Canada Post employees fight back against dehumanizing vaccine policies

Tamara Ugolini
  |   March 06, 2024

Postal workers who were placed on leave without pay for non-compliance with workplace COVID-19 vaccine mandates are seeking remedy through the federal court.

The class-action lawsuit representing approximately 250 Canada Post employees was first filed in November 2022 by Leighton Grey of Grey Wowk Spencer LLP.

Uniting under a group titled Posties Hold The Line, the group is challenging the legal merits of Canada Post's requirements for employees to disclose their COVID-19 vaccine status, something Grey says was based on directives given by the Government of Canada.

Each plaintiff is seeking approximately $1.6 million in damages, according to the Canadian Independent, after failed arbitration attempts by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

Associate Judge Catherine Coughlan presided over a recent motion to strike, filed by Canada Post Corporation et al., on March 5 and 6. The Government of Canada sought to have the case dismissed entirely.

Christopher D. Pigott represented CPC and emphasized a lack of jurisdiction for the Federal Court to hear claims against Canada Post’s vaccination policy, citing it as more appropriate for the already arbitrated issues of employer grievances.

Both the Crown and Judge Coughlan referred to Canada Post’s vaccine policy as a “practice” that was reasonable and legitimate, as determined by Arbitrator Joliffe in April 2022.

Canada Post’s COVID-19 vaccine policy was announced at the end of October 2021 and required actively working employees to submit vaccination attestation a few weeks after that, by November 12.

“Employees who attest to being Unwilling to be Fully Vaccinated will be restricted from attending at work, including remotely, and placed on Leave Without Pay after November 26, 2021, or, if the employee is not Actively at Work when they provided such an attestation, on the expected date of return to work,” the practice document states.

The government attempted to defend its stance that the directive was not an order, but rather advice specific to the federally regulated transportation sector, which they stated Canada Post did not fall under.

Grey refuted that claim by referencing the mandatory vaccination document. It clearly states, “At the direction of the Government of Canada, Canada Post has prepared this COVID-19 Vaccination Practice that mirrors the Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration.”

Christine Williams, a 2021 bar-certified lawyer with Justice Canada, called the plaintiff's claims scandalous, frivolous (at best), and vexatious (at worst). Williams further emphasizes that arguments fail to draw a nexus between the “practice” and charter infringement claims.

Grey asks questions about informed consent and the court’s definition of compulsion. That is, whether compelling someone to take a pharmaceutical product with threats of financial devastation would qualify.

“Canada Post enforced a mandate at the directive of the Government of Canada forcing [employees] to disclose personal medical information and putting them out of work for noncompliance,” Grey states “with what equates to an experimental drug trial.”

He says that preventing the case from moving forward would be a “deprivation of justice” since the plaintiffs cannot obtain the remedy they are seeking through the Human Rights Commission or union grievances and arbitration.

Grey argues that the plaintiffs were forced to “participate in an experimental drug therapy that violated their ability to make an informed choice about whether or not to take the drug. The plaintiffs are human beings,” he furthered, “this is dehumanizing to them to be treated in this way.”

Grey asserts that the policy was initiated by government directives, that it violated collective agreements, infringed on bodily autonomy, and resulted in financial and other hardships that persist today.

One Canada Post employee who has since returned to work and does not want to compromise their employment status spoke to Rebel News anonymously detailing the continued financial burden of this “practice.”

“After being out of work for around seven months,” the once ousted employee explained, “we were called back in July 2022.”

"However, returning came with financial burdens, as we all owed money to the [Canada Post] Corporation. Health benefits payments were overdue, even though we did not have access to those benefits during the suspension, and pension payments were also in arrears. Personally, I am still paying off approximately $8,000 in fees."

This amount was higher depending on the closer one was to retirement, with some fees and arrears amounting closer to $20,000.

Will the court grapple with defining compulsion, the issue of informed consent, and bring justice to those who faced financial ruin to government imposed directives that involved a still-in-clinical trial novel modified RNA product?

Judge Coughlin reserved her decision but assured a swift turnaround time.

“For the record, we are not livestock!” shouted one person in the gallery at the end of the proceedings.

Tamara Ugolini

Senior Editor

Tamara Ugolini is an informed choice advocate turned journalist whose journey into motherhood sparked her passion for parental rights and the importance of true informed consent. She critically examines the shortcomings of "Big Policy" and its impact on individuals, while challenging mainstream narratives to empower others in their decision-making.

Featured Stories

COMMENTS

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.