Two Saskatchewan men have been vindicated after a labour arbitrator ruled their dismissal unjustified.

Employees of a Regina refinery was given the option of weekly testing in place of showing proof of vaccination; 570 of their employees opted to comply with vaccine mandates, and a further 50 accepted the alternative of regular testing, a compromise they believed to be the lesser of two evils. Only two men stood firm in their refusals.

Those employees, rightfully, saw the requirement for testing to be another form of invading their human rights. For that stance they were fired, despite their many years of exemplary employment.

This isn’t a unique situation across Canada, with thousands not even given the choice to test (which is not an acceptable alternative), being fired or placed on leave without pay for not providing proof of vaccination.

We’ve seen our courts and arbitrators in many areas of Canada demonstrate their allegiance with PHOs and government, ignoring basic human rights of individuals and a plethora of scientific evidence showing, without a doubt, that the unvaccinated created no increased threat to anyone in the workplace.

It is promising to hear the ruling of Saskatchewan Labour Arbitrator, Daniel Ish, acknowledge the error of this employer in his statement confirming the men “had a sincere personal objection to an invasion of their bodily integrity and protection of private health information” and “posed no health hazard to other employees.” Ish’s ruling is ultimately for both men to be reinstated, acknowledging that the employer did not have just cause for dismissal.

To this day, thousands across Canada have yet to be reinstated, remaining on leave or having been fired for wanting to protect their right to bodily autonomy.

With evidence clearly showing unvaccinated are not a threat (in fact, the exact opposite), the only explanation for this continued discrimination is one of discipline for non-compliance. It has become apparent that critical thinking is no longer a valued asset, and blind compliance holds greater value to employers, even in the face of obvious, gross misrepresentation of facts.