Unions challenge mandatory vaccination policy in court

KINGSTOWN (CMC):

Three trade unions, including the St Vincent and the Grenadines’ Teachers Union (SVGTU), have gone to court challenging the government’s mandatory vaccination policy.

The attorneys said they have also filed the court challenge on behalf of the Public Service Union and the Police Welfare Association.

The government’s vaccination policy, which came into effect on December 3, has already resulted in more than 200 public-sector workers being terminated from their jobs after they refused to take the vaccines, which the Ralph Gonsalves administration said are necessary to curb the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic that has killed 77 people and infected 5,758 others since March last year.

“Today is a very important day, because today we filed a notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review of the actions which were taken by certain state authorities,” said Jomo Thomas, the lead counsel representing the unions.

“This application for judicial review is being brought against the minister of health, wellness and the environment, the Public Service Commission (PSC), the commissioner of police of St Vincent and Grenadines, and the attorney general of St Vincent and Grenadines,” Thomas told a news conference.

“We want to make clear as well, that this is a joint application; that while we are applying for judicial review, we are also alerting the court to the fact that we are bringing a constitutional motion, which says that all of the actions which the government has taken, including the declaration of the public health emergency, is unconstitutional, illegal and void, because the government did not follow the proper procedure in keeping with the declaration of an emergency,” Thomas said.

He said that the unions are also asking the court to review the decision of the minister of health, the PSC, and the commissioner of police to terminate the employment of at least seven workers, including two teachers, a customs officer, and two police officers.

UNREASONABLE DECISION

The lawyers said they will also argue that the decision of the minister of health, wellness and the environment was irrational and unreasonable, in so far as no reasonable decision-maker would force such a large number of public employees to take the vaccine in circumstances where (i) the efficacy of authorised vaccines has significantly declined; (2) where the long-term adverse effect of the vaccines are unknown and possibly dire; (3) the known adverse side effects of the vaccines are serious.

“Further, there is no rational connection between the temporary public health measure under the said SRO and treating an employee who refuses to take the vaccine as having abandoned his or her job and permanently terminated at the instance of the employee. The SRO is disproportionate in so far as less intrusive measures could have been taken to achieve the purpose for which the first respondent was given the power to make rules,” the application says.

The applicants intend to seek, among other thing, constitutional reliefs by asking the court to declare that Section 43b of Chapter 300 of the Public Health Act, insofar as it grants power to the minister of health to declare a public health emergency, is contrary to Section 17 of the constitution and is therefore null and void.

“The said SRO amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicants, contrary to Section 5 of the constitution. The said SRO also infringes the applicants’ right to protection from deprivation of property without compensation under Section 1 of the constitution.”