Community support worker dismissed after refusing PCR test: absence treated as unauthorised
A Rastafarian community support worker who refused a PCR test due to his religious beliefs was fairly dismissed for prolonged absence, the Watford Employment Tribunal has ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #covid-19-testing
- #rastafarian
- #some-other-substantial-reason
- #unauthorised-absence
- #indirect-discrimination
Key facts
- The claimant, a Rastafarian community support worker, refused to undergo PCR testing due to his religious beliefs.
- He travelled to the Netherlands in December 2020 and was unable to return to the UK because he would not be tested.
- The respondent stopped his pay from 25 January 2021, treating his absence as unauthorised.
- The claimant did not attend the disciplinary hearing or appeal meeting.
- The respondent dismissed him on 1 October 2021 due to prolonged absence and uncertainty about his return.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason and the process was fair.
Timeline
-
Claimant refuses testing
Claimant told his manager he would not undergo PCR testing due to Rastafarian beliefs; manager said he would not be scheduled for work.
-
Claimant travels to Netherlands
Claimant travelled to Amsterdam by train to spend Christmas with his family, avoiding testing required for flights.
-
Manager seeks advice
Ms Adamiak emailed Ms Ambroziak about the claimant's refusal to test and the pay situation.
-
Claimant informed of unpaid leave
Ms Adamiak emailed the claimant stating his absence would be coded as unpaid leave.
-
Pay stopped
Ms Adamiak informed the claimant his absence was unauthorised and salary would be stopped from that date.
-
Disciplinary hearing
A disciplinary hearing was held; the allegations of failure to agree leave and report absence were not upheld.
-
Return to work meeting
Ms Ambroziak met with the claimant; he remained in Amsterdam and could not return without testing.
-
Dismissal hearing
The claimant did not attend the dismissal hearing; Mr Davies considered the case in his absence.
-
Dismissal
Mr Davies sent a dismissal letter citing prolonged absence and uncertainty about return.
-
Appeal rejected
Ms Brown rejected the claimant's appeal after he did not attend the appeal meeting.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for prolonged absence was fair, whether the requirement to undergo PCR testing indirectly discriminated against the claimant as a Rastafarian, and whether the employer lawfully withheld pay.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including unfair dismissal, indirect religious discrimination, and unlawful deduction from wages. The key reason was that the employer's requirement for PCR testing was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (protecting public health), and the dismissal for prolonged absence was fair. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can dismiss for prolonged absence if there is a genuine reason for the absence and a fair process is followed.
- Religious beliefs may not excuse compliance with workplace health requirements if the requirement is proportionate.
- Failing to attend disciplinary or appeal hearings can weaken your case, even if you have a good reason.
- If you are unable to return to work due to personal choices, the employer may treat your absence as unauthorised and stop pay.
A clash of beliefs and workplace rules
This case highlights the tension between an employee's religious beliefs and an employer's health and safety requirements during the pandemic. The claimant, a Rastafarian community support worker, refused to undergo PCR testing because he believed it would compromise his spiritual integrity. He travelled to the Netherlands in December 2020 and was unable to return to the UK without being tested. His employer, London Borough of Brent, stopped his pay and eventually dismissed him for prolonged absence.
What the employer did right
The tribunal found that the employer acted reasonably. It had a legitimate aim in requiring testing for staff working with vulnerable people. The employer engaged with the claimant, offered alternative roles, and held a disciplinary hearing and an appeal. The claimant did not attend either meeting. The dismissal was for a potentially fair reason – some other substantial reason – and the process was fair.
Why the claims failed
The claimant argued that the testing requirement indirectly discriminated against him as a Rastafarian. The tribunal disagreed, finding that the requirement was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The unlawful deduction claim also failed because the employer was entitled to stop pay for unauthorised absence.
Lessons for employees and employers
For employees, this case shows that refusing to comply with a workplace policy, even on religious grounds, may not protect you from dismissal if the policy is justified. Attending hearings is crucial – absence can be seen as a lack of engagement. For employers, it demonstrates that a clear policy, consistent communication, and a fair process can defend a dismissal even in sensitive circumstances.
Similar cases
Maternity leave followed by refusal to return: dismissal for some other substantial reason upheld
An import coordinator who repeatedly stated she could not return to work after maternity and parental leave was fairly dismissed for some other substantial reason. The tribunal rejected her claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
Care home workers dismissed for refusing Covid vaccine: dismissal fair and no discrimination
Five care home workers claimed unfair dismissal and discrimination after being sacked for refusing the Covid-19 vaccine. The tribunal upheld the dismissals as fair for 'some other substantial reason' and rejected all discrimination claims.
Dismissed after visa sponsorship became impossible: Home Office rule change was 'some other substantial reason'
A tribunal has ruled that Fintru Limited fairly dismissed an associate whose skilled worker visa could not be renewed after the Home Office raised salary thresholds. The employer explored alternatives and followed a reasonable process.
Janitor dismissed for unauthorised absences caught on CCTV: gross misconduct upheld
A janitor with six years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV and fob data showed he spent extended periods away from his post. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.
