How do we find resolution to the Vaccine Mandate dispute?

The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has made its decision on an appeal by the Government of St

Vincent and the Grenadines against the March 13th, 2023 ruling by then High Court Judge, Justice Esco Henry that the government’s dismissal of a number of public sector workers, mainly teachers, for refusal to comply with a vaccine mandate during the Covid outbreak was a breach of natural justice, unlawful, unconstitutional, procedurally improper, and that the dismissed workers should be reinstated with full benefits.

The Appeal Court decided on a 2-1 majority in favour of the appellants in a ruling handed down on Tuesday of this week. The dissenting Judge, Justice Gerhard Wallbank, however, described the vaccine mandate as “draconian” in disagreeing with his fellow justices.

However, in the majority decision the other two Appeal Court Judges concluded that the mandate “did not violate natural justice” and overturned Justice Henry’s ruling.

Reactions to the ruling have been swift. Lawyers for the aggrieved parties said they were in consultation with external colleagues and the trend of opinion seemed to be in favour of continuing the legal battle by appealing to the British Privy Council, still the final Court of Appeal for some Caribbean countries, including St Vincent and the Grenadines. Indeed, the Dominican lawyer who represented the Public Sector Union opined that the arguments of the dissenting lawyer gives good grounds for the Privy Council appeal.

Prime Minister, Ralph Gonsalves, in comments to the media on the Appeal Court ruling, was very conciliatory.

He said that this was no time for “gloating” about an apparent victory and appealed to the affected public sector workers and their unions for reconciliation. He said that most of the workers affected by the mandate had accepted the Government’s offer of reinstatement with full benefits and urged those who have not yet done so, to take that route.

Perhaps it would be naive to expect the Appeal Court’s ruling to bring closure to the matter. Since the dispute, in addition to whatever principles were at stake, a lot of extraneous issues have coloured the matter. In addition, as tends to happen in small countries like ours, partisan politics has become intertwined, and now we are in election mode, the issue is bound to be seen as a trump card in the campaign to remove Dr Gonsalves and the governing ULP. It is unfortunate that in reacting to the Appeal Court’s ruling, some statements have ben made not favourable to the cause of justice. When we choose to go to Court on any matter, we do so in the belief that our cause is just. Resort to the Court means eventual acceptance of the decisions taken, right up to the highest body. So, whether we agree with the dismissed workers or not, they have a right to recourse up to the legal end. We cannot deny them that.

However, in the interest of peace and industrial relations, before we embark on further expenses to a foreign Court, can we not seek some form of local reconciliation? Where is the National Labour Congress, the Christian Council and even the Employers

Association in all this? Can they play a role and avoid the workers being torn apart by political forces and personal ambitions?