Vincentian Workers Take Legal Battle to Privy Council After Vaccine Mandate Ruling

 

In a dramatic escalation of their fight for justice, Vincentian workers dismissed for refusing to take the controversial COVID-19 vaccine are preparing to take their case to the Privy Council. This decision was announced in late February 2025, in a joint press conference held by the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Teachers’ Union and the Public Service Union, just days after the Court of Appeal overturned a previous ruling by Justice Esco Henry. Henry had initially deemed the mandate unconstitutional, unlawful, and procedurally improper, offering a significant victory to the affected workers. However, the Court of Appeal’s reversal has reignited their determination to seek redress at the highest level.

The government, led by Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves, has refused to reinstate the dismissed employees. Instead, Gonsalves has urged them to reapply for their positions, promising to restore their benefits—but not their lost salaries dating back to December 2021. This stance, wrapped in rhetoric about “compassion and mercy,” has been met with skepticism, particularly given the government’s firm stance against reversing the terminations outright. Critics argue that the government’s approach mirrors a longstanding pattern of political maneuvering rather than genuine reconciliation.

A Divided Legal Opinion

A key factor bolstering the workers’ resolve is the dissenting opinion of Justice of Appeal Gerhart Wallbank, who found sufficient legal and factual grounds to dismiss the government’s appeal. In contrast, Justice of Appeal Eddy Ventose, in the majority ruling, upheld the mandate, drawing sharp criticism from legal minds across the region.

Among those weighing in on the legal battle is renowned Grenadian King’s Counsel Dr. Francis Alexis, who has called for the Privy Council to review the case. Speaking on the legal program Legal Eyes, Dr. Alexis took issue with Justice Ventose’s assertion that Regulation 31, which governs job abandonment, was automatically applicable. “There is nothing automatic about it,” he argued, suggesting that the ruling ignored fundamental principles of fairness and due process.

King’s Counsel Ruggles Ferguson also challenged the court’s application of the proportionality test—a legal principle used to determine whether government actions strike a fair balance between public interest and individual rights. While the majority acknowledged that the mandate served a legitimate aim, Ferguson contended that they failed to properly assess whether less intrusive alternatives existed. Among the rejected alternatives was the option for unvaccinated employees to work remotely, a proposal that many argue required no expert testimony to validate its practicality.

Justice Wallbank’s Powerful Dissent

Justice Wallbank delivered a scathing critique of the ruling, calling the government’s measures “draconian” and lamenting the severe consequences imposed on dismissed workers. He argued that the terminations stripped employees of their livelihoods, financial stability, and social standing, a punishment disproportionate to any perceived public health risk.

“Constitutions exist for one purpose: to protect citizens from abuses of power,” he stated. “Governments cannot bypass constitutional safeguards simply by declaring a crisis. The gravity of a situation does not exempt the state from adhering to fundamental rights and legal protections.”

His words resonated with many, underscoring the broader implications of the case. If allowed to stand, the ruling could set a dangerous precedent, allowing governments to disregard constitutional constraints whenever it suits their objectives.

A Landmark Decision Awaits

Before the Privy Council can hear the case, the workers must first secure conditional leave to appeal—a crucial legal step. The decision could have far-reaching consequences, not just for the dismissed Vincentian workers but for employment rights across the Commonwealth.

In 2023, a landmark ruling by Justice Esco Henry had ordered the immediate reinstatement of affected workers, recognizing their termination as unconstitutional. She ruled that the government’s decision to deem them as having “resigned” without due process was unlawful and procedurally improper. The judgment also confirmed that the employees never legally ceased to hold their public service positions and remained entitled to full pay and benefits. However, the government’s appeal successfully overturned this victory, reigniting the legal battle.

Government to Appeal Yet Again

Despite the High Court’s initial ruling in favor of the workers, the government remains resolute in its defense of the mandate. Lead attorney for the state, Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan, confirmed that Prime Minister Gonsalves intends to appeal once more, arguing that higher courts must provide guidance on how governments should respond to public health crises.

During the pandemic, the Vincentian government dismissed over 300 public sector workers for failing to comply with the mandate. The current legal battle raises fundamental questions about the limits of government power, the protection of constitutional rights, and the balance between public health and individual freedoms.

As the workers take their fight to the Privy Council, all eyes will be on the UK-based tribunal to see whether justice will finally be served. The outcome will not only shape employment law in St. Vincent and the Grenadines but could also set a legal precedent for similar cases across the region.