Comment
To clarify
Last week I wrote that Council was set to require municipal employees and contract staff to be fully vaccinated by November 15 unless exempted by a physician or nurse practitioner. Council approved the policy at its meeting on Tuesday.
I also wrote that the County policy would be “flexible” insomuch as it would accommodate those who weren’t vaccinated by then and didn’t have a medical exemption. I added this accommodation would include reassignment to jobs, places and tasks that put them at lower risk of spreading or acquiring the virus. This last bit wasn’t accurate. The County policy doesn’t do this. It is provincial rules that prescribe long-term care home COVID-19 immunization policy. Or at least it was.
Nursing homes, including H.J. MacFarland in Picton—a municipally operated facility— are governed by a Minister’s Directive that sets out policies regarding unvaccinated employees.
According to the report presented to Council, those policies included “Staff who are not fully vaccinated or able to be vaccinated are accommodated to the extent possible in safe zones within each long-term care facility.”
Such accommodation appears to have been omitted in the latest iteration of the Minister’s Directive.
That wasn’t, however, really the issue central to the column. And here, I confess, we must go deeper into the weeds.
My concern was that the Emergency Control Group appeared to be pulling up short regarding the tools it gave its CAO to ensure compliance. The report prescribed regular rapid antigen testing for unvaccinated staff—with or without medical exemption. The municipality would cover the cost for testing those with an exemption, but those who disregarded the policy would pay for their tests.
Many of the communities surveyed for the report indicated their policy was to educate, discipline and ultimately terminate the employment of folks who chose to defy the policy. This last bit wasn’t explicit.
According to the report that went before Council, the ECG balked at moving straight to corrective action:
“Another alternative to testing would be to move directly to progressive discipline and potentially dismissal should an employee not have a medical exemption and not be fully vaccinated. This approach would give more flexibility to the CAO to address the issue on a case by case basis, and would eliminate the costs and administration of testing. It was not recommended and seen as too punitive as it would exceed the provincial requirements currently in place for emergency services and long-term care.”
Rapid testing was presented as a substitute for disciplinary measures. Yet, the policy adopted by Council, did indeed give the CAO the ultimate sanction for those who would defy it.
“Employees who are non-compliant with this policy may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.”
It remains unclear, however, what set of circumstances will trigger Shire Hall management to conclude its flexibility has been stretched too far. Will it be years of testing? What is the mechanism that will invoke progressive disciplinary measures?
These, however, are internal management measures (headaches) and not the purview of this column.
The bottom line is this: municipal staff must be fully vaccinated by November 15. Those with a certified medical reason will be exempted but tested regularly at the municipality’s expense. Those who refuse to be vaccinated without a medical exemption must also be tested regularly—but at their cost. They may also be subject to progressive disciplinary measures up to and including dismissal.
The County staff person you encounter may or may not be vaccinated, but they will be tested regularly if not vaccinated.
I trust this is clear.
Comments (0)