Purolator lost a legal challenge in B.C. Supreme Court to overturn a labour arbitrator’s decision to compensate unvaccinated employees placed on unpaid leave or terminated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The shipping company implemented its “safer workplaces policy” in September 2021, forcing employees who chose not to get the newly developed vaccine to leave work without pay or have their contracts suspended.
Purolator’s actions were met with hundreds of grievances filed with the Teamsters union, arguing that the company’s vaccination mandate wasn’t reasonable.
A labour arbitrator decided in favour of the employees in December 2023 and ordered Purolator to compensate them with lost wages and benefits. That decision was upheld in a decision released Monday by the B.C. Supreme Court.
“I find there was no procedural unfairness to Purolator,” read Justice Bradford Smith’s ruling.
“Purolator was aware of Local 31’s position as early as December 16, 2022. As of January 12, 2023, when the parties first raised the issue before the Arbitrator, expert witnesses were giving evidence, and Purolator had not called any witnesses other than its expert, Dr. Rebick,” it continued.
According to labour arbitrator Nicholas Glass, the vaccination policy had been reasonable until June 30, 2022, when it became evident that vaccination would not prevent the transmission of the virus.
“[The arbitrator] determined that the balancing of interests was not fixed in time, but something which could change as circumstances changed,” wrote Smith.
“He found that as of the end of June 2022, circumstances had indeed changed, such that the [vaccination policy], although reasonable when it was implemented, was no longer reasonable after that date.”
Purolator ultimately dropped its vaccine mandate entirely in April 2023.
Glass had ordered the shipping company to compensate employees for lost wages incurred over the period of July 1, 2022 to May 1, 2023 when they were allowed to return to work.
Purolator claimed that Glass had made an error in his ruling by favouring the individual autonomy and bodily integrity of its employees in his decision and that such grievances were based solely on economic harm.
However the Supreme Court upheld the arbitrator’s decision as reasonable, tossing out Purolators’s other arguments in the process of the court’s judicial review.
“The Arbitrator clearly proceeded on the basis that employees’ personal autonomy and bodily integrity interests were engaged, and it was reasonable for him to do so,” reads the decision.
“I find the Decision is transparent, intelligible and justified, and thus reasonable,” wrote Smith.
