Other than rare exceptional cases and whatever the sector, it is not lawful and an employer cannot insist on a worker having injected medical treatment.

Apart from human rights issues and the impact of the Council of Europe’s statement, even if it should be legal to create 1/10 https://twitter.com/laworfiction/status/1355097391498731521

a contractual obligation to have treatment, this must be agreed. If the worker says no, the employer will need to prove the reason and sufficient business need to justify dismissal. The difficulties for the employer are several, but include for large part 2/10

lack of evidence behind govt headlines. Can the employer prove treatment is effective, makes any significant difference to transmission, does not cause greater risk of harm (on manufacturers’ data, what is the risk of infection and serious harm from Covid compared to 3/10

risk of serious harm from treatment for any individual and for vast majority of working population?), the level of transmission in the business has any significant effect on the business... ?There are many ways to express the point that the employer must, in terms, 4/10

show the insistence is necessary.

Workers should: say NO, share information and stand TOGETHER, put in writing to their employer their concerns, demand information as to why it is insisted on, demand EVIDENCE as to the effect of the treatment, 5/10

demand access to other employees to be able discuss the issue with worker representatives whose position is to oppose mandatory treatment (so as not to allow a one sided and rigged ‘consultation’ or leave representation to Unions who, with Labour, promote the treatment). As 6/10

for the govt and media noises about health and safety laws that “may” or “according to lawyers” allow whatever... that is opaque nudge propaganda.
Union reliance on Employment Rights Act 1996, section 44, also put forward to shut schools, is half baked and wrong. 7/10

H&S laws are the same now as before March 2020! Treatment could not legally be insisted on for a flu virus and Covid is another virus.
Of course, H&S duties towards workers should also require employers to investigate and ensure workers are properly informed of 8/10

the potential affects of the treatment.

The above doesn’t even touch on the issues of disability discrimination or the affect on efficacy, even if the treatment were completely effective (which no one pretends except in headlines), if some workers don’t have it, or their 9/10

friends or family don’t have it.
This thread could be longer but there is no need.
The Nuremberg trials made their point.
The Council of Europe has reasserted incompatibility against the ECHR.
The majority of the population agree treatment must be voluntary.

All say NO. 10/10

p.s.1
Above re injections applies equally to invasive tests putting sticks in your nose or throat.
A difference? It is less obviously invasive than injection, the Courts currently may be sceptical of need for evidence of benefit of testing and dismissively assert no harm done.

p.s.2
For the section 44 point it is explained here (also explaining the con of the ‘Covid secure’ workplace risk assessment): https://www.laworfiction.com/2020/07/risk-assessments-an-important-chink-in-the-lockdown-armour/