Prime Minister brands “no jab, no job” policy discriminatory

-

There has been much talk surrounding whether employers can legally force their workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. However, the Prime Minister has dubbed this policy “discriminatory”.

An official spokesperson for Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that requiring staff to get the COVID-19 vaccine in order to keep their job is a form of discrimination.

The spokesperson, speaking on behalf of Mr. Johnson, said:

Taking a vaccine is not mandatory and it would be discriminatory to force somebody to take one.

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

With much controversy linked to the legalities of forcing employees to get vaccinated, it is clear that the “no jab, no job” policy is anything but simple and could lead to a rise in unfair dismissal claims.

Several newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph reported that Whitehall sources have stated that companies who adopt a “jab for a job” stance are protected by current health and safety laws which require workers to protect themselves and their colleagues from injury or harm.

However, Esther Smith, employment partner at TLT, explored why this would not be so simple:

The first thing to note is that the Government has not made the vaccine mandatory. Most employers are likely to support their staff in getting the vaccination, but it would be risky for employers to insist on vaccination in the majority of cases. For example, an employee may be unable to get the vaccine because of a health condition which could give rise to arguments of disability discrimination.

 In certain sectors, such as care homes, it may be viewed as reasonable for an employer to request that all staff be vaccinated. In cases where employees do not want the vaccine, consideration should be given to alternatives such as redeployment and working from home before taking any action against that employee.

However, Ms. Smith continued to explain employers’ role in “[taking] a reasonable care in the health and safety of their employees” and the expectation that they would “take reasonable steps to provide a safe workplace and a safe system of work”.

If this policy was implemented, Ms. Smith stated that employers would need to introduce a contractual requirement but that this would amount to a change in terms and conditions. If an employee chose not to accept this, the employer would be faced with an ultimatum – either forcing the changes to go through anyway or terminating the contract and offering re-engagement on new terms.

This is what London plumbing firm, Pimlico Plumbers, chose to do last month. The organisation reportedly rewrote all of the workers’ contracts and confirmed that if an employee did not agree with the new terms, it would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis whether the worker was kept on.

Recent research shows that over half of employers would encourage their workers to get vaccinated whilst almost a quarter would force their staff to, despite the practice not being legal at this time.

Current figures show that over 12 million people in the UK have received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine with all people aged over 50 expected to have received their first dose by May.

Monica Sharma is an English Literature graduate from the University of Warwick. As Editor for HRreview, her particular interests in HR include issues concerning diversity, employment law and wellbeing in the workplace. Alongside this, she has written for student publications in both England and Canada. Monica has also presented her academic work concerning the relationship between legal systems, sexual harassment and racism at a university conference at the University of Western Ontario, Canada.

Latest news

Personalising the Benefits Experience: Why Employees Need More Than Just Information

This article explores how organisations can move beyond passive, one-size-fits-all communication to deliver relevant, timely, and simplified benefits experiences that reflect employee needs and life stages.

Grant Wyatt: When the love dies – when staying is riskier than quitting

When people fall out of love with their employer, or feel their employer has fallen out of love with them, what follows is rarely a clean exit.

£30bn pension savings window opens for employers ahead of 2029 reforms

UK employers could unlock billions in National Insurance savings by expanding pension salary sacrifice schemes before new limits take effect in 2029.

Expat jobs ‘fail early as costs hit $79,000 per worker’

International assignments are ending early due to family strain, isolation and poor preparation, as rising costs increase pressure on employers.
- Advertisement -

The Great Employer Divide: What the evidence shows about employers that back parents and carers — and those that don’t

Understand the growing divide between organisations that effectively support working parents and carers — and those that don’t. This session shows how to turn employee experience data into a clear business case, linking care-related pressures to performance, retention and workforce stability.

Scott Mills exit puts spotlight on risk of ‘news vacuum’ in high-profile dismissals

Sudden departure of a long-serving BBC presenter raises questions about how employers manage high-profile dismissals and limit speculation.

Must read

Tom Castley: Bridging the gender pay gap

The gender pay gap is an on-going battle and a topic of much discussion and debate, with recent research suggesting global leaders believe gender equality in the workplace is an average of 17 years away.

‘Optimal office’ productivity gains could unlock £39.8 billion GDP for UK and Ireland

The United Kingdom could reshape its economic future and unlock its share of £39.8 billion in untapped GDP if organisations were to optimise their workplaces, according to a new study by Ricoh and Oxford Economics, titled ‘The Economy of People’.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you