Connect with us

COVID-19

82 unvaccinated healthcare workers win arbitration case against hospital that fired them

Published

4 weeks ago

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A Canadian arbitrator ruled that the employees were entitled to termination and severance pay.

In a win for those who chose not to get the COVID shots and were fired from their jobs as a result, a Canadian arbitrator ruled that one of the nation’s leading hospitals must compensate 82 healthcare workers terminated after refusing to get the jabs.

The ruling, issued by Toronto arbitrator John Stout on August 12, concerns 82 healthcare workers who worked for the William Osler Health System (WOHS). Forty of them were fired “with cause” for not getting the COVID shots and 42 were suspended. They are represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).

The company’s COVID jab policy, implemented in 2021, mandated that all workers have at least two COVID shots as a condition of work.

Stout noted in his ruling that it was possible to fire staff for not getting the jab, saying, “Not surprisingly, arbitrators have found that a requirement to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in a healthcare setting is reasonable.”

But he added that “no arbitral consensus has emerged with respect to the consequences for employees who chose not to be vaccinated or disclose their vaccination status.”

Stout wrote that “based on the very unique circumstances at WOHS, I find that the grievors in this matter were terminated for just cause. The employees chose not to be vaccinated and as a result they were not reasonably available to attend at work, which at a minimum severely and negatively impacted the employment relationship.”

However, Stout also ruled that the hospital must pay the fired and suspended staff because they chose not to go along with the mandates in a manner that had no “malicious intent.”

“That being said, the individual grievors were misguided and their conduct was not with any malicious intent,” he wrote.

“The ESA (Employment Standards Act) provides that unless an employee’s actions amount to ‘willful misconduct, disobedience or willful neglect of duty that is not trivial,’ they will be entitled to termination and severance pay.”

 

Because the matter was not resolved via mediation, it went to arbitration.

Stout ultimately ruled that “I find that the individual grievors who were terminated from their employment by the Hospital are entitled to termination and severance pursuant to the ESA.”

“Accordingly, WOHS is ordered to provide such grievors with their notice and severance pay under the ESA, where applicable. The grievances are partially allowed, to the extent outlined in this award.”

The arbitration hearing was held on August 7 and included high-level staff from both the WOHS and CUPE as well as legal counsel for both parties.

Draconian COVID mandates, including those surrounding the experimental mRNA vaccines, were imposed by the provincial Progressive Conservative government of Ontario under Premier Doug Ford and the federal Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Many recent rulings have gone in favor of those who chose to not to get the shots and were fired as a result.

The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children. The jabs also have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies. As a result, many Catholics and other Christians refused to take them.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 1 hour ago

Union Bigwigs Decline To Endorse Anyone For President Despite Rank-And-File Members Overwhelmingly Backing Trump

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Biden-Harris Admin’s Multi-Billion Dollar Electric School Bus Program Is A Huge Gift To China, House Report Finds

Energy / 5 hours ago

US LNG uncertainty is a reminder of lost Canadian opportunities

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published on September 17, 2024

By

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Trial for Freedom Convoy leaders ends, verdict may take 6 months

Published on September 16, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does ‘not know’ when a decision will be rendered in the Freedom Convoy leaders’ trial.

The trial for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, which was supposed to have been only 16 days long, has now concluded after over a year, with the presiding judge observing that determining a verdict, which could take up to six months, will be “daunting” task.  

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does “not know” when she will “be in a position to give my decision,” adding that coming up with a verdict will be “a little daunting.” 

The judge has promised that on November 26, she will be providing an update as to when a decision could be forthcoming.  

The trial has been ongoing for over one year and began on September 3, 2023. As reported by LifeSiteNews, both Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the 2022 Freedom Convoy.

In an X post on Friday, Lich shared her thoughts on the trial finally wrapping up.  

“Well, that’s a wrap to the Longest Mischief Trial of All Time,” she wrote. 

“The Crown really disappointed me today. His remarks about the Event That Shall Not Be Named (Freedom Convoy) being nothing more than a weekend party are indicative of a level of smugness and elitism that I can never and will never understand,” added Lich.

Both Lich and Barber had attended the hearings in person, travelling from their homes in Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively. Last Friday, however, they attended via video.

The Crown prosecution has held steadfast to the notion that Lich and Barber somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak. 

It has also been asserted “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.” 

The reality is that Lich and Barber collaborated with police on many occasions so that the protest remained law abiding.  

The Democracy Fund, which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, noted in one of its last legal updates of the trial that it expected the Crown would try to prove the leaders were “co-conspirators,” meaning that accusations placed against one leader automatically apply to the other.

As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for  weeks before she was granted bail. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X