Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

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

Published

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.

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

COVID-19

Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns

Published on

Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Monica Smit said she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Daniel Andrews based on ‘new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.’

The fiercest opponent of the former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews during the COVID crisis was activist Monica Smit. The government responded to her advocacy by arresting her for participating in anti-lockdown protests. When she refused to sign her bail conditions she was made, in effect, a political prisoner for 22 days.  

Smit subsequently won a case against the Victoria Police for illegal imprisonment, setting an important precedent. But in a vicious legal maneuver, the judge ensured that Smit would be punished again. She awarded Smit $4,000 in damages which was less than the amount offered in pre-trial mediation. It meant that, despite her victory, Smit was liable for Victoria Police’s legal costs of $250,000. It was not a good day for Australian justice. 

There is a chance that the tables will be reversed. Smit has announced she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Andrews and his cabinet based on “new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.”

The revelation that the savage lockdown policies made little sense from a health perspective is hardly a surprise. Very little of what happened made medical sense. For one thing, according to the Worldometer, about four-fifths of the people who tested positive for COVID-19 had no symptoms. Yet for the first time in medical history healthy people were treated as sick.  

The culpability of the Victorian government is nevertheless progressively becoming clearer. It has emerged that the Andrews government did not seek medical advice for its curfew policies, the longest in the Western world. Andrews repeatedly lied when he said at press conferences that he was following heath advice. 

David Davis, leader of the right wing opposition Liberal Party, has made public a document recording an exchange between two senior health officials. It shows that the ban on people leaving their homes after dark was implemented without any formal input from health authorities. 

Davis acquired the email exchange, between Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton and his deputy Finn Romanes, under a Freedom of Information request. It occurred two-and-a-half hours after the curfew was announced. 

Romanes explained he had been off work for two days and was not aware of any “key conversations and considerations” about the curfew and had not “seen any specific written assessment of the requirement” for one. 

He added: “The idea of a curfew has not arisen from public health advice in the first instance. In this way, the action of issuing a curfew is a mirror to the State of Disaster and is not occurring on public health advice but is a decision taken by Cabinet.” Sutton responded with: “Your assessment is correct as I understand it.” 

The email exchange, compelling evidence of the malfeasance of the Andrews government, raises further questions. If Smit’s lawyers can get Andrews to respond under oath, one ought to be: “If you were lying about following medical advice, then why were you in such a hurry to impose such severe measures and attack dissenters?” 

It remains a puzzle. Why did otherwise inconsequential politicians suddenly turn into dictatorial monsters with no concern for what their constituents thought?  

The most likely explanation is that they were told it was a biowarfare attack and were terrified, ditching health advice and applying military protocols. The mechanism for this was documented in a speech by Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts.  

If so, was an egregious error of judgement. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed, 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of respiratory diseases since records have been kept. There was never a pandemic. 

There needs to be an explanation to the Australian people of why they lost their liberty and basic rights. A private prosecution might achieve this. Smit writes: “Those responsible should face jail time, nothing less. The latest revelation of ‘document 34‘ is just the beginning. A public criminal trial will expose truths beyond our imagination.”

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Conservatives promise to ban firing of Canadian federal workers based on COVID jab status

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The Conservative platform also vows that the party will oppose mandatory digital ID systems and a central bank digital currency if elected.

Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party’s 2025 election platform includes a promise to “ban” the firing of any federal worker based “solely” on whether or not they chose to get the COVID shots.

On page 23 of the “Canada First – For A Change” plan, which was released on Tuesday, the promise to protect un-jabbed federal workers is mentioned under “Protect Personal Autonomy, Privacy, and Data Security.”

It promises that a Conservative government will “Ban the dismissal of federal workers based solely on COVID vaccine status.”

The Conservative Party also promises to “Oppose any move toward mandatory digital ID systems” as well as “Prohibit the Bank of Canada from developing or implementing a central bank digital currency.”

In October 2021, the Liberal government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector. The government also announced that the unjabbed would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train, both domestically and internationally.

This policy resulted in thousands losing their jobs or being placed on leave for non-compliance. It also trapped “unvaccinated” Canadians in the country.

COVID jab mandates, which also came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects, such as death, including in children.

Many recent rulings have gone in favor of those who chose not to get the shots and were fired as a result, such as an arbitrator ruling that one of the nation’s leading hospitals in Ontario must compensate 82 healthcare workers terminated after refusing to get the jabs.

Beyond health concerns, many Canadians, especially Catholics, opposed the injections on moral grounds because of their link to fetal cell lines derived from the tissue of aborted babies.

Continue Reading

Trending

X