Vaccination mandate expanded to health and education sectors

Employment Law
Oct 12 2021

The Government has announced a significant expansion of the mandatory employee Covid-19 vaccination requirement, saying that vaccination is “critical to preventing the spread of COVID-19”.

Based on the announcement, by the beginning of 2022, many health sector workers, and most early childhood, primary, and secondary education sector workers, will be required to have received two doses of the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (the only vaccine available in New Zealand at present).

Until the announcement, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 (Order) has required certain border workers to be vaccinated against the virus, to continue working in those roles. Limited exemptions were available.

Previously, the Government had indicated reluctance to widen compulsory vaccination requirements. As recently as August, limiting requirements to those working in MIQ facilities, on aircraft, and at ports and airports was seen as sufficient to protect those most at risk of exposure to the virus.

However, now with the Delta variant having been circulating in the community for over a month, Ministers have decided they “can’t leave anything to chance” in ensuring the robustness of these important sectors.

Who is affected?

In his press release announcing the policy change on 11 October, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said that anyone carrying out “high-risk work in the health and disability sector” will need to be fully vaccinated.

The Minister said this will include “general practitioners, pharmacists, community health nurses, midwives, paramedics, and all healthcare workers in sites where vulnerable patients are treated (including Intensive Care Units)”. It is also likely to include workers in “aged residential care, home and community support services, kaupapa Māori health providers and Non-Government Organisations who provide health services.” The Government had not yet worked out the full list at the time of the policy being announced. Definitive guidance will not be available until the amendment Order is published, and the list should be considered subject to change.

The position is clearer for the education sector. The expanded mandate will include the staff of all primary and secondary schools, kura, and all early learning services and providers who may have contact with children. The Minister said this will include all home-based educators, and all support people in schools and early learning services “such as teacher-aides, administration and maintenance staff and contractors.” From 1 January 2022, schools, kura, and early childhood services and providers will need to maintain a vaccination register for staff.

The Minister said that the Government was still undertaking policy work as to whether mandatory vaccinations will be required for the staff of tertiary education providers. With the stated rationale for imposing such wide-reaching requirements being that vaccines are not yet available for children under the age of 12, the Government may not immediately take that step.

When do newly affected workers need to get vaccinated by?

Based on the announcement, health and disability sector workers caught by the new mandate would need to receive their first dose of the vaccine by 30 October 2021, and their second no later than 1 December 2021.

Staff in the education sector covered by the requirement would need to receive their first dose by 15 November 2021 and their second by 1 January 2022. The Minister has said that those who are not fully vaccinated by 1 January 2022 will be required to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing.

Assuming the Government follows the model currently applicable to border workers, workers commencing employment in newly mandated roles after 30 October 2021 or 15 November 2021 (depending on which sector they are in), will likely need to have received one dose of the vaccine before starting in that role, and their second within seven weeks of their first.

What will employees and employers need to do?

As noted above, we do not yet have the wording of the proposed Order. However, the Government’s statements suggest it will apply the provisions currently applicable only to border workers. Assuming this is the case, then the following would apply:

  • It would be an offence for affected workers to carry out jobs listed above unless they are vaccinated, or partially vaccinated during the transition periods set out above.
  • Employers would commit an offence if they allow affected workers to carry out their roles unvaccinated (unless an exemption applied).
  • Employers would be required to notify people caught by the Order of their duty to be vaccinated.
  • Affected workers would commit an offence if they deny their employers access to their COVID-19 vaccination records, or withhold details of their vaccination dates.
  • Employers whose employees are covered by the Order would be required to facilitate their employees receiving vaccination during work hours.
  • Non-deliberate breaches of the Order would be infringement offences. The enforcement officer could either issue a $300 on the spot fine, or take the matter to Court and request that a fine of up to $1,000 be imposed.
  • Deliberate breaches of the Order could result in a criminal conviction, and imprisonment of up to six months. Parliament recently increased the maximum fine payable for these more serious breaches to $4,000.

Will exemptions be available?

In the press release, the Government said that “under certain circumstances exemptions may be possible.”

Assuming the Government carries forward the provisions applicable to border workers, we anticipate that at least the current medical exemption will apply to employees in the new covered sectors.

In order to receive an exemption, an individual must have been examined by a ‘suitably qualified health practitioner’ who has certified that vaccination would be “inappropriate” because the person has “particular physical or other needs”.

Once their employer is satisfied and reports that exemption to the Ministry using the online register, the employee is permitted to work unvaccinated, but must provide confirmation of that exemption to their employer or an enforcement officer on request. In this case, the employer will need to consider whether the employee is safe to work and/or whether the health or other condition making them inappropriate for vaccination, also makes them more vulnerable in terms of risk of Covid exposure from a health and safety perspective.

Additional requirements for the education sector

As well as extending the vaccination mandate to certain education workers, the Government announced two further policy changes affecting schools and early learning services and providers, being:

  • From 1 January 2022, secondary schools and kura will need to keep a register of their students’ COVID-19 vaccination status. Students who do not confirm they are vaccinated are to be deemed unvaccinated.
  • All school workers in Auckland and other regions that were at Alert Level 3 as of 11 October 2021, will need to provide a negative COVID-19 test result before they can return to work onsite.

This announcement came as the Government announced that Auckland schools will remain closed to most pupils as Term 4 begins on 18 October 2021.

What can employers with employees who refuse the vaccine do?

The expansion of the mandate is likely to lead to renewed calls for the Government to provide more clarity to employers on how to comply with their employment law obligations in the face of COVID-19.

Despite the compulsory vaccine requirements, the duty of good faith under the Employment Relations Act 2000 continues to apply. This means careful consultation/communication of timeframes and any compulsory requirements is necessary, as well as engagement around any exemption that may apply. Any employment action taken as a result of the new requirements will need to be justifiable in terms of the Act, and a proper employment process conducted (e.g. termination of employment due to failure to be vaccinated). Alternatives, such as redeployment into a non-vaccine required role, or consideration of an exemption should be explored. The Employment Relations Authority has so far upheld the dismissal of a customs employee who refused vaccination and confirmed that the ordinary justification test applied, and also declined an application for interim reinstatement for aviation security officers who were dismissed after declining vaccination.

We anticipate that there will personal grievance claims resulting from implementation of these requirements, and further case law will be released which will assist employers in navigating their obligations.

Where we can help?

We have been advising our clients on a wide range of employment issues arising in relation to COVID-19, including in interpreting and applying the Border Order, consulting with employees, Privacy Act issues and related employment and health and safety issues. With the frequent changes and developments in this space, it is important to seek advice where unsure, to ensure your business complies with all of the requirements.

You may also like ...
Swearing in the workplace – can I be dismissed for swearing at work?
Swearing? We are all guilty of doing it to some extent, but what about in the workplace? Is it acceptable and if so, to what degree? Can your employer discipline you for an outrage of expletives? In some circumstances and in certain workplaces, dismissal may be wholly warranted, while in others, it may not, notwithstanding that it is the same conduct in question. Confused? Context is key alongside a myriad of factors to be taken into consideration. Ultimately it will come down to what is fair and the workplace culture. The issue of “fairness” is addressed in the Employment Relations Act 2000 which tells parties whether a dismissal will be fair or not. For instance, in the case of Waihape v AFFCO New Zealand Limited [2017] NZERA 13 several mitigating factors were taken into consideration, including the context of the situation, the nature of the workplace and the relationship between the parties involved. In Waihape, it was determined that given the nature of the workplace, several individuals regularly swore in their day-to-day banter and an employer would struggle to justify taking action for a staff member using bad language in those circumstances. The evidence showed that management failed to crack down on similar offensive language in the workplace. The Authority quoting from precedent said: “It is well established that an employer will fail to justify a dismissal where communications do not appear to be greatly out of character with others apparently condoned by management in the workplace.” Overall, case law suggests that if an employer wishes for certain standards to be upheld, it will need to ensure there are policies in place to make employees aware that swearing is unacceptable. Furthermore, employers will need to demonstrate that it does not tolerate swearing in the workplace by enforcing the policy when it is breached. It is both best practice and prudent for employers to ensure that the expected and acceptable standards of behaviour are addressed and imbedded into any training and induction processes. Above all else, it is imperative that employers do not single out an individual for the use of course language while letting other employees get away with the same. The key takeaway is, like with all disciplinary matters, a fair procedure must be followed. An employer will need to establish the facts and review any offensive language in the context of the circumstances alongside the company’s relevant policies. Before taking disciplinary action, an employer will need to carefully consider whether a verbal warning or written warning is more appropriate. Dismissal would only be justifiable if the employee’s conduct warrants gross misconduct and summary dismissal. Whether you are considering taking action against an employee or you are an employee facing disciplinary action yourself, we recommend getting cogent advice first. Speak to our team today.  
Read more
Restructuring in the workplace – What employers need to know
With the economy continuing on its downward slide, you will not be alone in giving thought to potential cost cutting measures, including reducing your labour costs. Restructuring is usually a last resort for employers and is only a step that tends to be taken when there seem to be no other viable options for reducing costs quickly.  While the impact on employees is immense, it is clear that a restructure process can be just as stressful and fraught for an employer.  That is why, sometimes, employers can get things wrong and may find themselves at the centre of a personal grievance, which can result in greater stress, cost and uncertainty. A restructuring needs to be substantively justified, and procedurally correct.  If you do not meet both of these requirements, there is a risk that if an employee were to make a claim against you, it could be upheld. What is Substantive Justification? It is likely that during recessionary times, such as we are in now, the substantive reasons for a restructure will be fairly obvious to your employees.  However, you will still need to justify this by providing evidence in support.  This may include pointing to reduced sales figures or forecasts, showing increased costs (i.e. materials, rent, insurance), or any other information that you are willing to share that goes toward justifying the proposal to restructure. What is the Correct Procedure? The procedure for restructuring is usually where an employer can get tripped up.  To start, you need to remember that you should not pre-determine that a restructure is inevitable.  You have a good faith obligation to your employees to consult with them before any decisions that may affect their employment are made.  It may be that during consultation, you are able to see a way forward that means a restructure is not required, or at least not to the extent that you had originally envisaged. Once you have substantive justification, you need to advise your employees that you are proposing a restructure and give them adequate information including what the restructure would entail, how it would impact them, and how you wish to consult with them about it. You will then move to the consultation stage and be ready to provide further information or answer any questions the employees may have.  Once you have finished consultation, you will need to advise the employees of your proposed decision.  Your employees should then be given an opportunity to comment on or ask further questions about the proposed decision.  It is not until they have been given this opportunity that you should procced to confirm your decision. The exact process you follow will depend on factors such as the size of your workforce, the number of roles that may be impacted, the typical method of communication with employees, the specific terms of your employment agreements, and the location of your employees. Having guided employers through numerous restructures, the one point we want you to keep in mind is that getting your restructure right is by far more preferable than having to deal with the consequences (and potential costs) of getting it wrong.  We can provide specific advice and guidance on restructuring and all other employment related issues, so please contact our employment law team at any time for further information.
Read more
Holidays Act – could change finally be on the horizon?
Earlier this week the Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden gave a speech to the Auckland Business Chamber, reiterating her priorities following the conclusion of the Government’s 100-day plan in which Fair Pay Agreements were abolished, and the availability of 90 day trial periods extended to all new employees. The Minister has confirmed that delivering changes to the Holidays Act (“Act”) is one of her top priorities, which is likely to be welcome news to both employers and employees. Compliance with the Act has been difficult and costly for employers and payroll providers. The Labour Government put together a taskforce in 2018 to address the many issues being experienced by employers when calculating leave and holiday entitlements. The taskforce made a number of recommendations, all of which were accepted (for further details on these changes see our previous article here). A draft Leave Entitlements Bill was prepared, however was not introduced prior to last year’s election. The overarching issue with the Act is that there are multiple ways to calculate an employee’s holiday pay, and the Act has struggled to keep up with working arrangements outside of a normal five day a week salaried employee. Payments such as bonuses, commission, or if an employee works variable hours mean that the calculations are not straight forward and are often done incorrectly. The changes proposed were an attempt to simplify these calculations. The Minister has now confirmed that the changes recommended by the taskforce and the draft Bill will not be “simply rubberstamped” and will be subject to scrutiny as well as consultation with key stakeholders. She went on to say “if the policy is difficult to draft, chances are businesses would have a tough time implementing it too”. This indicates a major reset of the Act, and the changes which we had expected, could be on the way. Other indicated changes to employment law include a change to the rules surrounding contractors (with the Court of Appeal due to hear the Uber case this month (see here for our previous advice regarding this), we are likely to also have further developments in this area from the Courts later in the year) and changes to personal grievances. The Minister has asked for advice on whether an income threshold for raising a personal grievance can be set and removing eligibility for any remedies when an employee is at fault. The Minister has been very clear that she would like to receive feedback from the stakeholders who will eventually have to work with the Act and it is important that businesses use this opportunity to have a say on the Act. The majority of employers have struggled to achieve strict compliance with the Act due to its many complexities. Putting forward issues which regularly impact your business will ensure these can be given consideration. Our team will be closely monitoring this and will provide specific information on how feedback can be given when this information is available. If you require assistance with your current obligations under the Act, or would like to discuss providing feedback then please feel free to get in touch with a member of our specialist employment law team.
Read more

Start typing and press enter to search

Scroll to Top