Care assistant dismissed over COVID-19 vaccine mandate before deadline was extended
A care assistant was unfairly dismissed after his employer relied on a vaccination deadline that had already been extended. The tribunal awarded £12,137.94.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19-vaccination
- #statutory-restriction
- #care-home
- #mistake-of-law
- #acas-code-breach
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- Mr Trotman was employed as a care assistant from 3 June 2019 until dismissal on 23 December 2021.
- The respondent dismissed Mr Trotman solely because it believed regulations required proof of COVID-19 vaccination or exemption by December 2021.
- The relevant regulations had their commencement date extended to 1 April 2022, meaning no statutory restriction existed at the time of dismissal.
- Mr Trotman provided a union exemption certificate which the respondent rejected, requiring a government self-certification form instead.
- The respondent did not follow a fair disciplinary process and the same manager handled the appeal.
- The respondent's genuine but mistaken belief about the law did not make the dismissal fair.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Mr Trotman began working as a care assistant for The Royal Star & Garter Homes.
-
Vaccination regulations made
The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 were made, initially due to come into force on 11 November 2021.
-
Self-certification option introduced
Regulations were updated to allow staff to self-certify medical exemption until formal proof was obtained.
-
Union exemption certificate provided
Mr Trotman provided a medical exemption certificate from his union, which the respondent later rejected.
-
Deadline extended to 1 April 2022
The regulations were amended to extend the deadline for vaccination or exemption to 1 April 2022.
-
Dismissal
Mr Trotman was dismissed by letter signed by Kate Silver, Director of People, citing a statutory restriction requiring dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Trotman's appeal was heard by the same manager, Kate Silver, who upheld the dismissal.
-
Early conciliation certificate issued
ACAS early conciliation certificate was issued.
-
Claim presented
Mr Trotman presented his claim of unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Full merits hearing (day 1)
The tribunal heard evidence and submissions over two days.
-
Judgment and remedy
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and awarded £12,137.94.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was for a 'statutory restriction' under s.98(2)(d) ERA 1996, and if so, whether it was fair in all the circumstances, given that the relevant regulations had their commencement date extended to 1 April 2022, meaning no legal requirement to vaccinate or be exempt existed at the time of dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair. The employer's genuine but mistaken belief that the law required dismissal did not make it fair. The employer also failed to follow a fair process: it rejected a union exemption certificate without good reason, did not consider the extended deadline, and the same manager handled the appeal.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £1,394.22
- Compensatory award: £9,185.46
- Interest: £1,558.26
- Total: £12,137.94
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must check the current law before dismissing on grounds of a statutory restriction — a genuine but mistaken belief is not a defence.
- A fair process includes considering alternative evidence of exemption and not relying on outdated deadlines.
- The same person should not handle both the dismissal decision and the appeal — procedural fairness requires independence.
- Employees with less than two years' service may still bring an unfair dismissal claim if the reason is automatically unfair or relates to a statutory restriction.
This case shows how a misunderstanding of the law can lead to an unfair dismissal, even when the employer acted in good faith. The care assistant was dismissed on 23 December 2021 because his employer, a care home operator, believed that regulations required all staff to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or have an approved exemption by that date. However, the regulations had been amended in November 2021 to extend the deadline to 1 April 2022. At the time of dismissal, no statutory restriction existed.
The employer also mishandled the process. The care assistant provided a medical exemption certificate from his union, but the employer rejected it, insisting on a government self-certification form instead. The employer did not explain why the union certificate was insufficient, nor did it consider the extended deadline. The same manager who signed the dismissal letter also heard the appeal, which the tribunal noted undermined the fairness of the process.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have checked the current regulations before acting. A simple review would have revealed that the deadline had moved to April 2022, giving time to resolve the exemption issue. It could also have accepted the union certificate as interim evidence or allowed the employee to self-certify, as the regulations permitted. Ensuring a different manager handled the appeal would have improved procedural fairness.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employers cannot rely on an outdated understanding of the law when dismissing employees. Even where a genuine statutory restriction exists, the dismissal must still be fair in all the circumstances, including following a proper procedure. For employees, it shows that a dismissal based on a mistaken belief about legal requirements can be challenged, and that procedural flaws — such as a lack of independence in the appeal — can strengthen a claim.
Similar cases
Care home worker dismissed for refusing to use official vaccine exemption form: dismissal fair
A senior care assistant with 18 years' service was fairly dismissed after refusing to complete the government's self-certification form for a medical exemption from Covid-19 vaccination. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and philosophical belief discrimination.
Care assistant dismissed after 10-minute hearing based on anonymous whistleblower allegations
A care assistant was unfairly dismissed after a 10-minute disciplinary hearing where the decision-maker had already decided she was guilty. The tribunal awarded £11,300.97.
Night Support Worker dismissed for pushing resident: dismissal unfair but compensation slashed
A care home worker who pushed a resident with autism was unfairly dismissed because the employer failed to hold a disciplinary hearing or consider an appeal. The tribunal awarded £2,436.73, reduced by 75% for his misconduct.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.