: A Grant S Gray Michal Baczak v Care UK Community Partnership Limited — 2023

The claimant worked as a Care Assistant from 9 July 2017 until his dismissal with notice on 12 November 2021. The respondent operated mandatory vaccination arrangements in its Scottish care homes from August 2021 after consultation with staff, against the background of the English care-home vaccination regime and the respondent's own covid risk management. The tribunal found that the claimant had a good command of English, was offered interpreter support, and was taken through informal and formal meetings, warning letters, and an appeal process.

On religion, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was a Christian, but found that he did not genuinely hold a religious belief that the covid vaccine was morally wrong on account of foetal cell lines. Its finding was that he refused vaccination because he considered it unsafe, and that he would have had it if he thought it was safe after further checks. The tribunal accepted in principle that a belief that a person should not be economically coerced into vaccination could satisfy Grainger, but found that the claimant was not dismissed because of any religious belief and that he was not put to that particular disadvantage. It also held that, in any event, the mandatory vaccination policy pursued the legitimate aim of protecting vulnerable residents and staff and was a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

On race, the tribunal rejected the suggestion that the refusal to provide written documentation in Polish was because of the claimant's Polish nationality. It found no evidence that a non-Polish person in the same position would have been treated differently and accepted the respondent's evidence that the claimant did not materially have difficulty understanding or expressing himself in the meetings or documents. On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed because he had not been vaccinated and had not shown that he was medically exempt. It found that the respondent consulted staff, warned the claimant of the consequences, offered meetings and an appeal, and acted within the range of reasonable responses. All complaints were dismissed.