state things clearly - religious schools and hospitals are excluded from the parts of the Bill which deal with discrimination. In other words, teachers and nurses and all other workers in religious schools and hospitals are excluded from the protection afforded to other workers against discrimination in employment and can be discriminated against.

According to the Bill, discrimination against employees in religious schools and hospitals is acceptable if it is "essential for the maintenance of the religious ethos of the institution or is reasonable in order to avoid offending the religious sensitivities of its members".

Teachers are concerned at the scope of this last point employers do not need to prove the employee is actively undermining the ethos of the school. They simply need to point to something in the employee's actions, situation or attitudes that they think may offend the religious sensitivities of its members.

In the case of John and Nora it would appear to be enough for the parish priest to produce just one parent who agreed with him, so that, under the terms of this Bill, he might legitimately discriminate against this employee on the grounds that his behaviour may offend the religious sensitivities of parents.

Or take another example a young teacher decides to live with her boyfriend, they have a child outside marriage. This could offend the religious sensitivities of a member of the religion of the school in which she teaches. The school manager could decide this teacher should not be considered for a promotion on the basis that she is undermining the school's ethos.

The Minister for Education, Ms Breathnach, and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr Taylor, maintain this Bill provides these hypothetical teachers with a place to go if they feel they have been unfairly treated the equality mediation officer. In the above situations the school manager simply has to find a parent or parents whose religious sensitivities are offended by these situations, point to section 37 (c), quoted above, and the manager has no further case to answer.

Or some lawyer seeking to defend the dismissal of an employee, on behalf of a board of management, may use some aspect of the employee's private life to justify dismissal on the grounds that he/she was undermining the school's ethos.

But these are not improbable or unusual situations. Teachers understandably fear this section of the Employment Equality Bill legitimises the concept of fair and reasonable discrimination.

Nobody doubts that this legislation is well intentioned. It will offer substantial protection against discrimination to many employees and the Minister is to be lauded for that. However, it also provides a facility for religious discrimination.

The INTO accepts and actively supports the proposal that religious schools are entitled to protect their ethos in situations where employees actively attempt to undermine that ethos during their working day.

We believe this Bill must be amended and strengthened by the inclusion of a statement that nothing in this section of the Bill relates to the private lives of employees in religious schools or hospitals.