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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19-vaccination
- #care-home
- #medical-exemption
- #self-certification
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a senior care assistant from June 2005 until dismissal on 7 December 2021.
- Government regulations required care home workers to be vaccinated or have a medical exemption by 11 November 2021.
- The respondent required staff to provide a self-certification form from the government website if they claimed a medical exemption.
- The claimant provided a clinical exemption certificate from her trade union, which the respondent did not accept.
- The claimant refused to complete the government self-certification form despite repeated requests.
- The claimant did not raise any philosophical belief objection to the respondent before or during the dismissal process.
Timeline
-
Meeting with line manager
Mrs Lovelace met with the claimant to discuss rotas and vaccination requirements. The claimant was told she needed to be vaccinated or provide a medical exemption, and was directed to the government self-certification form.
-
Claimant submits union exemption certificate
The claimant emailed Mrs Lovelace a 'Certificate of Clinical Exemption' issued by the Workers of England Union, which the respondent did not accept as it was not the required government form.
-
Respondent clarifies requirements
Mrs Lovelace emailed the claimant explaining that she needed to complete the correct self-certification form from the government website, and offered to print a copy.
-
Claimant raises grievance
The claimant submitted a grievance letter raising multiple grounds, including discrimination on grounds of belief, but did not mention any philosophical belief.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended without pay for failing to provide acceptable evidence of medical exemption.
-
Grievance hearing
At the hearing, the claimant made clear she would only provide the union certificate and refused to complete the government form. She did not raise any philosophical belief.
-
Dismissal
The respondent dismissed the claimant for refusal to comply with vaccination/medical exemption requirements. She was given 12 weeks' notice and a right of appeal.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Nesbitt conducted the appeal hearing. He offered the claimant the chance to return to work if she completed the self-certification form, but she refused. No philosophical belief was raised.
-
Appeal dismissed
The respondent upheld the dismissal, noting the claimant's continued refusal to provide the required documentation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was fair under the 'some other substantial reason' category, and whether the claimant was discriminated against because of a philosophical belief against vaccination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It held that the respondent had a substantial reason for dismissal – the government regulations requiring care home workers to be vaccinated or have a medical exemption. The respondent acted reasonably by repeatedly asking the claimant to complete the official self-certification form, offering help, and giving her time to comply. The claimant's refusal, despite being warned of dismissal, meant the decision fell within the range of reasonable responses.
The tribunal also found that the claimant did not hold a protected philosophical belief. She had not raised any belief before or during the dismissal process, and her stance was based on a preference for her union's certificate, not a cogent belief system. Therefore, the discrimination claim failed.
Compensation was reduced to nil due to Polkey (100% chance of dismissal even with fair process) and contributory conduct (100% contribution).
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can rely on government regulations as a 'some other substantial reason' for dismissal, provided they follow a fair process and give employees reasonable time to comply.
- Employees who refuse to follow a reasonable request for documentation (such as an official exemption form) risk dismissal, even if they have long service and a good record.
- A philosophical belief claim requires evidence that the belief was genuinely held and communicated before dismissal – a post-hoc claim is unlikely to succeed.
- Tribunals may apply 100% Polkey and contributory deductions where the employee's own conduct caused the dismissal and any procedural failings would have made no difference.
A case about process, not principle
This case shows that even a long-serving employee can be fairly dismissed if they refuse to comply with a clear, reasonable request linked to a legal requirement. The claimant, a senior care assistant with 18 years' service, was dismissed in December 2021 after refusing to complete the government's self-certification form for a medical exemption from Covid-19 vaccination. Instead, she provided a certificate from her trade union, which the employer did not accept.
The tribunal emphasised that the employer acted reasonably. It gave the claimant multiple opportunities to complete the correct form, offered to print a copy, and suspended her on full pay while she considered her position. The claimant was given a full disciplinary hearing and an appeal, where she was again offered the chance to return to work if she completed the form. She refused each time.
What the employer did right
The respondent's approach was methodical and patient. It explained the legal requirement, gave the claimant time to comply, and followed its disciplinary policy. The tribunal noted that the claimant's refusal was not based on a philosophical belief – she had not raised any such belief before or during the process. Her stance was simply that she preferred her union's certificate. The tribunal found that the employer had a substantial reason for dismissal (the legal requirement) and acted within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the result matters
For employers, this case confirms that a refusal to follow a reasonable instruction linked to a legal obligation can justify dismissal, even for a long-serving employee. For employees, it highlights the importance of engaging with the employer's reasonable requests and raising any objections clearly and promptly. The tribunal also applied 100% Polkey and contributory deductions, meaning the claimant received no compensation – a stark reminder that an employee's own conduct can entirely eliminate any award.
Similar cases
Care worker dismissed for mistreating dementia resident: unfair process but no compensation
A care home worker was unfairly dismissed after procedural flaws, but the tribunal found her guilty of the alleged misconduct and reduced compensation to zero.
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.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.