Dr. John Campbell, a popular English reporter, reported on a study from Cleveland, Ohio. The study, which has not been peer-reviewed, found that the more COVID-19 vaccines a person received, the more likely they were to get infected. This suggests that getting more vaccines may lower immunity. Another case discussed was the Harwood case, where a golf pro challenged a vaccine mandate. The decision referenced the Health and Safety at Work Act, but it was found that COVID-19 is not a workplace hazard. The club was advised incorrectly about the vaccine mandate, and the golf pro was ultimately dismissed.
This report was by Dr. John Campbell. He's pretty popular. He's that quite staid English reporter that gets more and more upset with the whole thing. He was one of the ones in the beginning that was all, you know, encouraging people to get Vaxxed and all that. Oh yes, I know the guy you mean. He's that younger guy, isn't he? No, no, he's not really. He's apparently been a specialist. Yeah, he has. He's been a specialist in training nurses for the last 30, 40 years or so.
So he knows a lot about the hands-on and what actually goes on in the hospitals. It's not theory. And he also does some great work out in Africa, looking after children in orphanages there and making sure that they can get some decent equipment, etc. It's really good. So anyway, he was reporting on something from Cleveland, Ohio. Hi Erica. And anyway, when I was going to bring it up again to check numbers, some notes that I'd taken of it.
And then he put one out about four hours ago now, I suppose, five hours ago, saying he was very sorry it was taken down. Had to take it down. So it's absolutely on point. Now, it's a study of 50 and I did manage to find it. And I will share it with you. But I'll give you the report of it, you know, the bits that he took out of it. Because, where is it gone? Adrian's incoming.
Oh gosh, I've got the wrong thing up. Adrian's incoming, that's good. I'm just looking to see where I can find it. It looks like it's taken. Oh no, here we go. Now, it's in the British Medical Journal by the look of things. Published out of Yale. Okay. Now, I'm going to, what do I do? I should put a share this, don't I? Okay, now I'll come back over here. Hang on two seconds. Here we go. I'll just change that so you can hear away.
Okay, so I, which one do I do? Show captions, share screen. Share screen. Which one is it now? Which one is it? It looks hard to see sometimes, eh? Just a moment. You can always backtrack and then. Yeah, yeah. Hang on. I'll just quickly have another, I'll take some of these things off so they're not in the way. Oh, darn. No, that's not it. I'll take those out of the way. Leave there. Now, let's see what we've got.
Yeah, this might be it. So, okay, hang on. I'll just try one more time and otherwise I'll just have to talk about it. You can always drop me the link, Liz. Yeah, if that's. Yeah, yeah. You want to copy and paste it or tell me what it is. That might be a better thing. Hang on a minute. Darn, now where's it gone? Now I'm on the wrong page again. This is useless. Okay, too many things. I am not a teacher.
I'll share the link to you when I've got it. Yeah, no worries. Okay. So, the numbers were, so it was a study of 50,000 people. 50,100, and when I got the link to it, I checked it. It's what's called pre-print. Apparently, that means, you know, you can't print it out. You can't print it out. You can't print it out. You can't print it out. You can't print it out. You can't print it out. You can't print it out.
It's what's called pre-print. Apparently, that means that it hasn't been peer reviewed yet. The method was employees of the Cleveland Clinic on the bivalent COVID-19 vaccination. Study size was 51,011 of working age Cleveland Clinic employees who were employed on the day that they rolled out the vaccine. Now, they apparently had two studies. They still go on in this about, oh, you know, it was great, 97% effectiveness or something, but they got it out of a study.
They got these studies out of the New England Journal of Medicine, which is where this study is coming out of, too, and what Dr. John was talking about yesterday was that when these things come out in the journals, the doctors don't usually look at the footnotes, what they called in the Pfizer study, what they called something data, supplementary data. So they really, yeah, the really, oh, no, hang on. I'm thinking about another study. No, no, this was in the study itself, okay? So what they were checking was what was the effectiveness of getting the vaccine in terms of reinfection, if you like.
Well, if you got one dose, you're 1.7% more likely to contract the C19 infection. If you got two doses, I've got 6.63, but that can't be right, because three doses was 3.01 times more likely. More than three doses, 3.8% I suppose, times, sorry, 3.8 times more likely to get it. So basically the outcome of it was the more vaccines you got, the more likely you were to get the infection, which, of course, points to the fact that you were more in danger the more vaccines you get, because it's bringing down your immunity, it's bringing down your immune system.
It's the fact that they've made them take it down, probably on the fact that it was a preprint, but it's going to have to come out and they're going to have to face it. Now, I think this is good news for our Section 23 push. We will get this study to everybody, and when we start to argue about, well, as unvaccinated people, we're not as likely to get the infection or to pass it on to anybody.
We've got our community fully intact. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, that's awesome. That sounds like a great study. Yeah, yeah, well, pretty exciting. The other one that I was actually starting to refer to, because I'd seen two studies this afternoon, someone sent me a video about, do you remember, I don't know how many of you watched or knew about the arguments that were going on for the Babywell case. And what, yeah. Yeah. Well, the blood people got pulled into that as well, New Zealand blood people.
And they were slagging off, because, of course, Sue Gray was running the case. They were slagging off the bona fides of this doctor called Dr. What's his name? Byram Brittle. Byram Brittle, and he's a Canadian, I believe. Anyway, they were giving him a good slagging off. Well, this video somebody sent me this afternoon was him talking about the Pfizer studies. And he said, to my attention, oh, I was just, recently I was just giving evidence in the New Zealand case.
And I recognised the name because they'd been giving them a hard time, the blood, not doctors, I suppose they were. I don't know what they were, the people who run the blood bank. Yeah. So, anyway, what he said was that he, this was out of the New England Journal of Medicine as well. The New England Journal of Medicine seems to be the one that everybody's publishing in. What he said, there was supplementary data of the Pfizer, of the Pfizer's data, there was supplementary data.
And in the supplementary data, it was, Pfizer was admitting that statistically there was no, there was no benefit to be derived in terms of hospitalisation or death, that, you know, they'd done a test. So there was no, so there was no benefit, you know. But what happened? They went to court. And, you know, I think it was the NZDSOS. Why wasn't that hammered? Because the judge seemed to believe there was some sort of benefit. Yeah, bizarre, isn't it? So weird.
Analysis. And, yeah, they had done a risk-benefit analysis. And Pfizer themselves, apparently in the supplementary data, had admitted, no, there wasn't any. And they used, what is it, absolute risk compared to relative risk? And they just screwed around with the figures? Yeah, which is quite complex. I don't really, I don't really understand it. But even in this, you know, these researchers seem to be able to write stuff down and not really understand the implications of it.
You know, they just do a whole lot of figures, et cetera. And they don't, you know, they don't seem to sort of put two and two together about, well, what does that mean? And why would people be taking a vaccination? Because they never looked at any risks, it appears. No, no. They were just sort of looking at it from the benefit, from the point of view of money, I'd say. Accidentally on purpose, yeah. Yeah, very, very strange.
So I'll make sure that I get a link across and maybe click up on the page or up on the union files. So that was that. The second thing I wanted to talk about was the Harwood case. Right. So I knew it would be better than first class. The Harwood case is the one that Erica has kindly brought to our attention. So the Harwood case is a golf pro teaching over at Whangamata Golf Club. I'm going to shut my door.
Yeah, sure. So anyway, this guy is teaching over there, and he had a really good argument with, let's see if I can get this. I've made some notes on a document. Where is it? Yeah. I'll put it up here. This one. Aha. Okay. Schedule. Then I made the chair go down. There we go. So the whole case was, I'll share it with you. I think that's the easiest way to do it. I'll just share it with you, Emma.
Is that okay? Yeah. And I'll start to talk to it, and then maybe you could put it up. Now it's going to take its time. So his argument was largely to do with, or was he under the schedule? Which was, it's basically, it's the first case that anybody but us has taken about whether you're under the schedule. It's a long thing. Hang on a minute. Yeah, that should do it. Okay. So what I've named the notes is, Schedule 3a applied in Harwood.
Now I'll come back to the screen and talk to you. He, put a long story short, he's a golf pro. They got all, they went full hog about the vaccine. You know, wanted to be on the bandwagon. The member actually, it's going to be funny if Wong the Tar goes back and appeals it, because the member sort of got a bit mixed up in the end, thinking that Mr. Oh gosh, where have we gone here? That Mr.
Harwood was actually covered by the order, because she talks about, no, I don't want to leave the meeting. I'll come back here. She talks about, can you see me okay? Yep. Yep. She talks about, oh, here we go. We've got it up. Lovely. We'll just cancel that. Okay. So she's on the right schedule. I don't mean to sound cheeky here, but she's on the right schedule. But remember a few weeks ago, I really went through this schedule.
Piece by piece. And I said, at first glance, I thought, oh, this only applies. You know, you can only go after the four weeks. And they've got to be, you know, you can only get the four weeks pay really, at least four weeks pay. If you are under the schedule. So I was thinking it wouldn't, because the schedule really was all about the people who were, the government, right? The government. And I thought, well, this is about making sure that there's a fair go for people under the schedule.
But then when I looked at it again, you remember there was two, I think it was 1B. It wasn't 1A, an employee who has a duty imposed. It was 1B, which is an employee whose employer has determined the employee must be vaccinated to carry out the work. So there's a difference, right? 1A is people under the schedule. B is people like Mr. Harwood, right? Can we move it up a little bit? Yep. Okay. So this is what was in the decision.
And then I started to make notes on it. So then for the purposes of 1B, okay, which is the one he's under, the employer must give the employee reasonable written notice specifying the date by which the employee must be vaccinated in order to carry out the work of the employee. So we go a bit up. And then I've made a note here. If the employee is unable to comply with the duty referred to in sub clause 1A or determination referred to.
So one is a duty, right? That's the people under the act, right? But she actually, the member, sort of goes off on a bit of a tangent about being under the act, which is great because even though this authority decision is about someone who wasn't under the act, we can now apply it to people who were under the act, right? Because she says, and I'll show it to you further down, she is referring to 1A. She is referring to what has to happen under 1A, okay? And he's actually on 1B, under 1B, okay? Their employer may terminate the employee's employment agreement by giving the employee the greater of.
So it applies to both 1A and 1B, right? Except, I'll show you as we go down anyway. So four weeks pay, except before giving a termination notice under sub clause 3, which was here, the employer must ensure that all other reasonable alternatives that would not lead to termination of the employee's employment agreement have been exhausted, okay? So that is applying whether you're under the schedule or whether you're not under the schedule, right? Now, I made some more notes here.
This is paragraph 12 of the decision. As a team leader, Mr. Harwood was included in the request. This was all about, you know, they had got together as a committee and they had, you know, done all of this other stuff, and a little bit further down, up, yep. Okay. Now, it was with reference to the club's consideration of a COVID-19 transmission policy, okay? So the consideration of COVID transmission policy is a private matter, okay, that a policy is a private matter to the business.
Now, you'll notice the difference between policy and what is statute, what is statutorily required. That difference was made in Yardley when, you know, I think the defense force and the police were being offered an olive branch when Cook said, you know, the actual order was ultraviolet rays or whatever he said, that they couldn't do it. But they could do it under the internal policy. So a transmission policy is an internal thing that the company can carry out.
However, they've got a lot of problems with company policies because usually there's something in the employment agreement that you can get them on. And you'll see this further on. And then she talks about the health and safety obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. That doesn't name the section. And the duties of employees under Section 45 of the Act. Okay, so if we go up a little bit further. Now, the duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and here's another thing.
We're getting the Health and Safety at Work Act discussed in the case, right? So it helps us a lot. And we'll be able to point to this case and say, look, no, it's vital. You can't discuss this matter and avoid the Health and Safety at Work Act, right? So what's the primary? She didn't put this in. I found this and put this in. So Section 36 is the primary duty of care. And this is on the duty of a PCBU.
A PCBU must ensure, as far as reasonably practical, the health and safety of workers who work for the PCBU while the workers are at work in the business or undertaking. Now, we know that there's no way in hell that it can ever be proven that anybody got COVID-19 in their workplace, right? So this is another indication that employers never had to take any notice of this at all because it is actually while they're at work in the business or undertaking, and it actually arises out of the nature of the work, right? That's their duty.
Nothing to do with public health emergencies, right? Workers and B is just the people who are sort of working somewhere else. They're not actually in the place, but they're under the orders, right? Now, she's also talking about the duties under Section 45 because this is what I think that the club mentioned, something about Section 45. So while at work, here we go again, a worker must, et cetera, and we can see it's to do with statutory duties under the Act or the regulations.
This Act, the 2015 Act, or the regulations made under this Act, okay, which are the 2016 regulations, and cooperate with any reasonable policy or procedure of the PCBU. You know, when you know, for example, that, you know, we have a right not to be injected against our will and that stuff is, and also Mr. Harwood apparently put forward a lot of stuff about the dangers of it, and that wasn't rebuffed by the member. We don't hear anything about what they actually put forward, but it would have probably been the same sort of stuff as Section 83 people are putting forward.
Okay, so those were the duties that, you know, they said applied. Of course they don't apply because the COVID-19 is not a workplace hazard. So, you know, you've got to stick with that. We were right all along. So this is further down the decision. Mr. Harwood confirmed in the letter that if he developed any COVID-19 symptoms, he would self-isolate and get tested, and if he tested positive, would isolate and get tested again before returning to work.
So he's taking care of his health outside of the workplace, and then if he comes to the workplace, you know, he'll, you know, if he gets any symptoms, he'll test, except he won't come to the workplace. Fair enough. Anyway, so they found out then. So what he did was he asked the club to revoke the vaccination request, and he set out a number of questions. Then an answer to that, so we'll get a bit further down on the judgment, and this is what the club sent back to him, that the government CVC mandate applied to any premises.
This was the CVC mandate. You remember we were talking about, so the CVC mandate is not the same as vaccination mandate, okay? A CVC mandate is if you want to keep people out of your workplace because you think for some reason that people who aren't vaccinated, out of your business because you think that you'll get more customers maybe, then you can use CVC rules, right, which are in the traffic light regulations or whatever they are, traffic light order, protection and data order, okay? If you don't want to use it, you just use non-CVC rules, okay? And they are described in that order as non-CVC rules, okay? So there's another video that we did about three weeks ago now, I guess, about the non-CVC rules, okay? So you can find out about them too.
So anyway, here's a bit of hysteria from the club. The government CVC mandate applied to any business which operates a food and beverage service from the 3rd of December. Remember that all came in on the 2nd of December, midnight on the 2nd of December. The requirements extend to the entire business premises. Because it is government mandated, individual role risks assessments are not required. And the advice the club has received is it cannot exclude any role from the mandate scope.
And if the club does not comply with the CVC requirements, it may be subject to financial penalty. And this is what I'm saying. We can see what sort of advice they were getting now, right, which was wrong. Yep. Which was wrong. And you can see how they get smacked further on down. She's very mild with them. She's very mild. She could have said a lot more. And then this is her remark. The last part of the letter said it had a potential impact on Mr.
Harwood, including if he remained unvaccinated through the 3rd of December, he could not perform his usual duties and responsibilities. He would be stood down on full pay from the date, and he could not re-enter the premises as an employee. If he came to play golf as a player, he would have to take – so basically he was trespassed, right? But he could come back as a player if he would take a COVID-19 test, as other unvaccinated players were required, in accordance with CVC regulations.
Well, actually, there's another load of crap, okay? Nobody was required to take COVID-19 tests in accordance with CVC regulations. All that was required was to have a CVC – if you were going to be one of those businesses that required, you know, CVC, COVID vaccine certificate, you weren't going to let people in by testing them at the door anyway, okay? So it wasn't required by that, so that was wrong. He would then receive four weeks' notice of dismissal, which would be superseded if he became vaccinated or received a vaccination.
The 13th of December letter is significant because the club updated Mr. Harwood with a change in the CVC mandate scope and its view of how it would impact on employment circumstances. Now, this is where they got themselves stripped up. Specifically, the letter stated that the club had received guidance and advice and now understood the mandate scope had been clarified from a blanket application to all operations, a part of which involved food and beverage service, such as operated by the club, to allow different COVID-19 procedures – and I think she's making the distinction here between a blanket application and different COVID-19 procedures to be applied to different operational areas.
She doesn't make it really clear in that, but I think that's the distinction she's making. The club's view was, notwithstanding the change in mandate scope, it would not alter its policy based on the survey of members and risk assessment it had undertaken. So basically, they had made an executive decision that because their other members were saying, oh, we don't want these unvaccinated people in the place, that they were going to go with their policy, but this is where it got them into trouble.
By a letter dated 14 December, Mr. Howard wrote to the club in a letter addressed to all the members of the management board expressing his disappointment at the board's decision to dismiss him, that the letter did not address the three proposals he had made. So he had made proposals, remember, about he'd say if he got any symptoms, he'd have a test, he'd say how many wouldn't, and he'd test again before he came back to the club.
So those were his proposals, I'd say. Because he was also saying, you know, I'm not covered by this. This doesn't apply to me. It's not in my contract. He made all of those sorts of things, but she doesn't talk about those. They always do this. They always go the easy way out, not to try and talk about anything if they don't want to talk about anything. They don't have to. Did not address the three proposals he had made in raising a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal.
The penultimate paragraph in the letter states, Finally, I wish to recall the fact that I categorically dispute the assertion made in that letter that in providing this notice and in good faith, we also looked at all possible options to be able to retain you in some other capacity. Now, this is the Schedule 3 subsection, subclause 4, 3A subclause 4. The relevant facts do not support this claim whatsoever, and it's my submission that a proper examination of the facts will clearly establish the actual, he calls it Section 4, it's actually Clause 4, will clearly establish the actual process that has occurred here, and this will constitute a breach of Section 4 of Schedule 3A.
She doesn't actually fix that, but that's right. Now, here was some of the discussion that she had on it. So, she's obviously then looking at Schedule 3A, because this is where she can rule. The parties agreed in the employment agreement that from time to time, the club may develop and implement policies for the effective and safe operation of the club and for the welfare and interests of the employees and visitors. Mr. Howard agreed to be bound by such policies.
Any such policies must be reasonable and lawful. Now, she doesn't develop it there, but then she says, in setting where new policies are introduced during the course of an employment relationship and where the new policy may cut across other statutory rights, discussion must occur prior to implementation. Now, remember, they were all talking about, oh, no, the order, the order. You know, we don't have to look at anything else. Now, this is the indication that the authority is going to go by the law.
It's cutting across statutory rights. It's rights under the Health and Safety at Work Act. It's rights under the BORA. He brought up BORA. It's right, you know, it's now we know it's Ed. She hasn't talked about the Health Act and nobody's talked about the Health Act yet. OK, so that's going to come in, too. But she then says, actually, and I haven't put in the whole judgment, but that'll go up, the whole decision. We'll put it up for you all to look at.
But I wanted you to sort of get a feel of how to read it. That any such policies must be reasonable and lawful, right? And what we're saying is that when you've got all of this law out there, you know, there was so much publicity about how it was a breach of BORA, and they still insisted on the lawfulness of it all. It was just shocking. But this is an indication we're getting there, OK? So then she asks the question, did the club fail to reconsider Mr.
Harwood's dismissal following the 13th December change in mandate scope, and or did the club exhaust all reasonable alternatives to termination Schedule 3A of the Act? OK, so how did they mess up? The club gave Mr. Harwood four weeks notice of his dismissal on 3 December 2021. The grounds of dismissal are that the club's employees are legally obliged to be vaccinated or obtain a medical exemption from vaccination as set out in the 30th of November letter. Well, in actual fact, that was always rubbish because they were never under the schedule, OK? So they were never legally obliged to be vaccinated.
How they caught these people in was this by setting up the vaccination certificate scheme. And then, of course, because all of the employers were in such a panic, they didn't look for ways to get themselves out of it. And I think that this case could be said to be the first case where they have got to understand that where there's statutory protections, they have to look at the order properly, right? And I guess it's a warning for law firms as well, because I know that this guy who was the lawyer in this case, he works for MBIE.
Not MBIE, he works for the EMA, the Employers and Manufacturers Association. And they were giving the same sort of crap advice to all of the people, all of the businesses, right? Some of the bigger businesses, I think they're sort of the smaller, medium business advisors, more than the corporates, really, because I saw a lot. But even in the corporates, you saw this sort of stuff. So probably it was all, you know, everybody got the same advice in there.
The HR hags, of course, never, you know, they love anything where they only have to tick the box and don't have to think. Okay. So the December, this is paragraph 38, the 3 December notice of dismissal relies on the club's understanding. Mr. Harwood was required under a duty imposed by or under the COVID Public Health Response Act 2020 to be vaccinated to carry out his work for 1A1 of the schedule. And this is where you can see that she doesn't make the distinction between 1A1 and 1B1.
I think it is 1B. Okay. He wasn't, actually. He wasn't. And this is what I mean is if the club decides it wants to appeal, it shouldn't. It shouldn't because, you know, someone's going to tell them sooner or later. Okay. The 3 December notice of dismissal relies on the club's understanding. Oh, I've got it. Was required. Okay. Next page. The 13 December letter stated the grounds of dismissal were that Mr. Harwood was an employee whose employer had determined he must be vaccinated to carry out work.
Well, that's a bit of a, sort of a, you know, a bit of a change of tune because first it says that, you know, they have a duty under the Act. Well, she's saying it, not sure which. And then she says it was that he was an employee whose employer had determined which is under B. The rules of dismissal changed because the club understood by then from a clarification of the rules applicable to hospitality that the vaccination mandate applied only to the hospitality and beverage service areas of its business.
And it relied on its vaccination policy implemented from 25th of November. For the reasons set out above, I found the club was able to implement a vaccination policy, which, of course, takes us back to policies. They can do what they want, but buyer beware, basically. Right. And actually, quite a few of the stuff that was coming out from CTU was saying, you know, if you're not under the COVID mandates, just be careful. Right. But they weren't, you know, clear enough, I'd say, with the bosses because they wanted it all to happen, you know.
So they put the bosses in the firing line, all the law firms, putting all of their clients. I hope they all get sued to hell. I hope the businesses sue them to hell. Clause 2 of Schedule 3A is the relevant provision applicable to such a scenario. Under Clause 2, the club was obliged to give Mr. Harwood reasonable notice of a specified date by which he was required to be vaccinated to carry out his work. Implicit in any reasonable notice is that it includes the grounds on which the notice is exercised.
And there's another insight by her that, you know, you've got to look at why you're doing something. You just don't tick the boxes and go ahead. You know, you've got to think about these things. Did Mr. Harwood receive reasonable notice of the Clause 2 specified date? He received two weeks notice of the date by which he was to be vaccinated, which alone, which alone may well have been reasonable given the preceding communications between the parties regarding such.
However, the flaw in the club's approach is that it collapsed the specified date notice into the dismissal notice. Right. Now, I say further down, you know, how many people got got letters like this because they were form letters. Right. They were. It was like predetermination. It was like, well, this is the way it's going to go. And this is the timetable. And we're giving you notice. Right. Now you see what happens. She says this was an incorrect approach because having satisfied itself, Mr.
Harwood could not fulfill the vaccination requirements by the specified date. The statutory scheme required them to turn its mind to exhausting all possible alternatives to dismissal before giving notice of termination. OK, so it's supposed to have all of these. So they were supposed to be looking right from the beginning of ways to keep their workforce employed. OK, they never did any of that. Then she says, if I'm wrong and the specified date notice and reasonable alternatives to dismissal consideration could be fulfilled concurrently, then on the evidence before the authority, the club is unable to satisfy me.
That is that high threshold. The club's initial consideration of redeployment was that it was not possible. In the night in the 25th November letter to Mr. Harwood, the club stated redeployment was an unlikely option, given its understanding at that time of the application of vaccination mandate. But it was open to discussion. So remember, this was exactly the sort of leaders you're all getting. As set out above, matters progressed and the club was unable to demonstrate it turned its mind further to alternatives to dismissal to request to the request.
I don't know what's going on me. This seems to be a bit of my. I've put this in in my grammar checkers. I'm not wrong for the authority member, unfortunately. Requested a high standard prior to assuring the notice of dismissal. Now, this is my comment here. In other words, search for other alternatives prior to giving notice. How many people got the letter that collapsed the one into the other? OK, so we're going to be able to use this and not just in people for people who.
We're not on the schedule, but the same conditions apply whether you are on the schedule or not, because that I envy people who have a duty and people which I believe the duty is. Is it supported by the by section 45 of the Health and Safety at Work Act anyway? The duty to keep yourself safe. Is keep yourself safe and work because of the nature of the work. That would be the only. I'd argue that would be the only piece of work that we're a bit of roses at risk in the workplace.
Yep. For these reasons, the club is unable to establish a safety plan. I'd argue that would be the only piece of work that we're a bit of roses at risk in the workplace. Yep. For these reasons, the club is unable to establish it has to start discharge the statutory requirements to give reasonable notice to the. Of the specified date for vaccination schedule. 3A clause 3 2 and ensured all other reasonable alternatives to dismissal had been exhausted.
Schedule a clause 3. Subclause 4 prior to dismissal. These failures render Mr. Howard's dismissal unjustified because the club is unable to demonstrate it as steps through the statutory requirements. This is what I'm saying. These arguments are all around statutory interpretation and statutory requirements and not just of the order itself. Because as she said, she has noted when it cuts across statutory rights. There has to be discussion. There was never any discussion of what the health and safety at work act meant.
Right. There was all this assumption that you could just tell employees do X and they'll do it. Okay. Even if it goes across. Yeah. If it goes across the rights. She says the unjustified action claim is folded into the unjustified dismissal. So that's another little point for us because we've got a quite a lot of unjustified action that goes on prior to the unjustified dismissal and sometimes even afterwards. You know. Okay. So. Yeah. It's a bit long winded, but I always rely on the fact that most of the people who watch this watch in their time when I've got to sit and rewind and have to think about things, etc, etc.
And thank you, though, everyone who's here because I hate talking to myself. And I always talk to Emma. It's much nicer to have a crowd. It's nice to have a bit of a crowd. Yeah. Yeah. It's like that. And it's quite good to have not too many people either because, you know, people can. We have time for questions in. Quick. A quick update is what Sarah could say. Once we get past the 90 day issue, the boss didn't exhaust all possibilities.
Yeah. Yeah. We're still fighting the 90 day issue. Yeah. You know, this is the first crack of the whip on the schedule 3A. And, you know, I think, you know, it's these hints are very subtle in the cases. But, you know, I think that once I think the probably the most important thing she sees in the cases. Once the if our statutory rights are cut across, we've got to talk about this stuff. Right. Just can't just tick a box.
And all of the all about the advice they were getting. Terrible, eh? Yeah. Terrible advice. Yeah. I'm thinking about one of the large employers out this way that sacked someone for not wearing a mask. And the way they went on about their policies. Holy moly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. They think that, you know, I mean, it was it was a strange situation because they were about slamming the workers. But they were like pussycats about, oh, yes, sir.
No, sir. Three bags full, sir, to the government. That doesn't own their businesses. No. You know, it was like kicking the dog. Wasn't it? You know, they were getting a kicking by the government. So, oh, OK, what's the next? What's the next weakest one down? The worker will kick them. Yeah. And the unions were in on it, of course. Oh, God. Yeah. Well, the unions regard themselves as some sort of government ally now. Mm hmm. Yeah.
Yeah. So I just wanted to ask Adrienne how is she getting on with the Section 23, which, of course, is our attack on the attack on the discrimination that's going on. What's happened? I've actually hung my boots up and sorting out crap in my garage. I haven't done anything. This holiday thing's a little bit catching. I've got boxes all over my lounge and I've got to get this stuff away from people before people come and visit.
But anyway, getting there, trying to sell some rubbish. Yeah. But no, I think I think having the SPCA, you know, when we had the Zoom and they replied and you put you guys put the video up, it was it was a real refreshing for me. It was really refreshing to see how because there was four people I sent it out to. I sent one to speak that night we were on Zoom. I did personnel resources. I did the SPCA and I can't remember who else I did.
I did someone. But and the only one that replied instantly and within a couple of days was the SPCA. Every ad they had up was like, are you COVID-19 vaccinated? Yes, no or rather not say. And then the next one was to get this role, you may be required to be COVID-19 to go forward. And they were the two things that were up in their medical. I mean, they asked a lot of things. I don't think they should be on any application form as well.
But this is what we're tackling. And they fixed it up, you know, prior for their template going forward. And I jumped on to an ad in Christchurch and it was still on that one. So I took a picture and rung Liz and said I had a reply and this is it. And how should we reply? And we went back because I kind of told them off when I went to bed and wake up in the morning.
So I thought, oh, gee, I'm glad I didn't send that. Telling them off. And then, you know, Liz said, no, they need to be told off. So we didn't see what I put, but kind of, you know, an extra paragraph, I suppose, we added into it again, repeating what we had done. And it put the ships up them. And they, you know, they worked all day because Liz said we will report you to the Human Rights Commissioner.
And another lady got it because the other lady was on holiday. And, you know, it just goes to show that, you know, just by stepping on their toes a bit and leaning forward so it hurts them to realise that they've done wrong, you know, it got that change. So maybe in the next week or so, I think if we go back to seek again and follow that up, because I think that'll be three weeks, will it? Or two weeks? No, it'd be around that three-week mark.
And so, you know, what's happening there. But getting back to steady refreshing, it's refreshing to know, and Liz has said through every Zoom, the law is on our side. We've just got to apply it and find where we put it and do it right. And by doing these templates and making it easy, like for someone like me, because I struggle with English a little bit and putting things together. I know what I want to say and my mouth goes off and then my brain's left behind sometimes.
But, you know, it makes it easy for anyone, is what I'm trying to say, to be able to do it because of the templates. And, you know, and I think by Liz, you know, in this union and Liz setting up templates for us to use on multiple things, you know, like this one's just with recruitment. And I said to Liz afterwards, and my brain's going off and the poor thing was at church. And he'd be saying, I think we should, saying that, you know, we should start sending letters also out to employers that made people get vaccinated.
They didn't want to, but they did get vaccinated to keep their jobs, you know, and unaware, like they don't want to do a personal agreement or anything. But, you know, these are companies that have violated the law and done what they want to do. I'm thinking they've done it right and they haven't. And by God, I want to send these letters to these, I won't even say the word I was about to say, you know, to sort of say to them, you can't do this.
You know, what you've done has breached the law. You've broken the Human Rights Act and these are the sections of what you've done. You've broken the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and 1956. These are the ones here that by what you've done, the state can't even do that. How do they get away with it? Well, that's their problem. You know, but I'm addressing this with you right now to say that you've done this to the point, even saying you are now being the PCBU responsible to let your employees know that dragged the chain in the last ones that didn't want to get it, but got it to keep their job, to let them know that you have breached the law.
And hey, look, you owe them an apology, maybe some sort of compensation and do the right thing. And just send them a letter by doing that. Number one, I want to send it to my husband's work, but it can't come from me. But to say, you know, and see if they follow through, if these people get contacted, you know, because, you know, I just got sent, you know, with this 801 and then the 201 or whatever it was with all these predictions of pandemics and crap happening.
And I've just seen one that's meant to be coming in 2000, October 21st, 2025. There's S-E-E-R-S, which is a polo-like virus that attacks the brain and respiratory system. Well, if we've got anything to go by, these signs are all there. And I said to Liz, I said, shit, that gives us just under two years to get this stuff out there to send it to employers. You know, there might be employers out there that don't even get touched in the next two years because no one's done anything about it.
We're a small group that's rising up from the swamp and putting the ships up people when they thought they were in their God-forgiven right to do what they did, and they haven't. So we've got two years, people, to get together and fill out these templates. And I'll work with Liz to get this one to send to companies that aren't, you know, anything about applying for a job. But just to say, do you realise how much you broke the law? I found something in my files that I put up again on my story page, I think.
Anyway, it's about, it's that company called BGR or something. They're in the South Island, as far as I know. And right at the very beginning, they said, we're not going to get, you know, this is breaching of BORA and everything. We're not going to do this to our employees. And, you know, we're willing to work with any other company who wants to do this. I don't know what sort of response they got, but I think, Adrian, that we should try and get in touch with them again and say, look, this is where we've got to.
We'd like to, we'd like to help. Oh, I forget, you know, sort of, so get even the ones who have been naughty, but they did it fairly innocently, apart from being a bit dumb. Yeah, I agree with that. You know, I think the big corporations like the supermarkets, etc., they did it because they want to get rid of employees. And they want a very docile workforce who will do anything to keep jobs. And then they can, you know, they can thrash them basically when they want to get rid of a lot of them and replace them with robots.
But, yeah, I think there are good companies out there that must now say, oh, dear, we're in trouble. And, you know, maybe, maybe they had the whole workforce vaccinated and maybe there is nobody who's going to take PGs against them. But they shouldn't be, you know, in fact, they shouldn't, they should know that they haven't got away with it. But, of course, we've got the, what's coming up, of course, is the judicial review of the whole act itself.
But, yeah, that's what I've got to do, work on that. The other thing was, was, was, was, what was it? Was something important at all? Sorry. What was it? Was it Section 23? Oh, it's gone out of date now. Well, thanks to everyone for sending in letters that they saw of jobs advertised, too, because I filed them into a little Section 23 folder. And in the new year, I'm going to reply to those companies. Now, there's a few that are advertised on Trade Me.
And Liz, is that something that you and I need to sit down and do a letter to them as well? But because Trade Me is so big and a lot were advertised on that and fully in it. And there's some that Trade Me might not know about because it then gets taken to their own personal website. Yeah, we'll work on Trade Me as the advertiser because that's a separate one. Well, it is. And I think, too, with the exception of my husband's work as a global company, like it's an international company and it goes to every country in the world, pretty much.
Well, I think at Little Old New Zealand, you know, we're the first to be tested on things because of our population size or the rest of the world, you know. And I think if we can set a precedent of one international company that is worldwide based for them to go, holy shit, we've mucked up here, you know, and we thought we were doing it right. And what makes it worse, say, are you guys Korean, Jeff? No, we're Japanese-Australian.
Japanese-Australian-New Zealand based, you know, like where they come from. But it's, no, I'm not just saying an international company to put it together and that can wake up. You know, that has a ripple effect. So if we can do something with something like that in New Zealand as well, imagine the ripple effect it has going to the next country and the next country. That's right. The other thing I remembered was the breathalyser. Okay. Now, you might recall back in, well, it was when the first Section 83 letters came out.
I'm going to reply to Lynette's comment in a minute to remind me. When the first Section 83 letters came out, the breathalyser and workplace atmospheric testing, it was pointed out to me by Tracy. A couple of months after that, I think it was, that she had seen an article in that child care centre down in the South Island was testing out a New Zealand breathalyser for the COVID-19. What? So I happened to find it in my files.
I happened to find the newspaper article she supplied me with. It was the Otago Daily Times or the Otago Times, Otago Daily Times, whatever it's called. Okay. So last night I wrote off to the journo and I wrote off to the company that said that they believed it would be ready for use in New Zealand soon. This was the 10th of October 2020. Right. And I said, the union is going to push this. We want to support you in getting to the company.
I said, we want to support you in this because a lot of people, we don't want any more lockdowns and we don't want any more workers kept away from their jobs. And we will see if we get a reply, whether he got paid a whole lot of money to shut up. The journo, I have said, we're going to push this and we'd like to talk to you about what happened next, basically. So no replies from those, but I mean, we're in that funny week.
We're at the end of that funny week between the two holidays. And so next week, everything should really kick into gear again. So we want to start talking about the breathalysers and the atmospheric testing again now, because this will put the chop on any vaccines. Okay. This will stop all of the, they can't. Yeah, that's it. Thank you. They can't. They can't actually justify if they've got people, if they make their workplaces. You know, they're checking the atmosphere and they're checking because they never did check the people who came in off the street.
They knew they wouldn't get away with that. Right. They would destroy their businesses completely. But they picked on the workers. Well, if the workers are breathalysed coming into work every morning. Right. They can't argue with that. So we're going to have a campaign on that. So that's the other thing. Now, Lynette said to me, Liz, you need to talk to Kelvin about that. He interviewed him a couple of years ago. I guess, Lynette, you're talking about the business that put their hand up and says we're not going to do any of this.
Would that be correct? I didn't know that Kelvin had interviewed him, but I'll get in touch with Kelvin. I've got the, of course, I've got the name of the company. Kelvin. OK. And then, yeah. Yeah. And Vicky, thank you, has put up the link for that newspaper article. Anybody else got something they were asking about in the section? Union file section. All that was in saying about where the template was. It's in the, on section 83 page and union Facebook pages and in the file section on the union's website.
Christchurch City Council are still promoting vaccination for staff. All right. OK. So, Vicky, you're going, you said you're keen to write to them. If you want help, just, you know, give info at email, Adrienne, if you want it checked. And I'll have a look at that. The AI is meaning a lot that has been broken. Like David Martin said, it's like swinging a baseball bat at lots of pitches. Eventually, one will be a home run. Yeah.
Yeah, well, we are certainly, Erica, we are certainly getting there. Oh, speaking of baseball pitches, I don't know if anybody saw that latest thing that has happened over in, what is it called? National Football League. That poor young man has collapsed and they want to make out that he had some sort of heart attack that's associated with baseball players, actually, where a baseball hits your straight in the chest. They don't have all of that padding that football players have on.
Anyway, there was a good, there was a good video by Dr McCulloch about it. Yeah. Whoever can't see it by now, they're never going to see it. Yeah. So anybody else got any news for us? Where are you Liz? You look like you're under the sea. No, it does look a bit aquarium-like, doesn't it? With the water running out. No, no, I'm just in a Tuturangi Valley that is wet as hell. But I hear down the South Island it's a bit warmer.
Okay, that's cool. So that's about us for tonight, guys. Unless anybody's got any news for us or got a question that you're having to answer. No, it was about small homes. NFL, he's dead? Did he die? He did. Oh, hell. Wasn't there another one as well? I think there was another young fellow that died as well. Yeah. It might be this one. Yeah, I heard he, but Dr McCulloch was getting quite hot on it and saying, look, you've got to, you know, he was, this was a public entertainment.
You know, the NFL made a big thing about, yeah, you've got to get everybody vaccinated and everything. Now they've got public duty and no more of this privacy stuff. Yeah, because I've been, you know, all these young ones have died. It's like, oh, no, no, the family, you know, oh, the family. I don't know what families do, whether they're in shock or whatever. I think perhaps it's a lot to do with the fact that they've been encouraging the young ones.
Yeah. That one was promoting the jabs as well, wasn't he? Telling everybody they should get banned if they weren't going to get jabbed. I think, yeah, yeah. Yeah. No, it was about small homes. So, Lynette, are you saying that the interview was about small homes? Why would I get in touch with Kelvin about the small homes? We're getting a bit confused now. She says no. I said, because I said, well, was the interview about the company that was, you know, standing up and standing out? And she says no.
Was about small homes. Yep. We live in dog country. NFL. He's dead. Yep. Hot here. So, I've got all of the answers to my questions, except I'm confused about the small homes, Lynette. Yeah. What she said. Just the MSM bullshit. It's always red flagged. Yep. That's right, Lynette. And I think really says it's got to a point where they can't hide it much longer. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And the sooner that they just compact Kelvin. That's a good idea, Lynette.
You set me straight. Okay. We'll say goodnight then and see you all next week. Awesome. Thanks everyone for coming along and yeah, we'll see you next week. Cheers. Very good. Thanks, Liz. Oh, and by the way, we're going to have, we've got somebody who's doing some transcribing for people to, transcribing for people, doing some transcriptions of some of the Zooms. If I think, you know, there's something really important, I'll say, please, can you transcribe it? Sometimes it's easy to go back and you can take bits out of a transcription, whereas rather than going through a whole video.
Yep. That's fantastic. Yep. Okay. So, goodnight. Yep. Very good. Big peeps, everyone. Thanks, Liz. Thanks, guys. See you next week. Bye.
