Headline: Australian court rules employers who mandated jab legally liable for injuries The mining industry and members of the ICMM were all gung ho on mandating vaccines. No regard was given for the experimental nature of the vaccines or the lack of trial data. Despite this the Health and Safety policies of all ICMM members is: Do No Harm. The Australian courts verdict, is a damming indictment on employers who followed the vicious mandates. Sadly the executives and boards could care less, if forced to pay it is shareholders money, not theirs. ESG and DEI have to go, and if the current crop of board members and executives wish to hold onto their communist ideologies, they have to go. ⭐️ A critical issue: the liability of employers for vaccination injuries https://lnkd.in/dHkxMJwW “In a landmark decision from Australia, the South Australian Employment Tribunal has set a precedent that may resonate globally, especially in Canada. This decision involves the Department of Child Protection (DCP), which has been ordered to compensate a youth worker, Daniel Shepherd, who developed pericarditis following a COVID booster shot mandated by his employer. This ruling, made on January 15, 2024, underscores a critical issue: the liability of employers for vaccination injuries when the vaccination is a condition of employment. This Tribunal is South Australia’s forum for resolving workplace-related disputes and issues. It is a statutory independent tribunal. ⭐️ Workplace safety and employee rights The implications of this case extend beyond Australia, raising important questions for Canadian employers. With the growing emphasis on workplace safety and employee rights, this decision could foreshadow changes in how vaccination mandates are approached in Canada. Employers may need to reconsider the implementation of such mandates, weighing the potential liability for injuries against the intended public health benefits. ⭐️ Tribunal’s ruling is a watershed moment, In conclusion, the South Australian Employment Tribunal’s ruling is a watershed moment, signalling a shift towards greater employer liability for vaccination injuries. For Canadian employers and legal professionals, this case offers a compelling example to reflect upon, potentially influencing future policies and legal frameworks concerning vaccination mandates in the workplace. As the landscape of employer liability evolves, this decision may be a sign of things to come in Canada, prompting a reassessment of the balance between public health objectives and individual rights within the context of employment.” Quote