Recent News

Ask a Question
Home > Unfair Dismissal > Mandatory Jab, SPC Refuses to Back Down

Mandatory Jab, SPC Refuses to Back Down

Everybody got rights, COVID has bought this more into focus (companies and employees). Don’t get dismissed

Mandating the COVID-19 vaccine for all staff or you will be dismissed

Mandatory jab, SPC refuses to back down, is certainly controversial. Shepperton based food manufacturer, SPC, has become the first Australian company to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for all of its 450 onsite staff and visitors. SPC is refusing to back down on their vaccine mandate policy for staff. Due to the recent the increased risk of transmission posed by the Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus. SPC requires that all staff receive their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by November 2021. This mandate has not been made pursuant to a public health order. If employees are not vaccinated by the stipulated timelines you will face dismissal. Rather, the Chairman of SPC, Hussein Rifai, explained that the decision stems from SPC’s workplace health and safety obligations to their employees and business associates.

Properly Consult

However, the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) contend that SPC failed to properly consult with them and their employees over their new mandatory vaccination policies. AMWU say SPC’s planned timeline for workers to be vaccinated. To be booked in by September and vaccinated by November – is unrealistic as some working people are still not eligible or otherwise able to access the vaccine. Added that they may be dismissed and this would be unfair. The AMWU backs vaccination. But claims that SPC’s plans to call for mandatory vaccination of workers needs to come with proper consultation.

Lawful and reasonable direction

In light of SPC’s “lawful and reasonable direction” to their employees. Food manufacturers and the Australian Food and Grocery Council have called on the Federal Government to clarify the legality of policies which mandate a vaccine. Particularly the consequences of a pending dismissal. The Fair Work Ombudsman’s current stance is for employers to assume that they can’t require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Given that a fruit and vegetable giant, such as SPC, has made the move to mandate vaccinations. The Fair Work Ombudsman is now forced to consider this position further and they are set to provide advisory guidance shortly.

Mandatory -jab-SPC-Refuses-to-Back- Down
Mandatory jab, SPC refuses to back down, everybody has a point of view

Federal Government’s Position on Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy

Advice provided by the Federal Government has given employers ‘the green light’ to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations in the workplace in reasonable circumstances. This advice provided to National Cabinet stated that there was a legally reasonable basis for four tiers of workers to be captured by vaccine mandates. Including workers in direct threat of contracting COVID-19 such as airline workers; employees working with other people more likely to contract COVID-19 such as medical professionals; individuals in public-facing roles such as supermarket workers; and the rest of the working population.

On this information, Prime Minister Scott Morrison confirmed that these legal decisions are still required to pass a ‘reasonable test’. An employer is required to consider a number of circumstances before making a formal decision to mandate COVID-19 vaccines, including:

  • whether the mandate has been made in line with health advice enforced by the Federal Government;
  • the industry of the relevant company. The extent of physical interaction and whether they are an essential service as outlined by the relevant state health department;
  • the delays experienced in the vaccine roll-out which limits the eligibility of certain populations;
  • the employer’s workplace health and safety obligations and common law duties of care;
  • whether the direction constitutes discrimination prohibited by Australia’s anti-discrimination regime;
  • human rights legislation such as Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities;
  • any relevant provisions in the applicable employment contract, modern award or enterprise agreement; any relevant consultation obligations;
  • the availability of reasonable exemptions to the direction and effective alternatives to vaccination. (such as the use of personal protective equipment); and
  • whether the employee can perform the requirements of their role without being vaccinated.

Fair Work Commission – Mandatory Vaccination Policy

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) is yet to provide concrete guidance on COVID-19 vaccines specifically. However they have discussed mandatory influenza vaccines and their necessity in particular high-risk industries.

In unfair dismissal case of Ms Bou-Jamie Barber v Goodstart Early Learning,[1] the Applicant was dismissed after objected to the influenza vaccine. In April 2020, the Respondent introduced an immunization policy, requiring that all staff must receive the influenza vaccination unless they have a medical condition which makes it unsafe for them to do so.

The Applicant said that she has a sensitive immune system by reason of her auto immune and coeliac disease. Consequently raised her objections to the vaccination. Ultimately, the Respondent determined that the medical certificate provided by the Applicant was not sufficient to support an objection the influenza vaccination. The Applicant’s employment was dismissed on 13 August 2020 for her failure to be vaccinated and meet the inherent requirements of her role.

Given the current climate, FWC Deputy President Lake stressed that this unfair dismissal decision is directly related to the influenza vaccine alone. Employers should be cautious before relying on it more broadly to enforce COVID-19 vaccinations for its employees. Nevertheless, Deputy President Lake has recognised that it is reasonable for a childcare provider to mandate flu vaccinations. For those staff who deal with children on a regular basis and in such close proximity. Deputy President also held that the flu vaccination was a lawful direction. It fell within the scope of the Applicant’s employment.

In a 92-page decision, Deputy President Lake held that the Applicant’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. As the Applicant had chosen not to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction.

Nothing easy in this pandemic, being sacked is more common. Avoid dismissal now

Employer mandated vaccinations have been and will continue to be an area of debate.

There is no doubt that employer mandated vaccinations have been an area of debate during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, these decisions support employers within particular industries, such as childcare and aged care, who are wishing to have their employees vaccinated against influenza. It is still unclear as to whether the rationale in these decisions will be applied to the COVID-19 vaccinations but in the case of Ms Bou-Jamie Barber v Goodstart Early Learning,[2] Deputy President Lake did remake that. “…it is beyond the scope of this decision to consider whether the conclusions above extend even as far as the entirety of the Respondent’s business, as the role each employee performs in fulling the Respondent’s undertaking may differ.”

Reasonable and lawful (mandatory jab)

As such, it is certainly not the case that employer mandated vaccinations will be considered reasonable and lawful in any context. It will be interesting to see what cases arise following this decision. How the FWC determines the reasonableness and lawfulness of vaccination policies. Particularly within various other industries not concerned with health-care or childcare. However, as noted by SPC’s Chairman, an employer may feel obligated to mandate vaccines.

In an attempt to keep their workplace safe for all employees and visitors. Mr Rifai from SPC contends that their vaccination policy stems from SPC’s workplace health and safety obligations to their employees and business associates. Thus, this may open the door for any employers to justify mandating COVID-19 vaccines. Following on from this sense of obligation to provide a safe work environment for all.

Conclusion to Mandatory jab, SPC refuses to back down

Any questions regarding “Mandatory jab, SPC refuses to back down, we would love to hear from you. All sensible debate is healthy. A Whole New Approach P/L, we are not employment lawyers, or a government agency or body. We are independent workplace advisors. AWNA lead in advocacy work, representation and research on all matters relating to the workplace.

Any Fair work Australia and Fair work Commission matters, termination of employment, including being sacked (dismissed), general protections, workplace investigations. Workers rights and how they are effected by the pandemic. Any diversity in he workplace issues, we are happy to hear from you. We are here for you. We work in all states, including Victoria, NSW, QLD, Tas, SA, WA, NT

Articles similar to Mandatory jab, SPC refuses to back down.

How do i prove my case?

How much is my general protection claim worth

More to explore

Unfair Dismissal

Falsely accused at work: 3 crazy cases

We share your stories Being dismissed due to a false accusation at work is not something most people would wish on their worst enemy. The

Unfair Dismissal

4 huge Vic unfair dismissal payouts

Victorian unfair dismissals: 4 times workers won big Victorian unfair dismissal payouts have in recent years regularly been amongst the highest in the country. In

Unfair Dismissal

Dismissed for taking dodgy sick leave

Fired for taking fake sick leave Chucking a sickie and taking fake sick leave has long been an Australian tradition. But you need to be

Unfair Dismissal

Fair Work NSW

Fair Work NSW: How to make an unfair dismissal claim Fair Work NSW is an informal name for the New South Wales-based branch of Australia’s

    Get In Touch


    Unfair Dismissals Australia is an industry leader. We strictly represent employees regarding issues to do with fair work. We are available 7 days a week.