Purolator loses court challenge after it fired unvaccinated employees | CBC News (2025)

Akshay Kulkarni · CBC News

· Posted: Feb 03, 2025 8:19 PM EST | Last Updated: February 4

Shipping giant Purolator has lost its B.C. Supreme Court challenge of an arbitrator'sdecision to compensate unvaccinated employees suspended or terminated by the company.

Purolator instituted a "safer workplaces policy" that mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for its employees on Sept. 15, 2021, amid the rapid spread of the deadly virus.

In January 2022, unvaccinated Purolator employees were either placed on an unpaid leave of absence or had their contracts suspended — prompting the Teamsters union to file hundreds of grievances, arguing the vaccination mandate wasn't reasonable.

Nearly two years later, in December 2023, a labour arbitrator found in the employees' favour and ordered Purolator to compensate them for lost wages and benefits.

The arbitrator found the vaccination policy was reasonable until June 30, 2022, a time when scientific evidence had shifted to show that vaccination alone wouldn't stop COVID-19 from spreading.

In a court challenge to that decision, Purolator argued the arbitration decision was not reasonable. But in a judgmentthat was made public on Monday, the B.C. Supreme Court found in the union and arbitrator's favour.

"[The arbitrator] determined that the balancing of interests was not fixed in time, but something which could change as circumstances changed," wrote Justice Bradford Smith.

"He found that as of the end of June 2022, circumstances had indeed changed, such that the [vaccination policy], although reasonable when it was implemented, was no longer reasonable after that date."

A Purolatorspokesperson said the company was disappointed by the decisionand was reviewing its next steps.

"Purolator is always committed to prioritizing the health and safety of our employees, customers and the communities we serve," the spokesperson said.

CBC News has contacted Teamsters Local Union No. 31 for its reaction.

Shifting scientific evidence

Purolator instituted its vaccination policy in September 2021, after a summer where public health officers had developed policies like vaccine passportsand mandates to encourage public uptake ofCOVID-19 shots.

That December, the highly transmissible Omicron variantbegan to circulate, and public health officers began recommending booster shots — as scientific evidence showed prior vaccinations or infections alone wouldn't provide full protection from infection.

The following month, unvaccinated Purolator employees began to be placed on unpaid leave due to the mandate. Later that year, in November 2022, employees who didn't attest to their vaccination status were also terminated.

The Teamsters union grieved the terminations, and on April 30, 2023, Purolator dropped the vaccine mandate entirely.

In his ruling on the union's grievances, labour arbitrator Nicholas Glass orderedPurolator to compensate employees for lost wages between July 1, 2022, and their first day of work after May 1, 2023.

Glass said that, by the late spring of 2022, there was "no longer any scientific uncertainty" that the two-dose vaccination alone provided insignificant protectionagainst infection from the rapidly spreading virus.

"He concluded that '[t]he precautionary principle no longer had any application with respect to protection against infection,'" according to the court decision, summarizing Glass's arbitration ruling.

Purolator argued the arbitrator made an error in weighing employees' personal autonomy and bodily integrity in making his decision.

The company said the grievances purely related to the economic harm and consequences suffered by its employees.

But the Supreme Court found that the arbitrator was reasonable in his assessment of the case, and many of Purolator's other arguments were thrown out for not being within the scope of the court'sjudicial review.

"The Arbitrator clearly proceeded on the basis that employees' personal autonomy and bodily integrity interests were engaged, and it was reasonable for him to do so," the decision reads.

CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices·