InAllette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home Ltd, Mrs Allette was employed by Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home (Respondent) as a care assistant between 3 December 2007 until her dismissal on 1 February 2021.
The Respondent organised for their staff to be vaccinated against COVID in December 2020. The vaccinations ended up being postponed due to a COVID outbreak within the care home. The vaccinations were rescheduled for January 2021.
On 12 January 2021, the Respondent informed Mrs Allette that vaccination was now mandatory. Mrs Allette did not wish to take up the vaccine because she feared it was unsafe. She had also caught COVID during the December outbreak and believed she was immune.
There was no contractual requirement to be vaccinated, nor any reference to vaccination in the Respondent's disciplinary policy. The disciplinary policy did however list the following as examples of potential gross misconduct:
The Rules required "no action to be taken by [Mrs Allette] which could threaten the health or safety of [herself], other employees, residents or members of the public".
Mrs Allette was disciplined for refusing to take up the vaccination. At the hearing she referred to being Rastafarian and said her religious beliefs prevented her from being vaccinated. She had not mentioned these beliefs prior to the hearing. Mrs Allette was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on the grounds she had failed to follow the reasonable management instruction to be vaccinated. She appealed unsuccessfully against her dismissal and subsequently brought claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal.
The requirement to be vaccinated was found to be reasonable in the context of the status of the pandemic at the time and the impact of the recent COVID outbreak in the nursing home. Mrs Allette's views about the safety of the vaccine were not held to be reasonable, given the facts known about the vaccine at the time. The Tribunal did not accept Mrs Allette's religious beliefs as a genuine reason for her refusal to be vaccinated. Mrs Allette's refusal to be vaccinated was found to constitute gross misconduct.
The Tribunal further held that imposing mandatory vaccination did interfere with Mrs Allette's Article 8 right to respect for her private life. However, the Tribunal found the interference to be justified given the Respondent's legitimate aim both to protect the health and safety of residents, staff and visitors to the care home, and to preserve its insurance - which it was feared could be withdrawn.
This is a first instance decision, meaning it is not binding on other Tribunals. The facts of the case also relate to the time before the Government legislated for mandatory vaccinations within the care home and healthcare sectors. The case is nevertheless significant and highly topical in the current climate.
The mandatory vaccination legislation may mean there is a more straightforward route to justifying dismissals taking place within the care home and healthcare sectors now. However, this decision is still a useful demonstration of the factors the Tribunal may take into account in order to determine whether an employer was acting reasonably in taking the action it did.