This is amazing. I would be really keen to see you do a post or similar about this. For people who don't know about law, what this website is, it's overwhelming. It would be a very important article about "where we, the people" stand with regards to the law. People need to understand how unsuccessful we have been in the courts and how ma…
This is amazing. I would be really keen to see you do a post or similar about this. For people who don't know about law, what this website is, it's overwhelming. It would be a very important article about "where we, the people" stand with regards to the law. People need to understand how unsuccessful we have been in the courts and how many people have been fighting. That we haven't just rolled over and given up but we have found no relief. Every one of these cases is someone who tried.
I do have a skeleton draft forming, but it takes a lot of time to summarise the arguments of each case (even if I can speed-read), then categorise each case into more generalised criteria, which are currently:
1. Upheld Cases
- All categories, the most common being "harsh, unjust and/or unreasonable" dismissal, or successful policy disputes on the grounds of "failed to consult" workforce prior to mandate policy implementation.
Two super interesting wins were the NSW Personal Injury Commission (NSWPIC) ones, where two teachers successfully sued NSW Dept of Education for psychological injury due to vax mandates:
[2022] NSWPIC 611 Dawking v Secretary (Department of Education) (3 November 2022)
a) Mandate policy was deemed 'lawful & reasonable'
b) Employer had valid reason(s) for dismissal of employee (usually failure to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction)
c) Time (applicant failed to submit to FWC within 28 days of dismissal)
d) Jurisdictional (mostly casual employees not being given shifts for refusing vax; they were never dismissed as casual employment consists of a DAILY employment contract - no rostered shift = no contract = NOT AN EMPLOYEE ?!?!)
3. Other
- Other cases not fitting the above criteria which mention COVID-19 vaccination and were of interest. One I found was a VACCINATED member of the Church of Ubuntu (???) who was unlawfully dismissed because that Church has a mandatory no-vaccinations policy.
[2022] FWC 2947 Chait v Church Of Ubuntu (7 November 2022)
This was a costs application by an employer for being forced to the FWC for a case which had 0 prospects of success, because it utilised a "legal template" (the so-called 'De Cline' template) argument which had already been dismissed by the FWC on multiple occasions (see paras. 33-40, especially 33 and 35). It was both funny and sad to see a "sovereign citizen" argument get totally owned.
The way to approach it would be in a table. Wins, losses, locations, key words (or whatever you fancy). Keep it simple and let people click through to the information they want. Rather than summarising the arguments for each case on it's own in a confusing mega list that rather replicates the website, find the common threads and bundle them together in the table.
*Real feedback because I want us to win: I even found your post above confusing. People are in information overload and need simple, clear information. No acronyms and cryptic language.
This is amazing. I would be really keen to see you do a post or similar about this. For people who don't know about law, what this website is, it's overwhelming. It would be a very important article about "where we, the people" stand with regards to the law. People need to understand how unsuccessful we have been in the courts and how many people have been fighting. That we haven't just rolled over and given up but we have found no relief. Every one of these cases is someone who tried.
I do have a skeleton draft forming, but it takes a lot of time to summarise the arguments of each case (even if I can speed-read), then categorise each case into more generalised criteria, which are currently:
1. Upheld Cases
- All categories, the most common being "harsh, unjust and/or unreasonable" dismissal, or successful policy disputes on the grounds of "failed to consult" workforce prior to mandate policy implementation.
Two super interesting wins were the NSW Personal Injury Commission (NSWPIC) ones, where two teachers successfully sued NSW Dept of Education for psychological injury due to vax mandates:
[2022] NSWPIC 611 Dawking v Secretary (Department of Education) (3 November 2022)
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2022/611.html?context=1;query=dawking;mask_path=au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC
[2023] NSWPIC 86 Uzunovska v Secretary, Department of Education (17 February 2023)
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2023/86.html?context=1;query=dawking;mask_path=au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC
2. Dismissed Cases
a) Mandate policy was deemed 'lawful & reasonable'
b) Employer had valid reason(s) for dismissal of employee (usually failure to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction)
c) Time (applicant failed to submit to FWC within 28 days of dismissal)
d) Jurisdictional (mostly casual employees not being given shifts for refusing vax; they were never dismissed as casual employment consists of a DAILY employment contract - no rostered shift = no contract = NOT AN EMPLOYEE ?!?!)
3. Other
- Other cases not fitting the above criteria which mention COVID-19 vaccination and were of interest. One I found was a VACCINATED member of the Church of Ubuntu (???) who was unlawfully dismissed because that Church has a mandatory no-vaccinations policy.
[2022] FWC 2947 Chait v Church Of Ubuntu (7 November 2022)
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FWC/2022/2947.html
Another interesting oddiity was
[2022] FWC 2597 Nigel Stock v Rocla Ltd (27 September 2022)
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FWC/2022/2597.html
This was a costs application by an employer for being forced to the FWC for a case which had 0 prospects of success, because it utilised a "legal template" (the so-called 'De Cline' template) argument which had already been dismissed by the FWC on multiple occasions (see paras. 33-40, especially 33 and 35). It was both funny and sad to see a "sovereign citizen" argument get totally owned.
The way to approach it would be in a table. Wins, losses, locations, key words (or whatever you fancy). Keep it simple and let people click through to the information they want. Rather than summarising the arguments for each case on it's own in a confusing mega list that rather replicates the website, find the common threads and bundle them together in the table.
*Real feedback because I want us to win: I even found your post above confusing. People are in information overload and need simple, clear information. No acronyms and cryptic language.
Cheers. I was merely following the data in the cases. Data collection is always messy though. Just ask Pfizer!
HA!