Originally Posted by
dr dre
The Sydney Trains case regarded backpay and leave entitlements for those who were stood down in accordance with the policy, it was ruling on the HR processes involved. Not the mandate itself and the Commssion made that clear in the case.
Legal cases in Australia arguing unfair dismissal and challenging mandates themselves have been
unsuccessful in
multiple industries.
If you read the full decision - This is what was said.
"I am not prepared, in the absence of appropriate evidence, to simply conclude that the Policy is reasonable and/or lawful or proportionate as a workplace health and safety response to the risks presented by COVID 19.
& This
"However, I also give significant weight to the fact that a vaccination policy such as that included in the Policy intrudes on one’s right to bodily integrity if it is complied with. The practical effect of the Policy is to place pressure on an employee to give up this fundamental right, given that non-compliance is accompanied by potential disciplinary consequences that include termination of employment. This weighs against the Policy being assessed as reasonable."
Also the recent teacher one.
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...accine-mandate