Veteran trade unionist, Assistant Secretary of the National Workers Union and Ciprianl Labour College Lecturer, Alva Allen, was asked the following questions: Can the employer unilaterally impose mandatory vaccination on a worker as a condition to continue his/her employment? In the alternate, can the employer impose a requirement of a negative PCR test on the said worker? This is his reply:

1. As far back as 1975, the then President of the Industrial Court HH J, Braithwaithe held in TD32/75 between OWTU and Texaco that “The employer on the other hand is not entitled to alter these terms and conditions of employment unilaterally but must do so by collective bargaining in good faith…” Therefore, where the employer unilaterally imposes the above mentioned terms as a condition to continue in employment, then such employer would have committed a repudiatory breach of contract for which the worker is entitled to seek relief.

2. Moreover, the employer has no automatic right in law to suspend the worker’s employment if he does not agree to the unilateral terms of the employer and to do so without pay.

3. Where the employer refuses to allow the worker to return to work for non acceptance of these new terms, such action constitutes a refusal by the employer to continue to employ the worker with a view to compelling the worker to accept his terms. Such lockout action is contrary to the provisions set out in the Industrial Relations Act and is therefore illegal.

4. Vaccination is invasive. It raises privacy rights issues akin to the requirement of a patient’s consent for an operation to be performed on his body. Therefore, a unilateral imposition of mandatory

vaccination can constitute a breach that goes to the root of the contract which raises the legitimate question of a constructive dismissal.

5. Some employers argue that they owe a duty of care to their workers and therefore seek to justify their mandatory imposition of vaccination. There are no legal provisions under Occupational Health and Safety Act that give any employer the right to unilaterally vary terms and conditions of employment.

6. It is indeed brutal that frontline workers last year were declared and hailed as national heroes when there was no vaccine. Now they are seen as unpatriotic and denied their right to work and to earn a livelihood.

7. If employers are so concerned about the well being of workers, then what steps are these employers taking to protect the wellbeing of the said workers from customers who can possibly transmit the virus? For example, do the banks say that customers must present their vaccination cards before entry? Do the utilities require their customers to present vaccination cards to enter the premises to pay their bills?

They have utilised the Guardian (which has always been a mouthpiece of the one percent) to demonise the trade union movement, its leaders and particular industrial court judges, including the President of the Court.

They have appealed judgements of the industrial court using high maintenance lawyers, knowing full well that in the overwhelming majority of cases they are not going to be successful.

But the idea is to drag out and delay matters and frustrate and weaken an already weak trade union movement and to ensure that long suffering workers do not enjoy the minimal remedy that may be available at the industrial court. They boast that they have deep pockets and can carry the workers for a run.