Employers will be drawing comfort this week from a landmark tribunal ruling.

Nurse Shirley Chaplin brought a discrimination claim against her hospital employers that played to the moral ground in testing out the rights of her faith against health and safety rules, in what has become a very public issue.

Assisted by the Christian Legal Centre, the nurse at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital took her discrimination claim to tribunal after she was told to remove the crucifix necklace in June last year, after matrons deemed it a health risk under the hospital's adopted policies. They claimed that it could be pulled by one of the elderly and confused patients under her care. Instead, they suggested, she could wear it in various different ways, either to display it outside her uniform or on her chain below a turtle neck t-shirt. The nurse had instead offered to fit the necklace she had worn for 30 years with a magnetic clasp to make it break apart easily and argued that two Muslims at the hospital were allowed to wear headscarves under the ‘exemption’ rules for religious symbols.

The case has made headlines for months, as Christians around the world sought to establish the right to wear the Christian symbol on show, despite the perceived safety risks in a hospital environment.

As the case built momentum in the runup to the start of the hearing, a number of bishops became involved, claiming that Christians are being persecuted in an increasingly secular society. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also criticised a ‘wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness’ that prevents people from wearing religious symbols at work.

In fact, the only time Mrs Chaplin could not display her crucifix on the chain was when she was carrying out clinical functions on the ward – a point that appears to have been lost in much of the coverage.

Nurse Chaplin was offered a series of potential compromises but instead accepted a transfer that took her off frontline duties.

While the roots of the case were founded on her employer's desire to protect their patients and care staff from harm, the legal case was brought on grounds of religious discrimination. It is the second such case of its kind, in what has become a highly emotive and rapidly developing area of the law.

In February, Nadia Eweida lost an appeal against a ban by British Airways on wearing a cross visibly at work at Heathrow. She was appealing against an employment tribunal ruling, which found BA was not guilty of religious discrimination in banning her cross. BA said it was not banning her cross, but said its policy was that such items could be worn only if concealed under uniform. The case is not being appealed.

Mrs Chaplin’s case was significant legally, because her representatives were testing some of the areas of legal uncertainty left open in the high profile BA cross case last year, including the interpretation of parts of the religious discrimination and belief regulations, and the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such important legal issues are likely to be informing their stated wish to appeal this case, for decision by higher courts.

While the case holds huge significance in that particular battle, it also provides some comfort to those employers having to devise and implement their health and safety policies.

John Hollow, the tribunal judge, ruled that the hospital had acted reasonably in trying to reach a compromise. Mr Hollow suggested that the damage to Mrs Chaplin had been ‘slight’ and noted that wearing a cross was not a requirement of the Christian faith.

Though not a simple case about health and safety law, the ruling is a clear victory for common sense on this basis.

As a discrimination claim on religious grounds it provides some guidance, and encouragement, to other employers likely to face the increasing number of such legal challenges in this emotive area of the law.

The hospital was not just defending itself, but effectively the reputation of the wider NHS. For trust managers, this was only ever a health and safety issue about conformity with national policy within the NHS designed to protect patient-facing staff from harm.

This case highlights not only the challenges posed for employers in enforcing health and safety policy, but in their responses when claims do arise. The fact that the hospital went to great lengths to find a compromise undoubtedly informed the tribunal decision.

Nikki Duncan is based in Bond Pearce’s Plymouth office. She advised the Exeter-based Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital on the claim, which was presented in the tribunal by Thomas Kibling from Matrix Chambers