Morrissons, Ikea and Next are among a number of firms who have announced cuts to sick pay for unvaccinated staff forced to self-isolate. Unvaccinated staff who are identified as a close contact of someone with the virus will only receive statutory sick pay unless there are mitigating circumstances.
The punitive policies mark a change in approach as rising absenteeism due to the rapid spread of the omicron variant puts further pressure on businesses already battling supply chain problems and inflationary costs. It also follows a change in government guidelines in England, where people with two doses of the Covid vaccine are exempt from isolation after exposure to the virus.
The government has also confirmed that the self-isolation period in England is being reduced to five full days. Health Secretary Sajid Javid confirmed that UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data shows that “around two-thirds of positive cases are no longer infectious by the end of day five”. Under the move, people will now be able to take a lateral flow test on day five and six, and can leave isolation if they get two negative results.
However, employers should beware that this is an emotive topic and one which has caused great debate from both a moral and legal perspective. Reducing sick pay entitlement for those who are unvaccinated could well have the effect of disproportionately impacting certain groups of the workforce, giving rise to potential discrimination claims.
Employees may opt not to be vaccinated because of health reasons (for example, they are clinically exempt owing to a condition that could amount to a disability, or because they are pregnant, or because of their religious or philosophical beliefs. Research has also shown that statistically those from BAME communities are more likely to show vaccine hesitancy or refuse to be vaccinated.
Employers also need to consider whether this policy could damage employee relations or potentially be a breach of contract.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
