The Critical Compass Podcast - September 06, 2024


Vax Mandate Arbitration Rulings Are Coming ｜ A Critical Compass Clip

Jurisdictional Control Within Canada ｜ A Critical Compass Clip Canadian Lawyer Explains COVID Court Rulings feat. Eva Chipiuk ｜ A Critical Compass Discussion

Episode Stats


Length

5 minutes

Words per minute

150.75

Word count

893

Sentence count

1


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode, we discuss a case where a nurse who chose not to be vaccinated against tetanus and pertussis was terminated for not showing up to work, and the arbitrator's reasoning behind the decision.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
00:00:00.000 especially with a like six paragraph decision like you know if you're a lawyer and you want
00:00:08.000 to bring this as a case forward there's not a lot of meat to provide another arbitrator or another
00:00:14.640 judge being like oh look at what happened in this decision because there's not a lot there to
00:00:19.600 justify that's why the context is so important in decisions like what was the reasoning behind it
00:00:26.000 in here really you don't see a lot like i i actually if you don't mind maybe put the decision
00:00:31.040 on the screen so people can see how incredibly short it was like this is the and this is on behalf
00:00:36.880 of 46 uh or so workers nurses so the introduction this is fact now we got to the decision two pages
00:00:46.720 boom you're done yeah and the the appendix is almost as long as the decision yeah so you know
00:00:55.040 it's hard to really gleam a lot of information from that and i read it and it like that's where
00:01:00.480 we already kind of clashed online when i said that doesn't really make sense and then it doesn't really
00:01:06.160 provide that context you're looking for yeah well all um speaking of this you know how short this is
00:01:13.120 i'm going to share my my little uh screed that i went on online here so i uh i took i took a screenshot
00:01:22.880 and i highlighted this because i was just so righteously indignant when i read it so this is
00:01:26.960 this is paragraph six and seven of this arbitration decision uh i'll read all of it people on the screen
00:01:33.200 can see the highlighted parts uh so arbitrator uh whatever his name is says uh not surprisingly
00:01:41.040 arbitrators have found that a requirement to be vaccinated against covet 19 in a health care setting
00:01:45.440 is reasonable however no uh arbitral consensus has emerged with respect to the consequences for
00:01:51.840 employees who chose not to be vaccinated or disclose their vaccination status as i pointed out at the
00:01:57.520 hearing each case is different and must be assessed on its specific facts namely after the policy is
00:02:01.840 reviewed the specific circumstances of the workplace are assessed and as is the manner in which the
00:02:06.960 discipline was imposed based on the very unique circumstances at william osler health system i find
00:02:12.240 that the grievers in this matter were terminated for just cause the employees chose not to be
00:02:17.040 vaccinated and as a result they were not reasonably available to attend at work which at a minimum
00:02:21.920 severely and negatively impacted the employment relationship that being said the individual
00:02:26.640 grievers were misguided and their conduct was not with any malicious intent so i read this and and i
00:02:33.360 just oh it made me so mad because i was like okay so this is a person who he just like he just
00:02:39.200 fundamentally doesn't understand in my opinion the the point what he that he is arbitrating against because
00:02:48.800 this i i don't believe that any of the individual grievers would themselves describe would describe
00:02:54.320 themselves as misguided in their conduct uh i i agree that i said in the in my little bit here that um
00:03:02.720 that's the only part that he gets right is because
00:03:05.440 they were not miss they were not uh acting with any malicious intent but this notion that they were
00:03:11.200 uh uh misguided or or you know the the kind of the implication that they were just misinformed or
00:03:19.360 they were propagandized or whatever the case may be i just don't think that that's right and i don't
00:03:23.680 think that that is the point of why they behaved in the way that they did well great mike so you don't
00:03:29.920 have to argue it because there's decisions that already say what you're saying and i just pulled
00:03:35.360 up the uh teamsters and purolator one that we were um just talking about to give you context that one
00:03:42.960 at least on line oh how when it turns it into a pdf like it has a table of contents telling you how big
00:03:51.520 it is how long it is 569 pages possibly for that oh here 196 pages yeah
00:04:00.320 and this is where you could get actual context and i actually love that we we saw that one and
00:04:07.920 that's interesting to see your reaction to like that's not fair that's not right
00:04:13.680 and um although one thing i would say about it too is the result was good so if you're one of those
00:04:22.640 grievers like accept your win take it because going through litigation is never fun so that's another
00:04:30.080 thing um you know we there's always opportunity and that's why i'm so excited about talking about these
00:04:36.160 things and hopefully with my book is i think that the more we challenge these things the more we get
00:04:42.080 there so we shouldn't expect everything solved in one case at one time but we have to keep challenging
00:04:49.920 things to get you know there's a lot of gray in these things and we have to keep figuring out finding
00:04:55.680 that balance where it's right but like this is a decision we could talk about oh yeah this is
00:05:00.480 can you see the the the cursor on on the live thing look at how small that bar is
00:05:17.600 so
00:05:25.440 Thank you.