Auckland Transport includes religious exemptions in Covid-19 vaccination policy
Thursday, 30 December 2021
Auckland Transport (AT) staff can apply for an exemption to its Covid-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds.
From December 15, the council-controlled agency, which is responsible for transport projects and services in Auckland, has required anyone, including staff, to show evidence they are double vaccinated before entering any of its workplaces.
However, workers with genuine religious reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated could apply to AT's chief executive for an exemption, an AT spokesman confirmed.
In the United States, people seeking religious exemptions from employers’ vaccine mandates sometimes face “sincerity tests” from employers checking they are not donning a cloak of phoney faith solely to justify not getting vaccinated.
**READ MORE:
* Covid-19: How employers can handle workers' requests for vaccination exemptions
* Former MPs push to import Russia's Sputnik V vaccine as Phase III results published
* Seven weeks pregnant and told to take parental leave, court hears
**
People seeking religious exemptions from employer-imposed vaccine mandates would be unlikely to face sincerity tests in New Zealand, says employment law expert Olivia Lund from law firm Duncan Cotterill.
“An organisation could potentially challenge and seek evidence from that employee as to their religious belief,” she says.
“In my experience most employers won’t do that. They will accept it on face value, and will focus on whether they can make reasonable accommodations to allow this unvaccinated person to continue working.”
It may be unusual that AT’s vaccine policy specifically mentions religious exemptions, but Lund says employees can seek religious exemptions under any workplace vaccination policy that is not mandated by the Government.
“It would be under the Human Rights Act. An organisation must not discriminate against a worker for their religious beliefs,” she says.
If a worker asked for an exemption, their employer would be required by law to consider whether it could accommodate that worker's faith-based decision not to vaccinate without it causing unreasonable disruption to its operations, or posing an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of others, she said.
“What is reasonable will depend on the context of the situation, the type and nature of the work they are performing,” Lund says.
It could be easier for larger organisations, which might have more scope for redeploying staff than smaller ones, she says.
Lund says in early messaging to companies from Ministry of Health in guidance documentation, the ministry said it was not aware of any religion or faith-based organisation which was opposed to vaccinations.
But, she says, when consulting staff on vaccine mandates, employers often ask about religious beliefs.
People wishing to challenge a refusal by an employer to give them a religious exemption under their vaccine mandate could go to the Human Rights Commission or the Employment Relations Authority, Lund says.
AT’s spokesman said under its policy, if an exception was granted, it was for a set period, and required the person covered to work from home.
The AT website says it is not covered by government-imposed vaccine mandates, like that imposed on teachers, which have the Government has successfully defended in court.
The Human Rights Commission says on its website people who choose not to be vaccinated due to their personal beliefs cannot get vaccination exemptions in relation to Government mandates.
Sincerity tests might be a tough task for some religious people to meet, according to vaccinologist and associate professor Helen Petousis-Harris from the University of Auckland.
Where Christian religious opposition to Covid-19 vaccines has arisen in the US and United Kingdom, it has been as a result of a moral objection to the vaccines being developed with early-stage testing involving “cell lines” grown from cells originally taken from human foetuses.
But Petousis-Harris says there is no foetal cell content in Covid-19 vaccines.
“It's not manufactured on any foetal cell lines either,” she says.
But anyone wishing to claim sincerely that that is the reason they will not be vaccinated might be challenged on whether they have consented, or would consent, to take other drugs that have been tested on the cell lines they object to, she says.
“Almost all medicines, with very few exceptions have during development at some point have involved a human foetal cell line,” Petousis-Harris says.
“You’d really want to be avoiding pretty much all drugs, all medicines.”
“The common over-the-counter meds, the anti-inflammatories, these kinds of things, pretty much all would be included in your objection, if you were going to be consistent,” Petousis-Harris says.
She says religious groups like the Catholic Church had made clear statements of support for vaccinations, including rubella, which was grown on a human foetal cell line.
“The Catholic Church’s position is that they should avail themselves of the vaccine because it saves lives,” she says.
In August Pope Francis told the faithful: “Getting vaccinated is a simple yet profound way to care for one another, especially the most vulnerable”, and late December, the Vatican mandated that all employees be vaccinated, or show proof of having recovered from Covid-19.
“There isn’t any particular religion I know of that objects to vaccines,” Petousis-Harris says.
“You could only be claiming that this is your own choice, and this is your religious belief.”
Religious objections to the Covid-19 vaccination have not directly featured in Ministry of Health monthly surveys on vaccine hesitancy.
Nor have they sparked petitions to Parliament as in the United Kingdom where Molly Ellen Moran petitioned Parliament saying: “We should be free to go where we like without being discriminated against for our religious beliefs”.
She has not yet got the 100,000 signatures she needs to prompt Parliament to consider debating the issue.
Here Parliament has had eight petitions on Covid-19 vaccinations, but they either opposed vaccine mandates because they reduced personal freedom, called for modifications to the mandate system, or asked for people to have a choice of vaccines.