‘No Jab No Job’ – WEU leads the way in defending workers rights.

Niall McCrae

Healthcare workers who don’t want the experimental covid-19 vaccine should not expect the big trade unions to help. That much is clear, in a leaked response from Unison to two employees of Barchester care homes. The union consulted their lawyer on whether staff could refuse vaccination for any reason. Instead of defending its members against an unethical and unlawful ‘no jab no job’ policy, Unison has taken the company’s side. Here is the message from the union, received by two sacked workers: – 

Barchester have decided to dismiss you for ‘Some other Substantial Reason’, which is a catch all category which covers dismissals that are not due to capability, conduct or redundancy. If your case went to Employment Tribunal, they would consider if Barchester has established that it was a substantial reason, that is, it was not an insignificant or frivolous reason, and that the reason justified dismissing someone carrying out the particular job. 

In the solicitor’s opinion, Barchester will be able to persuade a Tribunal that staff not being vaccinated against COVID 19 is a substantial enough reason to justify dismissal. It is likely that they will be able to persuade a Tribunal that after the devastating effects the pandemic had upon care homes in 2020, they are within their rights to bring in a policy which requires all Barchester staff to be vaccinated against COVID 19, to protect staff and residents. 

Where dismissal was for a sound, good business reason, the Tribunal will consider whether the employer acted reasonably and if the dismissal was equitable, including whether a ‘fair’ process was followed. The investigation, dismissal meeting and offer of an appeal/appeal hearing would tick this box, as would the ‘consultation’ on the vaccine policy, despite the fact that the UNISON submission for this wasn’t accepted.

I have reviewed a contract from Barchester, although not yours, to ascertain whether or not the bonus payment and voucher are contractual or not, and unfortunately, they  are discretionary, giving you no legal right to receive them and therefore, the (sic) isn’t a claim for an unlawful deduction from wages. I am happy to review your contract however. 

Let us scrutinise this desultory response to members who naively thought that their trade union would stand up for their fundamental rights. 

Note that the process is described as ‘fair’ in inverted commas, as is ‘consultation’. Indeed, the process is as sham as the consultation. Employees reluctant to take the jab are invited to an informal meeting, asked to confirm that they have no medical exemption, then summoned to a formal hearing titled ‘some other substantial reason’. Having represented several Barchester workers in these hearings, the process is certainly not fair. Here is a typical Kafkaesque exchange at the beginning of these hearings: – 

NM – Is this a disciplinary hearing? 

Manager / director – No, it’s to discuss the vaccine situation with the employee. 

NM – So there is no risk of our member’s contract being terminated as a result of this hearing.

Manager / director – That could be one of the outcomes. 

NM – So this is a termination hearing. 

Manager / director – I’m not here to make a decision today. This will go to HR. 

Unison refer to this stage of the process as a ‘dismissal hearing’. As anyone dealing with employment law knows, there is no such thing as a dismissal hearing; if the decision has already been made there would be no need for a hearing. In reality, the termination hearings (as I describe them) conducted by Barchester are a foregone conclusion, as the vaccine policy is unforgiving. 

In regarding Barchester’s policy as justified, Unison have fallen for the official narrative hook, line and sinker. There is no doubt that care homes were struggling after the coronavirus outbreak in spring 2020, but ‘devastating effects of the pandemic’ attributes the difficulties to the disease rather than government policy. Older patients in hospital beds were evicted, and sent into care homes without testing for covid-19. The virus thus seeded in care homes and thousands of residents died (in Critic magazine I described this decision by ministers, civil servants and NHS bosses as institutional manslaughter). 

Unison regards covid-19 vaccination as a panacea, despite these novel products being untested for long-term effects, mounting evidence of short-term harm, and the pharmaceutical companies admitting that they do not prevent infection or transmission. Reading Unison’s refusal to help members who don’t want potentially hazardous injections (irrespective of medical conditions or pregnancy), one would think that the Yellow Card system for reporting adverse reactions was run not by the MHRA but by conspiracy theorists. This drug surveillance arose from the thalidomide scandal, yet it is now overlooked if not dismissed by the covid-19 regime and its collaborators. 

Undertones of derision for ‘anti-vaxxers’ may be discerned in the Unison message. It would not be surprising if the union agreed with Barchester CEO Peter Calverley, who allegedly told senior colleagues that anyone arguing that the vaccines are experimental is talking ‘utter bollocks’, and that refuseniks are in the wrong profession, and ‘too thick’ to understand the science. Yet the vaccine rollout was followed in many care homes by a surge in covid-19 deaths, probably as a result of a temporary lowering of immunity. Correlation is not causation, but tens of thousands of older people died after receiving the vaccine. 

The last paragraph rejects members’ complaint about being denied a bonus awarded in acknowledgment of the staff effort throughout the covid crisis. The bonus is only paid to vaccinated staff. This is a breach of the Nuremberg Code. Financial incentives must not be given for experimental medical interventions (trial participants receive expenses not inducements). It is also blatant discrimination. 

In my experience employees who reject the vaccine are principled, conscientious characters who work hard and who typically have clean disciplinary and sickness records. They have done nothing wrong, but are being dismissed in blunt disregard for their bodily autonomy and informed consent. This is their reward for working under relentless pressure, compounded by many colleagues off sick or self-isolating. 

Too many employees in care homes that impose a ‘no jab no job’ policy have been paying monthly fees to a trade union that will not protect them. The Workers of England Union is the only option for workers seeking justice for their victimisation by the covid tyranny. 

Unison trade union abandons members to vaccine coercion