Dr Richa Rastogi, psychiatrist. 38. Dr Rastogi reported that t | The Australia Project

Dr Richa Rastogi, psychiatrist.
38. Dr Rastogi reported that the respondent suffered from anaemia and other medical conditions and was fearful of having the COVID-19 vaccine because she believed it would compromise her underlying medical condition.
Dr Rastogi took the history that the Public Health Order made on 26 August 2021 mandating vaccination was issued suddenly and was followed by intense daily emails from the appellant (including from the respondent’s principal) coercing teachers to be vaccinated.
She noted that the emails required updates on the teachers’ vaccination status, set short time frames to comply with the mandate and made threats of not being allowed on site.

40. Dr Rastogi opined that the respondent was: “… a high functioning person who took pride in her job and her self-worth and self-esteem was enmeshed with her job.
She developed heightened anxiety with adjustment disorder following coercive emails doing [sic, during] COVID pandemic to receive vaccination with mandate enforced that she was concerned given her medical condition and uncertainty causing career threats and uncertainty.
She felt discriminated, ostracised and under duress to receive vaccination and stated that her integrity has been questioned.
She developed anxiety disorder with avoidance, social scrutiny, excessive fears and poor stress coping associated with coercion, feeling betrayed and ostracised and victimised at work due to a vaccine mandate.”

THE MEMBER’S REASONS
44. The Member observed that the respondent reported her injury on 19 October 2021 and that the appellant denied liability for the claim. He identified the issues raised by the appellant.

45. He noted that Dr Pull Woody:
(a) was unable to explain why no special leave provisions were made available to those who did not comply with the vaccination mandate, and suggested the question be directed to the appellant’s “People Group”;
(b) nominated other groups in the organisation that were responsible for disciplinary matters and industrial relations, nominating Mr Currie as the Executive Director in the disciplinary area who was the appropriate person to answer questions about the management of conduct;
(c) said that the appellant’s policy would apply to all teachers, and the only exemption was where the vaccine was contraindicated;
(d) said the extent of the disciplinary action was dependent upon the nature of the breach and the disciplinary breach would remain on the teacher’s record, and
(e) could not provide answers to numerous questions put to him because he was not the appropriate person to answer those questions.

I was blessed to be present during 'Dr' Pull Woody's awkward and simpering 'testimony'.
I'm still laughing!

52. The Member said that the cessation of the respondent’s employment on 8 November 2021 would appear to have been the culmination of the disciplinary action taken by the appellant.

54. The Member noted the respondent’s submission that the appellant failed to give consideration to:
(a) the respondent working remotely and still teaching students at school;
(b) redeploying teachers to other roles such as curriculum or policy development;
(c) the fact that the pandemic would not last indefinitely, so that suspension of employment, rather than cessation, was an option;
(d) given that the restrictions eased in December 2021, the long-term impact of a disciplinary issue recorded on a teacher’s record;
(e) the denial of special leave provisions for unvaccinated teachers, and
(f) the only alternative to vaccination was to provide a medical certification that the vaccine was contraindicated.

O-HO, so many ugly mistakes made by these criminals