Fair Work Commission Determines that any sacking threat due to vaccine mandate non-compliance is substantial unlawful pressure and AUTOMATICALLY PROHIBITS C-19 INJECTIONS.
https://www.justonefocus.org/breaking-news-c-19-injections-now-prohibited-new-ruling-by-fair-work-commission/
Join me on telegram
https://t.me/VAXXTERMINATION
Fair Work Commission Determines that any sacking threat due to vaccine mandate non-compliance is substantial unlawful pressure and AUTOMATICALLY PROHIBITS C-19 INJECTIONS. Download template below!
Any injecting practitioner when presented with the ruling must IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST AND REFUSE TO INJECT. The case has now been lodged with Federal Court of Australia against Jetstar, Virgin and Qantas. Download template below.
Further information…Hi there, is there a copy of the determination available? Will this set a precedent for all employers? Thanks.
REPLY
Glenn110, (https://rumble.com/user/Glenn110) 9 hours ago (https://rumble.com/v1keiml-c-19-injections-now-prohibited-by-global-law-.html#comment-149073211)
Page 13 paragraph 56 QUOTE: “Whilst the Direction did involve ‘SIGNIFICANT PRESSURE’ on the Applicant to become vaccinated” ENDQUOTE. The ‘significant pressure’ determination is key, because an Injecting Practitioner MUST by law screen and even if if any ‘undue’ pressure, coercion or manipulation to be injected is applied (such as a sacking threat) the injecting practitioner MUST refuse to inject by Immunisation Guideline Criterion 2 Federal law. https://www.fwc.gov.au/document-search/view/aHR0cHM6Ly9zYXNyY2RhdGFwcmRhdWVhYS5ibG9iLmNvcmUud2luZG93cy5uZXQvZGVjaXNpb25zLzIwMjIvMDgvVTIwMjI1NTQzRGVjaXNpb24yNTczMDgwN2JkMjhiMGY4LTU3N2UtNDk0Ni1iZTA3LTEzNzhjMGUyYzA1OTA5NDYxM2RiLThjMTEtNDU1MC04YzVmLTZkYjU0MzI5NjY1ZC5wZGY1/1/b1ed73e4-cc25-4073-9dbc-0f61a8bed47f/Annunziata%24%24Cinque%24%24Jetstar%24%24Airways%24%24Pty%24%24Ltd%24%24U2022%24%245543
The Commissioner’s remark about it not being unlawful pressure is immaterial, the ruling of FACT that it was ‘SIGNIFICANT PRESSURE’ automatically PROHIBITS the injecting practitioner injecting so the employer’s sacking threat itself AUTOMATICALLY PROHIBITED the injecting practitioner injecting and when an employer puts a barrier on its own directive; it is an unlawful directive and breach of employment contract.
You can sue the medico for criminal medical negligence, and assault and battery where they were obligated at law to screen and determine if you were there under any pressure, coercion and manipulation to be injected.
There ‘IS’ a law that applies to employers. It is the Federal Health Department Federal Immunisation Guidelines Criterion 2 https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/contents/vaccination-procedures/preparing-for-vaccination#criteria-for-valid-consent.
They ALL MUST screen and determine if anybody attends under ANY undue Pressure, coercion or manipulation to be Injected (such as a sacking threat). Because they did NOT screen you and determine this, it is medical negligence, and the employer knew or ought to have known this law exists. Ignorance of LAW is no defence. So the employer actually placed a barrier on its own directive to be injected which is an unlawful directive. Any barrier placed by the employer on its own directive, is an UNLAWFUL directive.
The Australian Immunisation Handbook (https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/contents/vaccination-procedures/preparing-for-vaccination)
THEY VOID THEIR PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE IF THEY INJECT. THEIR HOME, CAR, MORTGAGE AND ALL ASSETS ARE AT RISK.
posted by Weaver
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post