An end to vaccine mandates? Considerations for employers
On February 23rd, 2022, the Government of Nova Scotia announced that it will remove all public health restrictions by March 21, 2022, putting an end to approximately two years of mandatory restrictions. The decision is aligned with several other provinces that have announced similar timeframes for the removal of all restrictions, marking a new phase in the pandemic response strategy, characterized as “living with COVID”.
The announcements are cause for optimism that workplaces can start to return to pre-pandemic operations. However, the twists and turns of the pandemic have been difficult to predict with any certainty and unfortunately COVID-19 has not gone away. Employers must continue to implement workplace measures that comply with their Occupational Health and Safety (“OHS”) obligations to protect their employees and customers. Below we address some of the issues which employers are facing in this new phase of the pandemic and the impact on mandatory workplace vaccinations.
Does the removal of public health restrictions affect employers’ vaccine policies?
The removal of public health restrictions, including the vaccine passport system for discretionary activities, does not necessarily mean employers must discontinue their vaccine mandates. Many employers introduced mandatory vaccination policies against COVID-19 in light of their legal responsibility to identify potential workplace hazards and to take every reasonable precaution to protect the health and safety of employees in accordance with provincial OHS legislation. This requirement exists irrespective of public health restrictions. However, what is considered a reasonable precaution in the circumstances is directly related to the severity of the hazard and advice of the applicable public health authority. This means that as the risk and severity of COVID-19 increased, so did the justification for strict workplace measures like mandatory vaccination. Similarly, as we move toward “living with COVID”, existing safety measures may need to be updated, which may include the eventual removal of vaccine mandates or a more flexible policy which enables employers to pivot quickly if a new COVID-19 variant emerges.
Employers should consider the following factors when determining the risk posed by COVID-19 in their respective workplace, and the changes they will need to implement in relation to their safety protocols, including any vaccine mandate:
- What are the current public health requirements and recommendations in your province? Employers will have to meet the minimum requirements, but may also need to consider the recommendations and even decide to impose additional safety requirements, depending on their workplace. Provided it is reasonable, including in relation to the nature of the specific workplace, employers are not prohibited from imposing a safety standard that is higher than the public health requirements or recommendations.
- Do you employ or work closely with vulnerable populations, which would justify stricter safety measures?
- Do employees work in close proximity to each other, or with the public, which would justify stricter safety measures?
- What proportion of your work force is vaccinated (if the data is available)? A highly vaccinated workforce may justify less strict safety measures.
- Can you implement effective precautions other than mandatory vaccination?
Practical considerations
With the above context in mind, there are also some practical steps to consider while reviewing existing policies:
- Assessing the risk and appropriate precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in your workplace should be completed in accordance with existing OHS policies, through OHS committees or representative(s), as applicable, and with regard to applicable OHS legislation.
- Employers with employees on unpaid leaves or layoff (because of their refusal to comply with vaccination mandates) should consider if/when these employees could be recalled to the workplace, and if so, under what circumstances. Employers will have to consider whether alternative OHS measures, such as masking, distancing, and testing (if available), could be put in place.
- Employers should also consider implementing new and more dynamic policies to address pandemic risks going forward (e.g. perhaps modified to a “Pandemic Response” policy which can be invoked in the case of future outbreaks). Unionized employers may seek to negotiate terms within their unions, including in relation to vaccination.
Although government restrictions are being removed, the risk of COVID-19 infection in the workplace remains an OHS hazard. Employers should avoid wholesale removal of policies and instead take a measured and phased approach to easing their own restrictions in a manner that is consistent with their OHS obligations and reflects the circumstances of their respective workplaces and businesses.
We encourage employers to seek legal advice from our team as they navigate through the ever-changing COVID-19 landscape.
This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…
Read MoreJonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…
Read MorePeter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…
Read MoreBruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…
Read MorePerlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…
Read MoreJoe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3 the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…
Read More