A lady successfully sued her former employer for over $3,500 after being terminated unfairly while awaiting the availability of the Novavax vaccine.
Robyn Pskiet from Adelaide worked at the food wholesaler Nocelle Foods for over 16 years until she was terminated in January for refusing to receive the jab.
She informed her management that she was awaiting the Novavax vaccination. Only AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were available at the time.
Ms. Pskiet was the manager of quality assurance for Nocelle Foods, working in the Pookraka warehouse for nearly two decades.
She was terminated just eight days prior to the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s provisional approval of the Novavax vaccine in Australia, with the first doses administered one month later.
The Adelaide lady took her case to the Fair Work Commission, alleging that the food distributor’s vaccination policy was neither “fair nor legal” because the company never permitted the employee to work from home while she awaited access to her preferred vaccine.
Peter Hampton, the board’s commissioner, concurred that Ms. Pskiet’s firing was unjust, primarily due to the timing and manner in which the policy was applied to her.
His conclusions, which were made public in July, concluded that the policy itself was lawful and reasonable, but that the Adelaide lady could not have worked from home given her quality assurance job.
Ms. Pskiet stated that she was not “anti-vaccine” but rather “pro-choice” and desired to wait for the Novavax injection.
In his assessment, Mr. Hampton stated, “Although some aspects of her work could be accomplished from home, this was not a realistic or productive medium- or long-term option.”
Due to her position, he stated that the employee should have been accorded “due respect” and extended leave.
Mr. Hampton stated, “I also acknowledge that it would have been unreasonable to offer Ms. Pskiet a prolonged indefinite leave, given the nature of her post.”
‘However, the possibility of the Novavax vaccine was genuine at the time of Ms. Pskiet’s departure, and her firing had the consequence of eliminating her as a resource for the company.
Due to the date and associated application of the policy to Ms. Pskiet, I cannot be convinced that a valid basis existed at the time of her termination.
As a result of the verdict, Ms. Pskiet was granted $3,462 plus superannuation in compensation.
The Novavax injection employs the same protein-based technology as influenza vaccinations, which exposes the immune system to spike proteins from the virus.
Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccine utilizes mRNA — the building blocks of proteins — whereas Johnson and Johnson’s vaccine employs an adenovirus conveying DNA into a cell to induce it to produce virus components and elicit an immune response.
In phase three studies involving almost 15,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, the vaccine was found to be 96.4% effective against mild, moderate, and severe sickness caused by the original coronavirus strain.