-
November 29th, 2021, 12:43 PM
#1
Union's claim denied as arbitrator upholds mandatory vaccination policy
https://www.niagarathisweek.com/news...nation-policy/
Union's claim denied as arbitrator upholds mandatory vaccination policy
Ed Canning
Hamilton Spectator
Friday, November 26, 2021
On Sept. 3 of this year, a company that supplies security guards to various establishments sent out a notice indicating that employees had to be vaccinated by Oct. 31.
The announcement noted that the majority of clients had implemented mandatory vaccination policies for anyone on site and that those policies included contract employees. The few clients that did not have mandatory vaccination policies were in the process of implementing them. The company also noted that many employees had raised concerns about working with unvaccinated people. The union grieved the policy, arguing that it was unreasonable and violated the collective agreement.
It is important to note that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has shared its view that mandating vaccination to protect people at work or when they were receiving services was permissible under the Human Rights Code and that people’s personal preferences with respect to the vaccine were not protected by the Ontario Human Rights Code. The code protects an objection based on religion, creed or a medical exemption, but the commission has said the duty to accommodate does not necessarily mean those people get to go to work and get paid. If it would expose other employees and clients to unreasonable risk, it would be an undue hardship to have to accommodate those people.
The union’s argument was that the rush to implement vaccination policies was unfair to their members and those members were concerned about incurring additional health issues. The company argued that the management rights section of the collective agreement said the company could “make, enforce and alter, from time to time, reasonable rules and regulations to be observed by the employees.” The company had appropriately indicated it would do its best to accommodate exemptions provided by the Human Rights Code but that did not necessarily mean continued employment. An employee’s place of work might be changed, and if that was not possible, they would be put on leave without pay.
The arbitrator found the company’s policy was enforceable and compliant with the Ontario Human Rights Code. The arbitrator noted that the company has an obligation to protect the health and safety of its employees, which includes that an employer must take “every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of its workers.”
Scientific evidence from experts was not called at this hearing. The arbitrator stated: “There is a wealth of scientific information available on the pandemic and COVID-19. I find that personal subjective perceptions of employees to be exempted from vaccinations cannot override and displace available scientific considerations.” As far as I know, this is the first reported decision on this issue. It should be noted that it is an arbitrator’s decision and does not bind the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal or a judge in a courtroom.
It leaves unanswered questions about rapid antigen testing. Some employers have allowed frequent testing for the unvaccinated to allow them to work. Many employers have not. The employers that have not allowed for testing would argue that it’s like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. It is not sufficient protection for clients or colleagues if the employee has already been working while contagious. It may limit transmission, but it won’t prevent it.
The union had tried to argue that the Health Care Consent Act, which prohibits any medical procedure being forced on anyone, means that there could not be a mandatory vaccination policy. The problem with that argument was that the Health Care Consent Act applies to people who provide medical service, and nobody is proposing to hold anyone down to vaccinate them. They have a choice to make. There are consequences. It would appear that the law is going to uphold those consequences.
Ed Canning practices employment and human rights law with Ross & McBride LLP, in Hamilton, representing both employers and employees. Email him at [email protected]For more employment law information; www.hamiltonemploymentlaw.com
-
November 29th, 2021 12:43 PM
# ADS
-
November 29th, 2021, 12:59 PM
#2
"It leaves unanswered questions about rapid antigen testing. Some employers have allowed frequent testing for the unvaccinated to allow them to work. Many employers have not. The employers that have not allowed for testing would argue that it€™s like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. It is not sufficient protection for clients or colleagues if the employee has already been working while contagious. It may limit transmission, but it won€™t prevent it."
It doesn't confirm if employers will accept PCR testing as an alternative to the vaccination..which is the norm in most countries and many copmanies.
And with double vaccinated now accounting for more than 50% of recent positive cases..not testing them regularly allows the virus to spread in the workplace. So either way..employees are not longer safe without everyone being tested at least twice a week. .
Last edited by MikePal; November 29th, 2021 at 05:51 PM.
-
November 29th, 2021, 01:41 PM
#3
With no scientific evidence in the room it's based on fear and control.
The protected are are afraid of the unprotected what a joke they are protected .
Again based on fear not science.
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
-
November 29th, 2021, 02:10 PM
#4
Has too much time on their hands
Originally Posted by
MikePal
And with double vaccinated now accounting for more than 50% of recent positive cases..not testing them regularly allows the virus to spread in the workplace.
Meanwhile we have government talking heads continue to tell the people the vaccines are, "safe and effective". They are not at all, as so called fully vaccinated individuals continue to contract and transfer the virus to others.
FB_IMG_1638045559227.jpg
-
November 29th, 2021, 03:32 PM
#5
Originally Posted by
canadaman30
Meanwhile we have government talking heads continue to tell the people the vaccines are, "safe and effective". They are not at all, as so called fully vaccinated individuals continue to contract and transfer the virus to others.
FB_IMG_1638045559227.jpg
That's one of the best cartoons in a while.
-
November 29th, 2021, 04:04 PM
#6
Originally Posted by
MikePal
"It leaves unanswered questions about rapid antigen testing. Some employers have allowed frequent testing for the unvaccinated to allow them to work. Many employers have not. The employers that have not allowed for testing would argue that it€™s like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. It is not sufficient protection for clients or colleagues if the employee has already been working while contagious. It may limit transmission, but it won€™t prevent it."
It doesn't confirm if employers will accept PCR testing as an alternative to the vaccination..which is the norm in most countries and many copmanies.
And with double vaccinated now accounting for more than 50% of recent positive cases..not testing them regularly allows the virus to spread in the workplace. So either way..employees are not longer safe without everyone being tested at least twice a week. .
The not fully-vaccinated represent 14% of Ontario's eligible population but make up 85% of COVID cases in ICUs and 65% of non-ICU hospitalizations.
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data
The main beneficiaries of widespread testing would be those who aren't vaccinated. Requiring people who've been vaccinated submit to having swabs shoved into their upper reaches of their nasal cavity to protect anti-vaxxers doesn't seem particularly likely.
Last edited by Badenoch; November 29th, 2021 at 04:10 PM.
-
November 29th, 2021, 04:43 PM
#7
Originally Posted by
Badenoch
The not fully-vaccinated represent 14% of Ontario's eligible population but make up 85% of COVID cases in ICUs and 65% of non-ICU hospitalizations.
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data
The main beneficiaries of widespread testing would be those who aren't vaccinated. Requiring people who've been vaccinated submit to having swabs shoved into their upper reaches of their nasal cavity to protect anti-vaxxers doesn't seem particularly likely.
Are those real numbers or misleading numbers. We know they have messed with all the other numbers.
They could be misleading they may very well be there for other reasons and they are being used as statistics number ?
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
-
November 29th, 2021, 05:02 PM
#8
Has too much time on their hands
Originally Posted by
fishfood
Are those real numbers or misleading numbers. We know they have messed with all the other numbers.
They could be misleading they may very well be there for other reasons and they are being used as statistics number ?
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
Just need to look out west to see the lies on ICU numbers being falsified
https://thenationaltelegraph.com/reg...u-bed-capacity
-
November 29th, 2021, 05:33 PM
#9
Originally Posted by
canadaman30
Yes it's all blamed on the unvaccinated it was the unvaccinated that never needed to use the field hospitals lol.
On a more serious note a lady in new Brunswick waited 6 days with broken ribs for her surgery because the unvaccinated took up about 20 percent of the ICU beds in new Brunswick.
The unvaccinated took up all the beds but in reality they took up about 20 or less from at least the 98 beds in the province.
Crazy they let a poor lady suffer blamed the unvaccinated for taking all the beds in the hospital yet they couldn't be taken to another within a few hours.
No just let her suffer for a week while they waited for space.
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
-
November 29th, 2021, 06:00 PM
#10
Originally Posted by
Badenoch
The not fully-vaccinated represent 14% of Ontario's eligible population but make up 85% of COVID cases in ICUs and 65% of non-ICU hospitalizations.
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data
The main beneficiaries of widespread testing would be those who aren't vaccinated. Requiring people who've been vaccinated submit to having swabs shoved into their upper reaches of their nasal cavity to protect anti-vaxxers doesn't seem particularly likely.
No one said anything about ICU patients, numbers are so low they are irrelevant.....the problem now is NEW infections and transmission rising in the fully vaxxed..over 50% of all positive cases.
Getting fully vaxxed tested is for everyone, far too many QR code holders are now infected with the virus but still going to work and spreading the virus.
Reply With Quote
