Understated, maybe we are coming at the question from different angles. You are correct that the CHRT said that the VK decision was not "legal-precedent." The way I read that is that, because it is NOT legal precedent, or precedent-setting, future cases could NOT appeal to the VK decision as precedent-setting. IOW because the decision to order V&K reinstated was not precedent-setting, was a one-off, future litigants could not say, "You reinstated V&K so therefore, on the basis of Stare Decisis, legal precedent, you must order us to also be reinstated."
That's how I see it anyway.
Regards.