At the time of writing, the government has announced that every adult will be offered the COVID-19 vaccine by 31 July 2021. The swift progress of administering vaccines has led to topical discussion about whether employers can force employees to receive the vaccine. Recent headlines of “no jab no job” have increased this debate.
This blog aims to address the concerns that both employers and employees may have over the vaccine and the employment law implications.
The government have made it clear that the vaccination will not be a legal requirement. The government guidelines on vaccinations say that individuals must be given enough information to enable them to make a decision before they can give consent.
The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 gives the government the power to prevent and control an infection. However, it specifically prevents a person from being required to undertake medical treatments such as vaccinations.
The distribution of the vaccine will likely come as a relief for businesses and employers. There is now a light at the end of the tunnel that normal working operations can slowly resume and more employees will be able to return to the workplace.
However, not every worker will want to be vaccinated and this is likely to be a topic which is increasingly raised over the coming months. The government has identified that this is a “complex” topic. A question that is likely to arise is whether it is ethical and legal for employers to request staff to be vaccinated before they return to the workplace, particularly when some will refuse for religious, philosophical or health care reasons.
An employer who requires employees to receive a vaccination could potentially be open to the risk of a discrimination claim on the grounds of disability, age, religion or belief. In addition, if an employer were to dismiss an employee for the reason of refusing to take a vaccine, they may be opening themselves up to an unfair dismissal claim, assuming that the employee has at least 2 years of service.
An employer may dismiss an employee who refuses to comply with a reasonable management request. Therefore, if it is considered that taking the vaccine is a reasonable management request, an employee may be able to be dismissed for refusing to comply.
This will require careful analysis on a case by case basis and will depend on the specific circumstances. If an employee is refusing to take a vaccination and is also refusing to come into the workplace, an employer should firstly consider alternatives such as change of role, regular testing or permanently working from home. Where contact with customers, clients or other employees is necessary, steps may need to be taken when employees are refusing to come into work.
However, if an employee is refusing to take the vaccine for legitimate reasons and is still happy to come into work, an employer would be ill-advised to dismiss them. An employer should thoroughly consider an individual’s reasons for refusing to take the vaccine before making any decisions.
Whether an employee can be dismissed for this reason would depend on whether the employee’s refusal to comply with the request is reasonable or not. Whether this is a reasonable request will involve a consideration of where the employee works. For example, UK healthcare employers must ensure that their employees do not present a risk of infection to patients, so may have a stronger defence to an unfair dismissal claim. However, as mentioned above, employers will have to be aware of the possibility of opening themselves to the risk of discrimination or unfair dismissal claims by insisting on their staff having a vaccine.
The government has now published the COVID-19 Response – Spring 2021, setting out the roadmap out of the current lockdown for England. Subject to the government’s assessment of the current data against the four tests contained in the roadmap, this will result in a gradual lifting of the restrictions over coming months. The risk therefore lies with the situation when an ‘extremely clinically vulnerable’ person refuses to take the vaccine but there are no longer protective restrictions in place. If ‘extremely clinically vulnerable’ individuals refuse to take the vaccine this is going to be difficult for employers to manage, particularly if the individual is also refusing to go to work.
There are a range of options available to employers where high-risk employees are not comfortable with going to work. This includes use of the furlough scheme (which has been extended to the end of April 2021), suspending on full pay, allowing employees to take annual or unpaid leave and sick leave. However, as time goes on these options may be less commercially viable, in particular when businesses return to their normal workload.
Employers should also be aware that employees have statutory rights meaning that they have protection from any detriment or dismissal when they have decided not to return to work, because there are circumstances of danger where the employee reasonably believes this danger is serious or imminent. The belief must be genuine and reasonable; therefore, once the vaccine has been fully introduced, the belief will likely become less reasonable.
As stated above, an employer may consider taking disciplinary action against an employee who refuses to take a vaccine and also refuses to return to work, on the basis that it is a breach of an employer’s reasonable instruction. In order to proceed, employers should take all appropriate steps to make their workplace COVID secure. This option may be more appropriate where employees who are not clinically vulnerable are refusing to return to work as these employees are, arguably, less likely to prove a reasonable belief in an ongoing and serious imminent danger.
Employers should consult with their employees to understand their concerns and discuss how risks will be managed. Employers should also carry out a proper risk assessment and take the appropriate steps to mitigate these risks. For further information, please see our blog ‘Changes to “shielding” – the implications for employers’.
There is much discussion around the possible introduction of immunity passports in several countries including the UK and Italy. The government has announced a further review of the situation over coming months and has identified that vaccine passports are more likely to be required internationally. These passports are a potential tool for recording the immune status of an individual. Whilst it is speculation at present, they could take the form of a wristband, mobile phone application or certificate and may allow individuals to follow less onerous requirements around social distancing and travel.
Some airlines have already indicated that they will require anyone taking a flight to have been vaccinated, which indicates that other service providers may take a similar view. The CEO of Heathrow Airport has welcomed the introduction of an internationally recognised immunity passport. If vaccination immunity passports start to be enforced in order to visit certain establishments such as pubs and offices, this create a further reason for employers to reasonably require employees to be immunised. This will have particular relevance if employees need to visit certain places to carry out their role and duties.
However, there are concerns that immunity passports could mislead individuals as to the complexity of their immune status. In particular, it is not clear how long the immunity will last for and we do not have certainty over how effective it is. Looking forward, if vaccination immunity passports are introduced, this could present serious issues for employers to review and consider.
If you have any further questions relating to the effect of the vaccine on employment law, please contact a member of the Employment team.
SIGN UP to receive email notification when our dedicated “Coronavirus – Legal advice and guidance” page is updated as and when new guidance comes through from the government and other regulatory bodies.