Page 9 - PA_Enterprise_December_2020-January_2021

PA Enterprise

It may also be that someone’s anti-vaccination
position could amount to a protected
philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.
If a fervent anti-vaxxer could establish that their
belief was genuinely held and worthy of respect,
then they may find success at a tribunal.
Religious discrimination arguments could also be
made. There are several religious issues at stake
when it comes to vaccinations, but the main one
is the fact that many vaccines use pig gelatine,
which could cause problems for several religious
groups, as well as vegans – all of whom are
protected under the Equality Act.

Can employers indirectly compel employees to
vaccinate?

Businesses could decide to take indirect
measures to pressurise vaccination of their a care home employee to be vaccinated, and
employees, such as refusing staff entry to disciplining them if they refuse, is reasonable
certain parts of the workplace or certain roles, if because of the high-risk nature of the work,
they cannot demonstrate that they have been ultimately justifying dismissal or disciplinary
vaccinated. Similarly, employers may be tempted action.
to issue disciplinary action if an employee However, it’s not quite that simple, and any
repeatedly refuses to be vaccinated. Any such employer mandating a vaccine would need to
measures should be considered very carefully balance the proportionality of the interference
before being implemented.
with any article 8 rights, against the amount
If an employee’s refusal to be vaccinated is the risk is reduced by vaccination. Essentially,
down to a disability/protected religious/ does the vaccine reduce transmission or does
philosophical belief, and results in disciplinary it simply suppress symptoms in a carrier? Are
action from their employer, they may be able to there any other less invasive steps that could be
issue a direct or indirect discrimination claim, taken to reduce risk? It is this information that
and claim constructive unfair dismissal if they would inform an employment tribunal as to the
resign in protest. A better course of action for reasonableness and proportionality of mandated
organisations would be to help employees vaccines in a high-risk workplace.
to make informed decisions regarding their If the effect of the vaccine is to also suppress
vaccination by sharing impartial, factual transmission over and above social distancing
information.
measures, it could then be possible at least in
What if you work with vulnerable persons? theory to justify disciplining an employee where
they refuse, if their refusal is unreasonable,
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, or relocating them to lower-risk roles, again
employers may have a duty to ensure a safe provided this is proportionate. It is likely that
working environment by enabling vaccination of such steps will be proportionate in very extreme
their employees in circumstances where they will circumstances where no other reasonable steps
have close contact with the clinically vulnerable. to protect vulnerable persons are available.
For example, it could be argued that requiring

PA Enterprise is published by
December 2020/January 2021 9