Mrs G Dimitrova Miss S Chadwick Mrs J Hussain Miss G Masiero Mrs I Motiejuniene v Barchester Healthcare Ltd — 2022

The claims concerned the respondent's policy requiring care home staff, unless medically exempt, to accept Covid vaccination as a condition of continued employment. The tribunal accepted that the policy was introduced to reduce the risk of Covid entering and spreading in care homes, and thereby to reduce the risk of death and serious illness among residents, staff and visitors. It found the respondent reasonably relied on government, public health, MHRA and other medical sources, while recognising that contrary views and staff concerns existed.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was refusal to comply with the Covid Vaccine Policy without medical exemption, which was a genuine and substantial reason capable of justifying dismissal. It held that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, including after considering human rights arguments, possible exemptions, notice, furlough, redeployment, antibody evidence, alternative precautions, and the individual roles of the claimants. It also found no procedural unfairness sufficient to make any dismissal unfair.

On religion and belief, the tribunal accepted Christianity and Islam as protected religions, accepted Mrs Hussain's philosophical belief in bodily autonomy as protected, and found Mrs Motiejuniene's belief in liberty and harmony to be protected. It found Mrs Hussain's refusal was not because of her Muslim faith but that bodily autonomy was a factor; it found Mrs Motiejuniene's religious and philosophical beliefs lay behind her refusal. The indirect discrimination claims failed because group disadvantage was not shown, and the tribunal held the policy would in any event be justified.

The direct discrimination claims failed because the tribunal found the respondent applied the same rule to staff who refused vaccination without medical exemption, regardless of religion or belief. Mrs Motiejuniene's harassment claim failed because the tribunal found the appeal officer's questions reflected what Mrs Motiejuniene had said and were asked to understand her position, not sarcastically or in a way that reasonably had the statutory effect.