An ex-care home worker who followed a vegan diet and refused the Covid-19 jab has lost her unfair dismissal claim, because she could not provide enough evidence that she held a genuine belief in ethical veganism.
Ms T Owen was a ‘bank’ care worker at Willow Tower Opco, a company that operates several care homes.
In June 2021 the company decided that it would be mandatory for all staff and contractors to receive the Covid-19 jab, following concerns from residents’ families.
Later in 2021 the government made it mandatory for all frontline NHS staff and care workers to get the Covid-19 vaccine, however this was subsequently withdrawn.
In August 2021, the claimant raised a grievance about “harassment and victimisation”, among other matters concerning her working hours. She did not mention ethical veganism in her grievance letter.
Veganism
Landmark ruling: ethical veganism is a philosophical belief
Later that month, the company informed Owen that from 11 November 2021 all employees including bank staff would have to be vaccinated by law and up to that date, staff who had not received the Covid jab were to be temporarily redeployed, likely to the kitchen or laundry department.
A grievance hearing took place, in which Owen claimed she was following a vegan diet and believed she was exempt from the vaccine. She raised concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine and any potential side effects that might occur.
She was referred to occupational health, which found no health condition that would make her medically exempt from the vaccine. Her union later prepared an exemption certificate.
She was dismissed from her role on 12 November 2021, a day after the now-withdrawn legal requirement for care home staff to be vaccinated against Covid-19 took effect.
Owen told the tribunal that she is an ethical vegan and claimed this should be considered a philosophical belief.
She said: “I declined the vaccine on the grounds that I am a vegan. There was no clarification as to whether or not the vaccination contained animal products or indeed had been originally tested on animals. I object to the consumption of animal products on ethical grounds. In practice, I follow a strict vegan diet nor do I use products that have been tested on animals, or products that contain animal contents.
“I chose to decline on each occasion due to my ethical belief. On the 25th March 2021 Alison approached me and said ‘You are to book in for your vaccination next Wednesday’ (31st March). I replied ‘No, as I have chosen not to on ethical grounds’ I felt bullied as this was not the first time I had been approached.”
In 2020, a Norwich employment tribunal ruled that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief and should be protected under the Equality Act 2010. However, in that case, which involved the former head of policy and research at the League Against Cruel Sports, the claimant provided extensive evidence about how he practices his ethical veganism, including attending animal protection marches and only buying products he can be sure are free from animal-derived products.
Owen gave limited evidence on how she practices a vegan lifestyle and was unable to say how long she had been vegan for.
The tribunal’s judgment said: “She accepted that she may have to use products that are non-vegan at the respondent’s care home, but that when she did so she would use gloves. She would take her own food into work. She said that she did not wear leather, but only when it was pointed out to her, and when she was asked about wool she shrugged.
“It was accepted by the respondent, and by the tribunal, that ethical veganism in principle could amount to a philosophical belief. However, the tribunal still needs to be satisfied that the Grainger guidance is met in this claim. That is: does this claimant genuinely hold a belief in ethical veganism, i.e. has she evidenced that she genuinely follows that belief, or, is it a viewpoint as opposed to a belief.
“It is not enough, in my judgment, for her to say she is an ethical vegan. She needs to demonstrate that she genuinely holds that belief.”
The judge said Owen failed to explain how her lifestyle has been modified or structured to follow her belief other than her diet and use of products.
“It was remarkable that so little of the documentation she had created for her grievances and subsequently for this tribunal referred to her ethical veganism or described what that was. The most significant reference to veganism was to her diet, which does not go far enough to establish a belief in ethical veganism,” the judge said
“Her main criticisms of the vaccine appeared not to be connected to veganism, but that it is experimental and may contravene health and safety legislation.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
The tribunal also said she did not have sufficient continuity of service to bring an unfair dismissal claim as she was on a zero-hours contract and was employed only on the days she attended work. Any continuity of employment was broken where there was a period greater than one week between shifts.
