No Jab No Care Home Job?

There’s been much in the media today about the fact that the Government is to ‘require’ care workers to have the Covid-19 vaccination in order to continue working in front line support. Those who don’t will either have to be moved into work that doesn’t bring them into contact with residents or dismissed.

While the employment law implications are one which may worry business owners, the decision throws up a whole series of HR issues for that particular sector – ones which may also have implications for a lot of employers in the broader health/social care sector (which includes many of my charity clients)

Firstly, it’s important to remember that no vaccination is required by law in the UK.  The often quoted example that ‘doctors and nurses must have a Hepatitis B vaccination’ is based on clinical guidance issued by Public Health England which is then adopted by individual NHS and other healthcare employers as part of their health and safety policy/risk assessment process.  

If the government introduce a specific law (which would take some time to go through the parliamentary processes) or regulation (which wouldn’t) then sacking someone who fails to comply would be fair in law as a ‘statutory restriction’. (Update 21/6/21 – the change will be introduced by regulation, effective October 2021) An employer must still go through a fair process – exploring redeployment options before taking a decision to dismiss – and a dismissal would be with contractual or statutory notice.

If however they introduce the new rules as (prescriptive) guidance then it will be down to the individual employer to build them into their health and safety policy and recruitment guidelines.  While employers would be expected to follow them, it would be very difficult to justify dismissing someone (or not recruit someone) using the statutory restriction argument. Employers would probably have to rely on the catch all “some other substantial reason”, again ensuring that they dismiss with appropriate notice.

In addition to the risk of potential unfair dismissal claims, the sector already faces serious staff shortages with some estimates that there are 100000+ vacancies at the moment. The prospect of sacking otherwise competent staff at a time when it is difficult to recruit, and reducing further the number of prospective job candidates, is likely to cause further problems.

Care businesses will also need to communicate the changes clearly and effectively to staff; take time to collect appropriate vaccination records; perhaps give time off for people to be vaccinated; and ensure that staff understand the consequences of not being vaccinated. This is particularly important for the small number of people who are advised not to have the vaccination because of a health condition, which may mean there are also disability discrimination issues to be addressed.

None of this is to say that the aim of having all care home workers vaccinated (or indeed health and social care staff more generally) is a bad one. But we have seen too many instances in recent years of rushed new regulations being implemented without proper thought-through consequences, and subsequently having to be amended or repealed, for employers to be confident that another hastily announced policy will be any more effective.

It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world?

At the start of 2020 (when a new virus affecting people in parts of China was hardly being covered in the news) I published a blog post on the issues of philosophical belief and how employers should consider issues relating to it, in the light of two high profile cases. on veganism and gender-critical beliefs.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled today on the appeal in the gender-critical case. That case originally failed on the grounds that the claimant’s gender-critical beliefs could not count as a philosophical belief on the basis that they failed the 5th legal test, that a belief “must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not be incompatible with human dignity or in conflict with the fundamental rights of others”

The EAT overturned this view, stating that a belief would only fail the 5th test if it was ‘akin to Nazism or totalitarianism’ or espousing violence and hatred ‘in the gravest of forms’; a belief that simply was ‘offensive, shocking or even disturbing to others…would not be excluded from the protection’.

This is a subject which results in much heated and vitriolic debate, particularly on social media platforms. The purpose of this post is not to discuss the merits of these views (or the decision itself) but to highlight to employers a key part of the judgement. The EAT was very clear and explicit that:

a. This judgment does not mean that the EAT has expressed any view on the merits of either side of the transgender debate and nothing in it should be regarded as so doing.


b. This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of {Equality Act] EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.


c. This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct.


d. This judgment does not mean that employers and service providers will not be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons. Employers would continue to be liable (subject to any defence under s.109(4), EqA) for acts of harassment and discrimination against trans persons committed in the course of employment.

The above points are taken directly from the judgement (which you can find here if you want to read it in full) – they are also evidence that court judgements aren’t always in impenetrable legalese! They are however a very useful reminder that discrimination, bullying or harassment are something which an employer is liable for regardless of whether the alleged harasser claims they are only doing so because they have a particular religious or philosophical belief.

Woolly Bully

Workplace bullying is back in the news in the UK, so I thought it might be helpful to outline the position for small businesses.

Bullying isn’t defined in employment law, although harassment is (section 26 of the Equality Act) – harassment being ‘unwanted conduct that…violates someone’s dignity…or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment” for an individual (my emphasis). Although this definition of harassment relates specifically to the protected characteristics under the Act, it does form the basis for many organisations’ policies on conduct for all staff.

In practice, bullying is often considered to be harassment by someone in a position of power over the individual – such as a boss.

Bullying can take many forms, but some I’ve encountered in my working life include

  • Giving impossible targets for a subordinate  – setting someone up to fail
  • Making public derogatory comments about a more junior member of staff, either when they are present or to other team members in their absence
  • Shouting, swearing or other verbally aggressive behaviour.
  • Micromanaging an individual, picking up every slight error
  • Treating an individual differently (for example enforcing applying a strict lunchbreak when others are allowed to take as long as they like).

It’s important to remember that both the Equality Act and case law have made it clear that it is the perception of the individual, not the intention of the alleged bully that is what counts – so “I didn’t mean it” is not an excuse for unacceptable behaviour, although it may be a mitigation for any penalty given (something I have discussed before).

Other excuses that won’t wash include “I just have high standards and expect everyone to conform to them” (you can have high standards without being aggressive towards your subordinates) “X is not up to the job” (performance management is about being supportive and agreeing clear targets) or “I’m just a woman operating in a man’s world, so I need to show I’m strong and decisive” (a poor culture doesn’t excuse your bad behaviour)

Of course, this doesn’t mean automatic dismissal for someone found to be bullying their subordinates – an employer is expected to make a reasonable decision considering all the circumstances of the situation. So a manager who hadn’t realised the effect their actions were having on their team members might be given a warning. It’s for you to decide. But you also need to consider the impact that not dealing with a bully will have on, not just on the individual who has raised the concern but on the rest of your workforce.

Bullying allegations can be difficult for small businesses to deal with, especially if the person accused is one of your key managers. But failing to act can lead to more negative consequences.

Handling Redundancies during Covid

ACAS – the independent employment advisory service, the employer’s organisation (CBI) and trade unions (TUC) have issued a joint statement today about handling redundancies during the COVID pandemic, especially with the UK’s furlough scheme set to end in October and what, if anything, will replace it still to be announced.

The full statement is here https://www.acas.org.uk/joint-statement-acas-cbi-tuc

The key principles it outlines are something which I would always recommend to employers, no matter how big or small:

  • Be open about why you need to make redundancies
  • Give people as much information as they need to be able to respond properly
  • Consult genuinely – listen to what people have to say and give it proper consideration
  • Do it fairly – legally correctly and in a way that is ‘felt fair’ by everyone in the business
  • Handle it with dignity – a person is losing their job through no fault of their own. They aren’t just a ‘human resource’ to be disposed of.

If you need help or guidance with handling redundancies both legally, and with professionalism and integrity, please don’t hesitate to get in touch

The Upside of Coronavirus?

The Coronavirus (Covid-19) is clearly a very serious issue from a public health and business perspective – I would say that around 60% of the questions I’ve been asked over the last week or so have been on the HR implications of it.

However, in the longer term, it may turn out to have some positive impacts for the world of work.

The first is that – because they currently have to – many organisations may realise that working from home, or other more flexible arrangements, are not a disaster and we may see a change in attitudes. Even those who still retain objections will find it difficult to argue against more flexible options if they are given evidence that it clearly works.

If your business has never used homeworking before, but may now be forced to, there are a number of important things you need to consider. This twitter thread by Gem Dale is a very useful starting point.

Clearly, there are still lots of jobs (probably a majority) that require people to attend work, but we may be surprised at the number that can be done remotely.

Secondly, in the UK, it may result in a long overdue reform of the Sick Pay system. For those who qualify for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), they (and their employers) are bound by confusing and bureaucratic rules about “Lower Earnings Limits”, “Waiting Days” and “Linked Periods”. These date back to the time when employers were reimbursed some of their SSP costs by the Government, something which hasn’t been the case for nearly a decade. There’s no reason why a much simpler system can’t be devised that provides a basic ‘safety net’ without involving employers in complex calculations.

The crisis has also highlighted that a significant proportion of the workforce don’t even qualify for the minimum level of payment. The very low paid, some of those classed as ‘workers’ not employees, and the self-employed all miss out. Some employers have said they will pay some form of sick pay to these groups, but this has been (until today) discretionary. The majority of employment law changes next month are around limiting some of the ‘loopholes’ in employment rights and if the government continues down this road then an extension of sick pay may be one of the next areas it tackles. Indeed, the chancellor’s emergency announcement in this week’s budget may be the start – now that the bottle has been uncorked it may be difficult to reseal it.

Finally, we might see the end of presenteeism – the idea that people attend work even if unwell, because the business ‘expects it’. Having someone in your place of work passing on their germs to their colleagues because ‘there’s a deadline to meet’ is an unacceptable whether those germs are Covid-19, vomiting and diarrhoea, or seasonal colds.

None of this, of course, minimises the very real problems that Covid-19 presents to society. But, like SARS and Swine Flu, it may only be a temporary issue.

hands