Dismissing an employee for refusing to be vaccinated against coronavirus (COVID-19)

In Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd, the employment tribunal had to consider whether an employer had acted unfairly in dismissing an employee for refusing to be vaccinated against coronavirus (COVID-19).

Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd (Case No: 1803699/2021)

Facts

Ms Allette worked as a care assistant at a nursing home providing care to people with dementia. In December 2020, the government started to roll out vaccines to care homes’ staff and residents. The home arranged for its staff to receive their first dose on 22 December 2020, but this did not take place because of a coronavirus outbreak at the care home. Ms Allette became infected alongside half of the other staff and 22 residents. Some of the residents sadly died as a result of the outbreak.

The home’s insurer said it would withdraw cover for coronavirus-related risks from March 2021 onwards if unvaccinated staff infected residents. The home therefore rescheduled vaccinations to take place on 13 January 2021. On 12 January, one of the directors spoke to Ms Allette about her reluctance to be vaccinated. She informed the director that she did not think that the vaccine was safe and had been ‘rushed through’ without being properly tested. She believed that the government were lying about its safety and referred to research she had undertaken on the internet which supported her views. She said that she would have preferred to wait until the vaccine programme had been ‘properly rolled out’ before deciding whether to have it. She also said that she was ‘immune’ from contracting the virus again because of her recent infection. The director informed Ms Allette that if she refused to have the vaccine the following day he would suspend her pending disciplinary action.

Ms Allette continued to refuse to be vaccinated and was suspended on full pay. She was invited to a disciplinary meeting to explain why she had failed to follow a reasonable management instruction. During that meeting, she said that she did not want to take the vaccine because of her religious beliefs (Rastafarianism) rather than for the reasons she had given during her conversation with the director. She claimed that she had mentioned this during the discussions, but eventually conceded that she had not. That did not go down well and the disciplinary manager concluded that she had invented a new reason to justify her decision not to be vaccinated because she accepted that her original excuse was not good enough and was cynically accusing the home of discrimination.

The disciplinary manager did not accept that Ms Allette was ‘immune’ from the virus based on evidence available at the time from Public Health England, which said it was possible to contract and transmit the virus more than once. The disciplinary manager explained that the home could not make an exception for one member of staff, and that remaining unvaccinated posed a health and safety risk to the health and lives of the residents. He explained that the vaccines were safe and offered her a further opportunity to have the vaccine the following day. She refused and was then dismissed for gross misconduct because she had failed to follow a reasonable management instruction to get vaccinated.

Ms Allette appealed on a number of grounds, which were rejected following a full re-hearing of the facts.

She alleged that her dismissal was unfair and in breach of contract.

Employment tribunal decision

The tribunal concluded that requiring staff to be vaccinated was a reasonable management instruction at the relevant time. The government had reintroduced lockdown measures on 6 January 2021 because of soaring infection rates, some residents had already died because they had become infected and medical advice urged people to get vaccinated as soon as they were eligible.

It accepted that Ms Allette was sceptical about having the vaccine and that was the reason she had refused to have it, rather than because of her religious beliefs. It found that she knew that her decision to remain unvaccinated would potentially put others at risk and that her actions amounted to gross insubordination or a refusal to carry out legitimate instructions, which were included in the list of behaviours in the home’s disciplinary policy that could amount to gross misconduct.

The tribunal accepted that her fears about the vaccination were genuine but concluded that they were unreasonable and she had no medical or clinical basis for refusing the vaccine.

The tribunal accepted that requiring an employee to be vaccinated interfered with their right to a ‘private life’ under Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. But it found that asking staff to be vaccinated was justified and necessary, principally because the home had a pressing social need to reduce the risk to the residents who were among those most vulnerable to severe illness and death through catching coronavirus. It therefore had to balance her rights against those of other staff and vulnerable residents. It also accepted that the withdrawal of insurance cover may also increase the risk of claims for the home and that was a legitimate aim. It concluded that the home could not have achieved its aims of keeping its staff and residents safe in a less intrusive way.

The home acted within the range of reasonable responses and, taking into account, Ms Allette’s right to a private life, dismissal was proportionate. It accepted that the home could have given her more opportunities to change her mind, put her on unpaid or paid leave and obtained scientific information to persuade her that the vaccines were safe and necessary. But they were only required to act reasonably and the tribunal could not say that no reasonable employer would have acted in the same way they did.

Ms Allette’s breach of contract claim also failed. The home was entitled to dismiss her for gross misconduct and she was not entitled to notice pay.

Pro Employment Law

Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.