The court says she chose to resign, and that the company's vaccine policy was 'reasonable'
An employee who claimed she was "constructively dismissed" for being unvaccinated has lost her civil case against her employer. The employee, who was an accounting professional, refused to have the COVID-19 jabs despite her company implementing a mandatory vaccine policy (MVP).
The MVP accommodated workers who did not want to be vaccinated on either religious or medical grounds, the court heard, and these workers would be placed on unpaid leave of absence instead of being terminated.
The employee, as the court heard, said she refused the vaccine because of concerns over preparation and distribution. She also cited data about the jab's long-term efficacy and potential negative health implications.She proposed to her employer that she could work exclusively from home or in a hybrid arrangement, where she said she would willingly undergo rapid testing when reporting to the office.
Her employer, however, told her that there would be "no exceptions to the MVP." She was also given a news article that cited the safety of vaccines, but this did not convince her.
The employee was then placed on unpaid leave of absence starting December 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022, before the employer made it indefinite on January 25. The day after, the employee said she was resigning and "considered herself constructively dismissed." She later filed a notice of civil claim on the same day.
In its decision, the British Columbia Supreme Court sided with the employer, pointing out that its MVP was a "reasonable policy choice for employers."
"I accept that it is extraordinary for an employer to enact a workplace policy that impacts an employee's bodily integrity, but in the context of the extraordinary health challenges posed by the global COVID-19 pandemic, such policies are reasonable," it added. "They do not force an employee to be vaccinated. What they do force is a choice between getting vaccinated, and continuing to earn an income, or remaining unvaccinated, and losing their income."
The court added it was a "lawful response" given the uncertainty created by the pandemic and the information available to the company at the time.
"The MVP reflected the prevailing approach at the time," the court said. "It struck an appropriate balance between [the employer's] business interests, the rights of its employees to a safe work environment, its clients' interests, and the interests of the residents in the properties it services."
According to the court, while the employee was entitled to hold her beliefs about the vaccination, it does not entitle her to impact other employees or thousands of other residents in buildings to which the company provides services.
"The strength of her beliefs does not entitle her to take the position that an exception to the MVP should be made for her," the court added. "This is particularly so in light of her senior management position and the fact that she was the only employee [in the company] who refused to comply with the MVP."
The court also reiterated that it was the employee who chose to resign, and that she took the position that she has been constructively dismissed.
"She was not constructively dismissed from her position; she resigned. Any losses that she suffered from being put on unpaid leave were as a result of her personal choice not to follow [the employer's] reasonable MVP," the court said.
