The Public Service Union (PSU) will pursue the vaccine mandate case before the London-based Privy Council, regardless of any decision the New Democratic Party (NDP) administration makes.
“… the matter proceeds. Irrespective of the government’s position, there are other aspects of the claim that need to be addressed so that this kind of matter doesn’t happen again,” Shirlan “Zita” Barnwell, one of the union’s lawyers in the case, said at a press conference in Kingstown.
“Remember, we had a judicial review coupled with a constitutional claim,” Barnwell said.
“So, outside of just the abandonment aspect of it, wherein the officers have been returned to work, there are other issues that need to be addressed. So, the matter proceeds.”
The PSU, St. Vincent and the Grenadines Teachers’ Union and the Police Welfare Association sponsored a lawsuit against the government after it fired hundreds of public sector workers in 2021 for failing to take a COVID-19 vaccine.
The High Court ruled in March 2023 that the government’s actions were illegal, but the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling in February 2025.
The public sector workers have been granted permission to appeal to the Privy Council, the nation’s highest court.
Even as the matter was moving through the court, the Unity Labour Party administration, which had implemented the mandate, had urged affected workers to reapply for their jobs, with all benefits intact.
However, some workers refused, saying that they did not abandon their jobs.
In the campaign for the Nov. 27 general election, the NDP had promised to reinstate the workers, and several of them have since returned to their jobs.
Barnwell noted that the legal team has conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council and has 90 days in which to file the record with the Privy Council.
“… we’re currently working on that to meet that deadline,” she told the media.
She said the legal team wants the Privy Council to rule on several matters, including whether the Public Service Commission acted independently or followed a directive of the minister.
The lawyer noted that the PSC is an independent constitutional body set up to be autonomous, separate and distinct from political interference.
“Its job is to hire, promote, appoint and transfer persons independent of any directive. So, one of the things that we have challenged that was overturned on appeal was that the Public Service Commission was acting on a direction of the minister.”
The legal team is also arguing that the government changed the meaning of abandonment.
Before the mandate, the law stated that a worker absent without leave for 10 consecutive days was deemed to have abandoned their job.
However, the legal team argues that the government expanded the definition to include any person who failed or refused to take the vaccine for 10 days.
This means that unvaccinated workers who attended work were deemed to be absent, and, after 10 days, were deemed to have abandoned their jobs.
“We also dealt with the issue of the fact that the prime minister was able to, under the COVID-19 Miscellaneous Act, I believe that the minister of security back then, which was the prime minister, was able to amend the act without going to Parliament, by including aspects that were not there under the Police Act … That can’t stand as well,” Barnwell said.
“That any type of amendment that you have to make to any legislation, save an exception of regulation that was of the act itself, the Police Act was done without going to Parliament.”
The lawyer said that while many people are just interested in the dismissal of the workers, there are other legal matters that the Privy Council should rule on.
Barnwell pointed out that the legal team was also challenging the manner in which the national emergency declaration was made under Section 17(7) of the Constitution, arguing that a proper declaration was not made, as the Parliament should have made the declaration.