A £40m charity that looks after children and young people with complex needs was right to sack a member of staff who refused to have Covid vaccines or to take tests, a tribunal ruled.
Mr D Blair accused Kibble Education and Care Centre in Scotland of unfair dismissal from the place where he had worked since 2008 with a “completely unblemished record”.
He had already lost two appeals against his sacking in March 2022 and took the charity to a tribunal, claiming that he did not believe that the vaccines and tests were safe – and stating that it was his legal right to refuse them.
According to the official report of the tribunal, presided over by Employment Judge David Hoey, Blair was a part-time child and youth care worker.
Hoey said: “The issue arising was in sharp focus, namely, whether or not it was fair for the respondent to dismiss the claimant when he was not prepared to comply with the relevant government guidance in connection with the pandemic required of the claimant by the respondent.”
He said the situation began to come to a head when, on 19 February 2021, the charity sent a letter asking Blair to provide details of his first dose of a Covid vaccine.
He said: “In response to that letter the claimant telephoned a person in the HR department and stated that he would not accept any Covid vaccine.”
Blair attended a training event on 7 January 2022, which included refresher training on how to safely restrain a child or young person.
On 9 January Blair was contacted by his employer and told that he had been a close contact of someone who had tested positive for Covid.
He was asked to attend work to take a test in line with the respondent’s policies.
Hoey said: “The claimant refused to do so and stated that he would not take any tests.
“He attended work on 15 January and was sent home by the duty manager as he had not self isolated for 10 days as the policy required.”
Blair then wrote to say “he would decline to take any test. He argued the tests were not reliable and he said he felt it is not advisable or necessary for him to take any test. He also argued that he did not consider the test to be adequately safe.”
After a disciplinary hearing on 8 March, during which Blair said the Covid guidelines were “not my reality”, Blair was dismissed.
KECC argued that: “The respondent had a duty of care to those within its control and the claimant’s refusal to comply with the guidance going forward represented an unacceptable risk to their health and well being and dismissal was a necessary and proportionate outcome.”
Rejecting Blair’s unfair dismissal claim, Hoey said: “This decision does not mean that the claimant acted unreasonably. There were cogent and genuine reasons why the claimant chose to act as he did.”
But he added: “The claimant’s approach, however, requires to be balanced with the impact upon others, particularly given the reasonable risk that was understood, from the information available at the time, that the virus created and the respondent’s regulatory position and duty to protect those within its care.”