A word of caution – Dismissal of an anti-vaccination employee ruled to be fair

legal updates

Does this decision lend grounds for employers to dismiss staff refusing a COVID-19 vaccine at present?

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

An employment tribunal, in the first decision of this sort, upheld the dismissal of a care assistant who was asked to be vaccinated but refused.

Does this decision lend grounds for employers to dismiss staff refusing a COVID-19 vaccine at present? We should not think so.

In this particular case, the nursing home started rolling out vaccinations to its employees and residents in December 2020. The vaccinations had to be postponed due to an internal outbreak of COVID-19. During this time, the employee in question became infected and fortunately recovered. Vaccinations resumed in January 2021. The insurers informed the nursing home that the cover for COVID-19 risks would be removed from March 2021 as unvaccinated staff might infect the residents.

The care assistant was reluctant to get vaccinated. In a conversation with her management, she raised doubts that the vaccine was entirely safe. She also argued that she was immune from the coronavirus as a result of the recent infection. She was warned that if she did not get vaccinated, she would then be suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary action.

The employee continued to refuse the vaccine, was then suspended on full pay, and invited to a disciplinary meeting for refusal to adhere to a reasonable instruction of her management.

At the meeting, the employee pleaded that she was refusing the vaccine on the grounds of her religion. This was rejected. It was also put to her that her doubts as to the vaccine safety were unreasonable and did not justify her refusal. It was also rejected that because she had COVID-19, she became immune to it.

The employment tribunal concluded that the instruction to get vaccinated was reasonable and the employee’s grounds for refusal were not a good excuse. Although religious discrimination was pleaded, the tribunal found that the true reason for avoiding the vaccination was a genuine concern about the safety of the vaccine, but this concern was unreasonable. There were no legitimate medical or clinical basis to refuse the vaccine.

The tribunal also took note that the nursing home requested vaccination to protect its staff and residents in the circumstances of soaring infection rates.

Refusal to get vaccinated amounted to gross insubordination and refusal to perform legitimate instruction, which were quoted as examples of gross misconduct in the disciplinary policy.

It needs to be noted that the tribunal would evaluate the employer’s actions at the time of the dismissal. Had the care assistant been dismissed at present, when the COVID-19 situation has changed significantly, with the lessening of the restrictions and cancellation of the regulations requiring mandatory vaccination, the tribunal may have well reached a different decision. Certainly, a situation justifying compulsory vaccination for the workers in the motor industry would not be easy to imagine.

DMS NavigatorDealer Management System software for Car Sales, Aftersales and eCommerce

Our dealers use us to help them be more Efficient and Profitable!

You can use our Dealer and Lead Management software to integrate all dealership departments, both online and physical ; providing all in-house functions; Invoicing, Stock Management, Accounting and Marketing as well as interfacing for advertising, ecommerce and more.

What is also worth noting is that the nursing home followed the correct employment procedure and the tribunal did not find any procedural breaches.

The employer issued a formal instruction to get vaccinated and the refusal was dealt with as a disciplinary matter. The employee was dismissed for gross misconduct based on the disciplinary policy of gross insubordination and refusal to perform a reasonable instruction as examples of the gross misconduct. The employee was able to argue her case at the disciplinary hearing. The suspension prior to the hearing was on full pay.

The tribunal was persuaded that the employee was treated fairly and the dismissal procedure was reasonable. The requirements for a reasonable dismissal procedure may not be straightforward and may pose some difficulty for an employer without an experienced HR department. Lawgistics’ members should always contact our helpline in case of any doubt as procedural mistakes may prove much easier to prevent than to rectify.

Kiril MoskovchukTrainee SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Changes to Flexible Working

Unveil the new landscape of flexible working rights with the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, now granting ‘day-one’ rights to employees and setting a precedent for more adaptable workplace practices effective from 6 April 2024.

New employment legislation effective from 6 April 2024

Enhanced employee rights, offering day-one entitlements to carer’s leave, flexible working arrangements, and extended redundancy protection for pregnant employees and those on family leave.

Employment Law: Annual Leave Changes

Several significant changes came into force on 1 January 2024 that affect the statutory annual leave and pay entitlements.

Update on Rights to Flexible Working Requests

Employers will remain entitled to turn down a request pointing to reasonable grounds as a basis for refusal.

Parents and Carers: New Protections at Work

Parents and carers will benefit from the following new employment protections that received royal assent in May 2023.

Employment tribunal awards

A tribunal can, at their discretion, award an uplift of 25% for failure to follow the Acas procedure.

ChatGPT? For now, at least you can chat with your legal advisor

Seek advice from a legal expert or HR consultant who has experience in employment law and discrimination issues.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.