Employer: ATAGI Made Me Do It!
How the Fair Work Commission Uses Faulty Reasoning to Defend Employers
The Fair Work Commission has ruled that ATAGI’s vaccine recommendations can be used by employers to make vaccine mandates. This is ironic since it is not the job of ATAGI to advise Australian employers on vaccine mandates.
According to the Australian Government:
“ATAGI’s role is to:
advise the Minister for Health and Aged Care on the medical administration of vaccines available in Australia, including those available through the National Immunisation Program (NIP)
provide advice to research organisations on current immunisation research and areas that need more research
provide industry sponsors with pre-submission advice for potential submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) on vaccine effectiveness and use in Australia. ATAGI advice must be sought prior to a sponsor making a submission to the PBAC (see parallel processing requirements for PBAC vaccine submissions and pre-submission advice for industry sponsors wishing to make a PBAC submission)
consult with relevant organisations to produce the Australian Immunisation Handbook
consult with relevant organisations in implementing immunisation policies, procedures and vaccine safety.” [1]
Nowhere one does it say that the function of ATAGI is to provide medical advice for Australian employers in developing and implementing vaccination policies.
Furthermore, under OHS state laws, employees are entitled to an individual risk assessment for all workplace policies. This basic worker’s right has been ignored by pro-mandate employers as they push a “one-size-fits-all” vaccine policy.
The Fair Work case has been reported as:
“Dismissal not unfair as reasonable for employer to rely on ATAGI advice in developing workplace policy
Jovcic and Anor v Coopers Brewery Limited [2022] FWC 1931 (Colman DP, 22 July 2022)
Two employees from South Australia were dismissed because they did not comply with the employer’s Covid-19 vaccination policy.
The employees argued that:
The policy did not serve its stated purpose because, while the employer relied on ATAGI advice in implementing the policy, ATAGI’s advice that vaccination reduced transmission of the virus was wrong and
It was unreasonable for them to be directed to be vaccinated because they objected to being vaccinated due to their Serbian Orthodox religious beliefs
The employees relied on evidence of an expert to support their argument. The Commission was not persuaded that ATAGI’s advice was wrong and concluded that it was reasonable for the employer to rely on ATAGI’s advice in developing and implementing its policy.
The employer had some immunocompromised workers and the Commission concluded that even if the vaccines only modestly reduced the risk to the lives of those workers, that would weigh in favour of a decision to implement the policy.
The Commission accepted that the employees had genuine religious grounds for not wanting to be vaccinated but did not consider it harsh, unjust or unreasonable of the employer to require them to comply with the policy or dismiss them when they refused to do so.
The Commission decided that there were two valid reasons for dismissal: the employees. Firstly that they failed to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction; and second, they were unable to perform the inherent requirements of their role because they were unvaccinated and therefore not able to enter the workplace.” [2]
The Fair Work Commission has made a severe error in its judgement because it assumed that vaccination would protect “immunocomprised workers”. Now this is like sacrificing fit Bill’s health to save supposedly save immunocompromised Tom’s life. However, if the vaccines worked for immunocompromised people, then this argument would be rubbish. Why would Tom need to be protected by Bill if the vaccine protected him? In fact, the TGA documents revealed that the Covid shots never have been tested on immunocompromised people, so there is no way ATAGI or the employer would know that the shots were effective in protecting immunocompromised people. There is also no evidence from the original vaccine approval trials that vaccinating a healthy person would protect an immunocompromised person around them who was also vaccinated.
Now the Fair Work Commission does not tell the public that ATAGI members may have conflicts of interest in their advice that may favour pharmaceutical companies.
Also, if the Fair Work Commission believes that everything ATAGI says is important then why has no employer put in their vaccine policy that ATAGI has accepted that 14 people have died from the Covid shots? Why has the Fair Work Commission not required employers to include this vital information in their vaccine mandates? After all, Fair Work Commissioners tend to argue that if you choose not to get vaccinated then you choose to be fired. Then does that not apply to those who choose to get vaccinated can also choose to risk dying like those 14 people who died from the Covid shots? How many employees would willingly choose the possibility of dying from a Covid injection?
How many employees have been informed in writing that accepting a direction to get vaccinated may lead to death as confirmed by the 14 cases of death that ATAGI accepts?
Does the Fair Work Commission tell the public that ATAGI has a very close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry?
According to a Government document on the role of ATAGI, ATAGI has a special meeting with vaccine makers once a year.
“Engagement with industry and stakeholders is critical for ensuring ATAGI has access to the most contemporary information regarding vaccines and also is able to consider the breadth of stakeholder views.
To this end, ATAGI will host a commercial-in-confidence Industry Day each year (expected in May), to enable engagement with pharmaceutical companies on the latest developments in vaccines and to enable horizon scanning and future planning.” [3]
It seems that the Fair Work Commission make up the rules for vaccination as they go, as there is no legal basis for claiming that ATAGI’s general vaccine recommendations is specific for any employee. There is also no legal basis for allowing ATAGI’s general vaccine recommendations to override the principle of informed consent for employees.
The “legality” of all the Fair Work rulings on vaccine mandates has assumed that the words of ATAGI are applicable to all employees. This is ridiculous!
Let’s put it this way. Say an employer orders its staff to eat a salad product that has reports that 14 people have died in the past two years from food poisoning. Two staff refuse to eat the salad and they get fired for not following a workplace direction. The employer argues that the product was approved by the supplier to be sold in the supermarket so it must be safe.
If the salad were a vaccine, then the Fair Work Commission would rule that it the employer was right to terminate the two staff, because salads are safe and effective.
Now this example is not so far-fetched as lettuce is being studied to create edible Covid vaccines according to the University of Ottawa. [4]
It does not sound so appetising:
“Two words: edible vaccines. They may seem like a pipe dream, but Department of Biology Professor Allyson MacLean and undergraduate researcher Monique Power have accomplished the first steps in bringing an edible vaccine to life … using the humble lettuce!
With the help of an advanced technique known as agrobacterium-mediated transient transformation, the MacLean research team used a specific type of bacteria to transfer genes from bacteria to plants. Specifically, the team focused on the transfer of a gene sequence that corresponded to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, an antigen target upon which most vaccines are based.
The technique had already been optimised with inedible plants such as Nicotiana benthamiana (a close relative of the tobacco plant). Thanks to the pioneering efforts of Prof. MacLean and Ms. Power, this is now possible with edible plants. Before striking success with lettuce, Monique tested a variety of edible plants including arugula, Choho hybrid greens, collard greens, cucumber, pepper, radish, spinach and tomato. The desired viral protein expression was finally observed in lettuce, which was chosen as the most successful candidate for an edible vaccine.”
Now before the edible vaccines come to the market, we need accountability from the Fair Work Commission for their faulty reasonings on vaccine mandates that have destroyed so many lives!