Mr M Baldaccini v Special Ambulance Transfer Service Ltd: 3301216/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 2024 |
| Date | 19 January 2024 |
| Published date | 19 March 2024 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Religion or Belief Discrimination |
| Citation | 3301216/2022 |
Case Number: 3301216/2022
1 of 35
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr M Baldaccini
Respondent: Special Ambulance Transfer Service Ltd
Heard at: Watford Employment Tribunal (In public; In person)
On: 12 and 13 February 2024
Before: Employment Judge Quill; Ms Telfer; Mr Scott
Appearances
For the claimant: In Person
For the respondent: Mr L Baker, legal advocate
JUDGMENT
(1) The complaint of direct discrimination because of religion or belief fails and is
dismissed.
(2) The complaint of indirect discrimination (where the relevant characteristic is
religion or belief) fails and is dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. At the times relevant to this dispute, the Claimant worked for the Respondent as
an independent contractor. It was conceded that his contract with the Respondent
fell within the definition in section 83(2) of the Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”) and that
(therefore), the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider alleged breaches of section
39(2) EQA.
2. A previous preliminary hearing had determined that the Claimant’s ethical
veganism was a philosophical belief within the definition in section 10 EQA (and
therefore was a protected characteristic) and that the claimant’s opposition to the
covid-19 vaccine derived from his philosophical belief of ethical veganism.
Case Number: 3301216/2022
2 of 35
3. That same hearing had produced the following list of issues (remedy issues
omitted), and this final hearing was scheduled to decide those issues.
4. We gave the decision and reasons orally, and we were asked for written reasons
(for the liability decisions, and for the case management decision refusing
permission to amend the claim).
5. The Claimant asked that we make orders under Rule 50. For the reasons given
orally, we declined to do so.
Claims and Issues
1. Direct discrimination on the b asis of a belief system (Equality Act 2010
section 13)
1.1 The claimant’s protected characteristic is a belief system of ethical veganism. At
the preliminary hearing it was determined that practising ethical veganism is a
philosophical belief within section 10 of the Equality Act 2010 and that the claimant
genuinely held this belief. He compares himself with people who do not hold the
philosophical belief of ethical veganism who were vaccinated.
1.2 Did the respondent do the following things:
1.2.1 Not provide the claimant with any driving shifts after 11 November 2021.
1.3 Was that less favourable treatment?
The Tribunal will decide whether the claimant was treated worse than someone else
was treated. There must be no material difference between their circumstances and
the claimant’s. The claimant says he was treated worse than [AW].
1.4 If so, was it because of the claimant’s ethical belief?
2. Indirect discrimination (Equality Act 2010 section 19)
2.1 A “PCP” is a provision, criterion or practice. Did the respondent have the following
PCP:
2.1.1 The respondent was subject to The Health and Social Care Act 2008
(Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 which required
care home staff to refuse entry to anyone who could not evidence that they had 2
doses of appropriately approved Covid-19 vaccine or that they came within a
specified exemption. The respondent shared this provision with self-employed
technicians who were not vaccinated on 14 September 2021 and did not allow these
technicians to travel in the ambulances.
2.2 Did the respondent apply the PCP to the claimant? The respondent says it applied
the practice to the claimant by way of 1-2-1 with him on 11 October 2021.
2.3 Did the respondent apply the PCP to other technicians or would it have done so?
2.4 Did the PCP put technicians who held the claimant’s philosophical belief at a
particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom the claimant does
not share the characteristic, e.g., “vaccinated technicians”, in that the claimant did not
receive driving shifts in the ambulance after the legislation was introduced?
Case Number: 3301216/2022
3 of 35
2.5 Did the PCP put the claimant at that disadvantage?
2.6 Was the PCP a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?
The respondent says that its aims were:
2.6.1 It was required by law to comply with The Health and Social Care Act 2008
(Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021 which required
care home staff to refuse entry to anyone who could not evidence that they had 2
doses of appropriately approved Covid-19 vaccine or that they came within a
specified exemption.
2.6.2 The legitimate aim in not offering shifts to the claimant was to ensure that it
was not breaking law and to ensure it was not putting people in the care homes and
travelling in the ambulances at risk.
2.7 The Tribunal will decide in particular:
2.7.1 was the PCP an appropriate and reasonably necessary way to achieve those
aims?
2.7.2 could something less discriminatory have been done instead? The claimant
says that he could have worked in the office in November 2021 or could have been
given driving shifts which did not involve a nursing home transfer. The respondent
says it did offer the claimant alternative work, which was accepted.
2.7.3 how should the needs of the claimant and the respondent be balanced?
6. During the discussion at the start of Day 1, both sides agreed that the list was
accurate. However, later in the day, a dispute arose which is discussed below.
The Evidence
7. Each side submitted a bundle. The Respondent’s was 389 pages, and was
received both in paper and electronically. The Respondent’s bundle included the
Claimant’s statement from the preliminary hearing (as well as other statements
from that hearing). The Claimant’s was 216 pages (paper version) with an 82 page
extract received electronically.
8. The Claimant called two witnesses, himself and his partner, Magnolia Pinto. Each
of them had produced a written statement which they attested to, and each of them
answered questions from the other side and the panel.
9. The Respondent called one witness, Mr Andrew Minnis, Managing Director. He
had produced a written statement which he attested to, and he answered questions
from the other side and the panel.
The Hearing
10. The hearing proceeded entirely in person save that, for the reasons we gave at the
time, Mr Baker attended by video on Day 2.
To continue reading
Request your trial