Mr J Matthews v Vitality Corporate Services Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025

The tribunal accepted that Mr Matthews genuinely held a philosophical belief that valid initiation of medical treatment or investigation depends on the freely given and informed consent of the competent individual concerned. It also accepted that Vitality promoted vaccination, asked staff to disclose vaccination status, and from October 2021 required attendance at the office two days a week, with unvaccinated staff or staff who did not disclose their status required to produce a weekly negative PCR test before coming in. The tribunal found the claimant made protected disclosures in June and October 2021 about the respondent's vaccination messaging and policy, but concluded that the respondent was not adversely motivated by those disclosures.

The protected disclosure detriment claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that the disciplinary process, the handling of the grievance, the communication of the hybrid-working policy, and the later stop to company sick pay were not taken on the ground that Mr Matthews had made protected disclosures. It found that the disciplinary process followed from his refusal to attend the office as required, and that the grievance and appeal were generally handled in good faith, albeit not always in the depth the claimant wanted. The automatically unfair dismissal claim was also dismissed because the tribunal found the protected disclosures played no role in the dismissal.

The belief harassment claim and both direct and indirect belief discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that the respondent's vaccine-related communications were not objectively aimed at violating the claimant's dignity, and that the challenged policies applied across the workforce rather than to believers in particular. On indirect discrimination, the tribunal accepted the PCP of office attendance and weekly PCR testing for unvaccinated staff, and extended time despite the claim being a little late, but found there was no group disadvantage and, in any event, the policy was justified by legitimate aims of safe office working and reducing the effects of home working.

The unfair constructive dismissal claim succeeded on a narrower basis. The tribunal found that the respondent's withdrawal of discretionary company sick pay from 22 December 2021 was unreasonable because the stated reason was that the absence was connected to the return-to-office dispute, while the correct matters were not taken into account. It also found that the grievance and appeal failed to correct that error. The tribunal held this went to pay, a central contractual term, and amounted to a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence. However, it also found that Mr Matthews would have resigned at the same time even if the sick pay issue had been resolved, so any compensatory award would be reduced by 100% under Polkey. No remedy figure was determined in this judgment.