The (Covid) Law is an Ass - No Jab, No Job
2023 - The year of the excuse will be backed up by the legal system
As I suggested in my article yesterday, 2023 will be the year of the excuse. One of those excuses will be that the vaccine may have caused some harm but it saved many more people.
A similar excuse of “we had to do these things to save lives” can be seen in a recent and terrible employment tribunal decision concerning care home staff.
Barchester Healthcare is one of the largest care home providers in the UK with over 250 care homes. In January 2021 it created a new vaccine policy whereby new staff would need to be vaccinated against Covid-19. Furthermore, existing staff wouldn’t be promoted or paid bonuses if they refused vaccination.
Shortly afterwards, in February of that year, it made vaccination a condition of employment for all of its 17,000 employees. Workers who weren’t exempt were told that by the end of April 2021 they could be dismissed if not jabbed. They were told it was part of their ‘moral and ethical duty to do the right thing’ and it was to be considered as a privilege to be vaccinated before the rest of the general population.
Between 11 November 2021 and 15 March 2022 it became mandatory for care home workers in the UK to be vaccinated. As a result up to 60,000 workers lost their jobs. However, vaccination was not mandatory when Barchester started firing it’s staff.
Five of the dismissed employees brought a claim of unfair dismissal against their former employer. One of their arguments was that the dismissal breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which concerns the right to respect for private and family life. Two of the claimants also argued that their right to freedom of religion or belief (Article 9) had also been breached.
The decision, which was published on 8 December 2022, found in favour of Barchester Healthcare. The tribunal decided that the reason for the claimants’ dismissal was genuine and undertaken fairly. Furthermore, firing the unvaccinated workers was done in order to protect the clinically vulnerable and was therefore fine.
Barchester said it needed to protect people because 10% of its residents and six staff members died “with Covid” in 2020.
When dealing with the issue of freedom of religion, this was dismissed due to the number of Christians and Muslims that had been vaccinated.
The Judge, who clearly sounded biased in his views, said “[Barchester] of course never proposed, for instance, vaccination by force.” Well that’s ok then, no one was tied down and vaccinated, case closed!
“Whilst they would not have judged it as free choice given the obvious implications of a loss of employment, it was a choice they had.”
He went on: “It was at pains, throughout the introduction of the policy, to reaffirm that it recognised vaccines could not be mandated, that vaccination was the choice of the individual, that consent had to be given freely and consent to future vaccination could be withdrawn at any stage.” It sounds like the Judge is actually Barchester’s representation!
Naturally, Barchester was thrilled:
“We welcome the ruling of the employment tribunal who found our vaccine policy to be reasonable, and accepted the introduction of our policy to reduce the risk of spread of Covid infection in our homes and hospitals. However we do respect personal choice and the decision of those who didn’t want the vaccine and we wish those staff well.”
The caring-times, who also reported on this case, quoted Sejal Raja a Partner at Weightmans law firm.
“This is a significant and welcome ruling, that will have direct implications for those employers in the care industry, who may face similar claims in the future.
The tribunal recognised the principle, enshrined in law, that people must be allowed to hold, and act, in line with their personal beliefs. But the ruling highlighted that the law also permits difficult but essential decisions to be taken where these rights interfere in order to protect others’ inviolable rights – specifically the right to life.
This judgement will give care home management teams that acted responsibly, with due process and with the safety of their residents front of mind, confidence in their decisions.”
The legal system has kicked off 2023 - the year of the excuse, with an extension of the excuse I reported on yesterday - “these things are necessary (and now legal) to save lives”.
Whilst Sejal Raja welcomes the decision, in reality it is a worrying and dangerous one. It sets the precedent that you can be sacked from your job if you don’t get vaccinated from the latest thing. No matter if there is no legal basis for the vaccination (which would also be wrong but anyway). And no need to show any data that supports your opinion that it protects people. If I read a headline on the BBC that says that the Science has found that the latest thing protects others from the latest thing then your human rights can be trampled on. And this latest judgement has just made you being trampled on in the future, legal and far more likely.
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
And so many are getting hopeful that the dam is breaking, etc... I think it's going to get worse as these things become a regular part of society
The judgement is in direct violation of the Convention. I do hope they can appeal.