BC Supreme Court upholds compensation for unvaccinated Purolator employees

Workplace policies must adapt to changing circumstances, say lawyers

BY Ronald S. Minken and Tanya (Tejpreet) Sambi 27 Mar. 2025

The British Columbia Supreme Court has ruled against delivery company Purolator in a case challenging an arbitrator’s decision that required the company to compensate unvaccinated employees who were suspended or terminated due to the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The ruling underscores the evolving legal landscape surrounding workplace vaccination policies and employer obligations in a post-pandemic environment.

In September 2021, Purolator implemented a “safer workplaces policy,” mandating that all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19. Unvaccinated employees were initially placed on unpaid leave in January 2022, and those who did not attest to their vaccination status were terminated later that year.

The Teamsters union, representing affected employees, filed hundreds of grievances, arguing that the policy was no longer reasonable as scientific evidence on COVID-19 transmission evolved. In April 2023, Purolator ultimately dropped its vaccine mandate.

Vaccine mandate became unreasonable: arbitrator

In December 2023, labour arbitrator Nicholas Glass ruled that while Purolator’s vaccination policy was reasonable until June 30, 2022, it became unjustifiable thereafter, as scientific consensus indicated that two-dose vaccination alone no longer provided meaningful protection against infection.

The arbitrator ordered Purolator to compensate affected employees for lost wages between July 1, 2022, and their return to work in 2023.

Disagreeing with the arbitrator’s decision, Purolator challenged the ruling in BC Supreme Court, arguing that:

The arbitrator misinterpreted the law by weighing employees’ personal autonomy and bodily integrity into his decision.
The grievances were purely related to economic harm, and those considerations should not have factored into the ruling.

However, Justice Bradford Smith upheld the arbitrator’s decision, finding that the changing scientific landscape justified the ruling. The court emphasized that the arbitrator had properly assessed the balance of interests, and Purolator’s policy, while reasonable at the outset, became unreasonable after June 2022.

Evolving workplace policies

This case highlights critical considerations for employers regarding workplace policies, vaccination mandates, and legal risks:

Policies must adapt to evolving circumstances: What is reasonable at one point in time may not remain justifiable as scientific, legal, or societal factors evolve.
Employee rights and legal challenges: Workplace policies, especially those related to health and safety, must balance business needs with employee rights to avoid costly legal challenges.
Importance of clear and fair implementation: Employers implementing health and safety mandates should ensure that policies are consistently reviewed and justified with up-to-date evidence to mitigate risks of retroactive compensation claims.

As workplace policies continue to evolve, employers should remain proactive and revoke policies when appropriate to ensure compliance with labour laws and collective agreements. Consulting employment law experts can help mitigate risks and ensure that workplace policies align with the latest legal standards.

Ronald S. Minken is a senior lawyer and mediator at Minken Employment Lawyers, an employment law boutique in the Greater Toronto Area. Tejpreet (Tanya) Sambi is a lawyer at Minken Employment Lawyers.