Union's Decision to not Challenge the Vaccination Mandate from the Outset:
Investigating Who and How made the decision?
Union's position related to Mandatory Vaccination Policy
It appears the Union decision makers did not have time to validate the "evidence" from the subject matter experts themselves, but rather trusted the Government sources to make prepare the PIPSC's Statement (The Statement) supporting Mandatory Vaccination Policy (The Policy), which was published On 15 October 2021. This Statement was then used to deny support* for everyone who questioned the "reasonableness" the Policy, leaving many Union members without Union support for the grievances they wanted to file against the Policy.
It is time for the Union to update The Statement based on the actual political-interference-free evidence that has become available since when The Statement was published more than three years ago!
It is also time to provide full transparency and accountability for all Union's actions related to issuing The Statement and denying support* for the members who suffered from The Policy.
*The actual wording used by the Union EROs to deny support for the members who wanted to grieve in relationship to the Policy is "recommending against filing a grievance
How Union Employment Relationship Officers (ERO) justified their decisions to not support grievances challenging the "reasonableness of Mandates". One of the reason why I decided to get in Union matters.
Since Fall 2021, I have learned, through my professional and social networks, about the disturbing lack of support from the Union for workers whose fundamental human rights for religious expression, life security (bodily autonomy), equality before the law, have been heavily breached by the Employer when it imposed vaccination mandates.
Instead of supporting the members in their rightful desires to file grievances, Employment Relationship Officer (LRO) seemed to actively discourage them to do so . They justified their “do not recommend for the Institute to represent you” decision as being “not in line with the Institute's position” or (in case of religious exemption denial) because the Institute used the narrow definition of religion, which does not include multitude of spiritual practices that are not connected to churches or religious leaders.
The very fact that the Institute's position in support of mandates, which was published on 15 October 2021, has still not been updated - despite the new scientific data (e.g., no proof of stopping transmission for covid vaccine) and legal decision that showed these mandates were unreasonable (at minimum for employees who worked remotely, of which there were many in Public Service) is very unsettling. Thousands of members were traumatized by these mandates (many still have not recovered - either from vaccine damage or financial and psychological stress) by such “unreasonable” actions of the employer, and the Union does not appear to be willing to publicize and prioritize this issue. This issue is not even listed among the topics in its News & Issues page !
See also:
This issue has become yet another reason why I decided to get involved in Union matters, with all my data and networking skills - to speak up for all those vulnerable members, who suffered from Vaccine mandates, who could not speak for themselves, who have been discriminated and ostracized by their employer and who, on top all of that, were also denied support from the Union. If you one of those members, you can contact me directly. I will do my best to help you.