OTTAWA (LifeSiteNews) – A provincial labor arbitrator from New Brunswick ruled that COVID workplace jab mandates were personally “devastating” but still lawful.
Blacklock’s Reporter noted that arbitrator Michel Doucet made the ruling from a case involving six utility workers from New Brunswick, who had strong beliefs concerning the safety of the COVID shots.
The workers were employed at Point Lepreau nuclear plant, which is operated by the New Brunswick Power Corporation, a public utility.
The workers were suspended from their jobs for five months for not revealing their jab status. They were not allowed to show proof of a negative COVID test.
Two of the six workers later resigned from their jobs.
Doucet ruled that he accepted the workers “were faced with a difficult choice” and that it was not his place to “question” the “beliefs” of the workers when it came to the COVID shots.
He also said that he understood the impact of jab mandates “may be long lasting and personally devastating.”
“To be deprived of an opportunity to work in the context of a personal decision about a medical procedure is a matter that properly commands careful consideration and respect,” Doucet wrote.
Doucet, however, noted that “balanced against this interest, there is the issue of the risk to the health of others.”
According to records, as noted by Blacklock’s Reporter, the workers’ union was in support of COVID jab workplace mandates.
New Brunswick, like all other provinces in Canada, enacted vaccine passports and other so-called public health mandates on its citizens.
Its vaccine mandate was put in place on October 6, 2021, and lifted on March 18, 2022.
The six workers had argued that there was no evidence COVID infection rates were rampant at the Point Lepreau nuclear plant and that the un-jabbed posed any risk to other workers.
Doucet even noted the employees’ reasons for not getting jabbed were “personal.”
However, ultimately, Doucet decided that while he agreed with “an individual employee’s rights, including the right to privacy, personal autonomy and bodily integrity,” New Brunswick Power Corporation had “no choice” but to enforce its jab mandate.
“These rights are not absolute and there are circumstances where the rights of the collective outweigh the rights of individuals,” Doucet wrote.
He claimed that the jab policy “helped diminish the risks associated with the potential for transmission.”
While Doucet’s ruling was not in favor of the jab-free, other provincial arbitrators have ruled in favor of workers who were faced with workplace COVID jab mandates.
Recently, the privacy commissioner for the Canadian province of Saskatchewan ruled in favor of the vaccine-free, saying that Saskatoon Public Library cannot mandate its employees show proof of COVID vaccination or a negative test as a condition of employment without a lawful order.
As for the COVID shots, evidence suggests they do carry negative health side effects, as government officials from the United States were forced to admit.
Indeed, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released COVID vaccine safety data that shows “highly concerning” proof of adverse effects stemming from the jabs.
However, Canadian federal and provincial governments continue to push the injections.