And now we have:


https://www.westernstandard.news/news/australian-court-rules-employers-who-manda...





A South Australian court has ordered employers who mandated COVID-19 vaccines for their employees will be held legally liable for injuries caused by the jab.

The Employment Tribunal ordered compensation for SA government employee Daniel Shepherd, 44, who developed pericarditis after being mandated to have a third dose of the vaccine in February 2022, per ABC News.

The SA government mandated under the Emergency Management Act in January 2022 that certain workers were required to get a booster to keep their jobs.

Shepherd, former child and youth support worker with the Department for Child Protection (DCP), has been off work since March 2022, save for a two-month part-time period doing administrative work.

He made a claim for vaccine-related injury workers compensation, but was rejected — however the court ruled in his favour when he appealed. The Court of Appeal ruled he is entitled to workers compensation for the vaccine injury, including weekly income support and medical payments.

Despite DCP arguing it should be excluded from liability due to Shepherd’s injury being a result of the Emergency Management Act directive, Tribunal Judge Mark Calligeros ruled the vax mandate and DCP were "both significant contributing causes" of his injury.

"Mr Shepherd was required to have a third dose of the vaccine to continue performing duties and be paid," he said. "The vaccine mandate would not have applied to him had he not been employed by DCP and working in a healthcare setting.”

"The connection between employment and the injury is a strong one given I have found that Mr Shepherd would not have had a third dose of the vaccine if he had not been required to in order to continue working,” said Calligeros.

"It is not surprising that some people who receive a dose of COVID-19 vaccine will sustain injury as a result," said Calligeros. "The state required Mr. Shepherd to be vaccinated to continue working in a healthcare
setting, because it sought to protect and reduce the risk of infection to the public and general and those members of the public receiving healthcare services in particular.”

"It would be ironic and unjust if Mr Shepherd was denied financial and medical support by complying with the state's desire to preserve public health,” the judge added.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 10:03pm:


That’s just what was expected! All this nonsense at the time it’s voluntary etc yet necessary to stay employed. Why the employees are held responsible for any jab related injured is the Govt… whom enforced it to happen, are now passing the buck and pointing fingers at the employers??? When they were doing what was ruled at the time?

This proves, that in future, letting a pathetic government tell businesses what to medically do to their employees, is not to be trusted!

Bobby. wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 10:00pm:


Oh my goodness! 

No organisation has ever edited or updated their website before.

Is this a sign of the end times?