No pay for anti-vaxxer

CCMA: DECISION NOT TO ADHERE TO COMPANY POLICY UNREASONABLE

Employee who refused to vaccinate ‘is not entitled to severance pay’.

Along-term employee who was retrenched because she refused to get a Covid vaccination is not entitled to a severance package, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) has ruled.

Commissioner Piet van Staden, in his recent ruling, said the termination of the services of Cecilia Bessick by Baroque Medical, a supplier of medical equipment, was both substantively and procedurally fair.

Her decision not to adhere to the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy was “unreasonable”, he said, ruling that she was not entitled to any severance pay.

Bessick had complained that she had been unfairly retrenched and the company had not adequately considered alternatives.

At the time, she was 64 years old, nearing retirement, and had worked at the company as an invoicing clerk for 22 years.

She and three others, who elected not to abide by the compulsory vaccination policy, were all retrenched.

Evidence by a Baroque Medical representative was that there had been broad consultation before the implementation of the policy, followed by individual meetings with those who objected to, or delayed getting the jab.

The employees were informed the mandatory policy was an “operational requirement” underpinned by health and safety.

The policy was circulated in July 2021.

A few days later, Bessick confirmed she objected to being vaccinated “because of medical, personal and religious reasons”.

Three further consultations were held with her and on 8 September she was served with a termination notice.

The witness for the company said the policy was “non-negotiable” and it was unclear what Bessick meant by her objection.

She had failed to articulate in what respect she believed she was being discriminated against due to her beliefs or religion.

Her reference to an “immediate allergic reaction”, because she had an existing blood disorder, was also unsubstantiated and the company had rejected it.

Bessick said her doctor had advised her that the vaccination might “trigger something” and “it was not a good idea at this stage”. She confirmed she had not submitted any proof.

Van Staden said Bessick had elected not to comply with the vaccination policy.

“The choice was hers. On the facts, I am unable to conclude that the employer has committed any wrongdoing in its decision to terminate her services.”

He said it would be “grossly unfair to expect the employer to pay any severance in the circumstances”.