In the case of Masiero & others v Barchester Healthcare Limited, the claimants worked for a large care home provider. Care home residents were particularly vulnerable to COVID due to their age and/or medical conditions, which made them less able to observe social distancing. In an attempt to protect residents, Barchester (the respondent) introduced various measures, including enhanced hygiene standards and PPE. One of the policies the respondent introduced was a mandatory COVID vaccination policy for all staff unless they were medically exempt. The respondent introduced its policy prior to the government's introduction of mandatory COVID vaccinations in the social care sector. The aim of the policy was to protect both care home residents and staff.
The claimants declined to be vaccinated and were dismissed by the respondent. None of the claimants were medically exempt from the requirement to receive the COVID vaccination. They argued that their dismissals were unfair.
The Tribunal dismissed the claims. It found that the aim of the mandatory vaccination policy was to reduce the spread of COVID in care homes. This was a genuine and substantial reason that could justify a "some other substantial reason" dismissal in law. The Tribunal acknowledged a clash between the respondent's aim of protecting life and the claimants' rights to a private life. Whilst both the right to life and the right to a private life are human rights enshrined in law, the right to life is an absolute right. The respondent was justified in interfering with the claimants' right to a private life, as part of its wider aim to protect the lives of residents, staff and visitors.
The claimants appealed unsuccessfully to the EAT. The EAT agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning and found there had been no error of law. The Tribunal had correctly concluded that protection of the right to life can justify interference with the right to a private life. This was particularly the case given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic and the uncertainty that existed at the time.
This case acts as a useful demonstration of how the Tribunal might balance clashing human rights arguments in an employment context. It underscores the importance of implementing policies that prioritise health and safety, especially in environments with vulnerable populations. In situations where policies might infringe on personal freedoms, employers must demonstrate that these measures are essential to achieve a genuine and substantial purpose.