Recent Arbitrator Decision on Two-Dose Vaccination Policy in the Workplace

As Canada continues to move further away from the worst of the pandemic, it is likely some employers may begin to remove mandatory vaccination policies. Originally, they were put in place to prevent the spread of a potentially deadly disease in the workplace, providing employees with an added layer of protection. You can read more about decisions regarding vaccination policies herehereherehere, and here. However, even in the case of a mandatory vaccination policy currently remaining in place, there is a new decision regarding the reasonableness of such a policy. This is one of many decisions on the issue, with most outcomes favouring vaccination policies being reasonable.

FCA Canada Inc. v Unifor, Locals 195, 444, 1285: The Facts

On October 14, 2021, FCA Canada released their policy regarding the COVID-19 vaccination and employment contracts. The Policy – which was supported by the union at the time – made it mandatory for all employees to be fully vaccinated, which was defined as receiving two doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine. Proof of being fully vaccinated was also required. This Policy was created based on scientific evidence and with the help of legal personnel. Moreover, by October of 2021, vaccines had already been readily available for multiple months. The first section of the Policy made reference to the Employers’ statutory obligation under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) to take “every precaution reasonable in the circumstance” to provide a safe environment for employees and visitors, which includes against deadly viruses such as COVID-19.

Between October 26 and November 12, 2021, numerous communications were made by the employer to the employees which set out the expectations of the policy and relevant dates. The employer also shared various educational resources and information with the remaining unvaccinated employees.

As of December 31, 2021, those employees who chose not to receive the vaccine, and thus not to comply with the policy, were placed on unpaid leave.

The Arbitrators Decision: Two-Dose Vaccination Policy No Longer Reasonable

On June 17, 2022, Arbitrator Nairn held that the two-dose vaccination policy was no longer reasonable as the scientific evidence had evolved to the point where two doses of the vaccine no longer proved to effectively reduce the spread of the virus in its current state. The mutated version of COVID-19, known as the Omicron variant has resulted in a lesser degree of effectiveness at preventing infection and transmission. Its effectiveness also severely wanes after multiple weeks. Thus, requiring employees to be fully vaccinated was no longer considered reasonable. Moreover, the Arbitrator also stated that the Policy lacked a periodic review mechanism, which would allow for the Employer to change its policy based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence. For instance, as of December 2021, when the employees were first placed on unpaid leave, the Policy was still reasonable based on the characteristics of the virus, and how the Policy was still effective at reducing spread and providing a layer of security. Arbitrator Nairn notes that having a mechanism in place for reviewing the Policy’s merits based on the relevant scientific evidence, would have better positioned them to achieve the reasonable standard for their Policy.

While this is just one decision that states a two-dose vaccination policy is not reasonable, it is highly relevant due to the recency of the decision.

LINKS:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2022/2022canlii52913/2022canlii52913.html

Reinstatement or Compensation in Lieu

The presumptive remedy for unjust dismissal is reinstatement with back pay. When tackling the appropriate remedy to award, adjudicators begin with reinstatement with back pay. Depending on the facts of the case, returning the employee to the workplace is the option unless there are circumstances in which it will not be ideal for either the employee or the employer to continue their employment relationship. There are also situations where neither party wants to reunite in the workplace. As we’ll see from the following decision, the facts of the situation can result in an adjudicator deciding it is best to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement rather than requiring the employee to return to work.

Hussey v. Bell Mobility Inc.: The Facts

Ms. Hussey was an employee with Bell’s Virgin Mobile division beginning in September of 2010 where she was a sales representative in one of its Toronto locations. She was promoted twice in her time with Bell. Ms. Hussey was ultimately dismissed in June of 2017, shortly after her second promotion.

While employed with Bell, Ms. Hussey would often arrive late for her shifts and leave early. Due to this issue, Bell provided Ms. Hussey with her one and only written warning in November of 2016 – before she had received her first promotion to a managerial position. However, she maintained her lax approach to the company requirements even after her written warning. Nonetheless, she was still promoted again to her final role at Bell before ultimately being dismissed following staff complaints about her.

Adjudicator Decision to Award Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement

In 2020, the Federal Court held that Ms. Hussey was unjustly dismissed from her employment with Bell Mobility. However, adjudicator McNamee decided against reinstating the employee to her position with back pay. Instead, he awarded her compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

The adjudicator decided against reinstating her because Ms. Hussey showed a lack of remorse for her actions and felt it was highly probable she would repeat her bad behaviour. During her cross-examination, she continuously made excuses for her behavior, and in the view of the adjudicator, it was merely an attempt to avoid responsibility for her actions. Therefore, the adjudicator did not feel it would be beneficial to reinstate Ms. Hussey.

Once it was determined reinstatement was not appropriate, the next issue dealt with was damages in lieu of reinstatement. Ms. Hussey urged the Adjudicator to adopt the “fixed term approach” which means that the damages are calculated based on the assumption that the ‘dismissed employee would, if not for dismissal, have continued to work for the company from the date of their discharge to their expected retirement.’ This figure combined with a deduction for reasons such as the employee being dismissed again or leaving employment early for health reasons ultimately results in a range of 80-90%. However, he considered the fixed term approach too speculative and “at best an informed guess.” Yet, the Adjudicator did accept the basic premise of the fixed term approach that if an employee is reinstated, they would receive the benefit of the just cause protection under section 240 of the Canada Labour Code. This would then be factored into the damages calculation. As a result, she received 4 months of compensation for this protection as well as 8 months’ pay due to her length of service, salary and benefits at Bell.

Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal

When it was brought to the Federal Court for judicial review in 2020, the Court found no issue with the decision of the adjudicator. The Federal Court of Appeal also reviewed the case and concurred with the decision.

LINKS:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc795/2020fc795.html

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2022/2022fca95/2022fca95.html?autocompleteStr=Hussey%20v%20Bell%20Mobility%20(%202022%20FCA%2095)&autocompletePos=1#document