he claimant worked as a care assistant in the respondent nursing home.  The issue arising relates to the roll-out of the vaccination programme in December 2020 to combat coronavirus.   The nursing home itself had been hit with an outbreak in which 33 staff, including the claimant, were infected.  There were also 22 residents infected which did sadly lead to some deaths.  

The employees of the respondent nursing home were invited to their vaccinations in January 2021.  The respondent made it a condition of continued employment that employees would have to be vaccinated.  The claimant only became aware of this the day before her vaccination was due.   On that day, she telephoned one of the directors of the respondent outlining a number of reservations about why she would not be getting the vaccine. This included arguments that it was part of a Government conspiracy and that she did not trust the safety of the vaccine.   This led to an investigation and disciplinary hearing. 

At the disciplinary hearing, the claimant brought up, for the first time, that she has a religious objection to receiving the vaccine.  This was based upon her Rastafarianism. The director of the respondent was unaware that the claimant was a practising Rastafarian until it was made known at that point. The director made the claimant aware that the insurers of the home would not cover coronavirus related issues after March 2021 and that there was a greater risk if staff were allowed to continue working despite not being vaccinated.  It was found that the claimant did not have a reasonable excuse for refusing vaccination and that she would be posing a health risk to other staff and residents. Therefore, the claimant was dismissed for failing to follow a reasonable management instruction.  

The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal as well as arguments based upon the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR.  The Tribunal found that the respondent had a legitimate aim of protecting the health of those in the home.   Furthermore, it was found that the claimant may have had a genuine fear but such fear was unreasonable as there was no medical authority for the refusal.  Accordingly, the interference with the private life of the claimant was regarded as reasonable and proportionate.  The Tribunal also found that the director did not genuinely believe that vaccine refusal was linked to the claimant’s religious belief.  This was accepted by the Tribunal.  Furthermore, the argument was made that vaccination was not required considering that the claimant had already tested positive for the virus.   It was held by the Tribunal that it was still possible to contract coronavirus twice and therefore the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses.  

Practical Lessons

This is the first of the cases relating to mandatory vaccination which is likely to cause a number of cases to come before the Tribunal with various arguments.   It is clear that the religious belief argument was rather spurious and not the real reason for vaccination refusal.  Considering that there then came a Government position that care home staff must be vaccinated, this strengthened the hand of the care home which had taken an early decision on mandatory vaccination.   It is useful that this decision does provide some clarity, but it is likely that many more decisions will come. 
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKET/2022/1803699_2021.html