Anthony Girod v Swan Transit

In Anthony Girod v Swan Transit, the applicant, Mr Girod, a bus driver employed by Swan Transit, sought a declaration that his dismissal was unlawful and sought compensation for loss of income and damages for injury to his reputation. The dismissal arose from Mr Girod’s refusal to comply with the Western Australian Government’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate for public transport workers, which required Mr Girod to be vaccinated with a first dose by 31 December 2021 and a second dose by 31 January 2022. Swan Transit considered Mr Girod’s occupation as a public transport bus driver fell under the definition of ‘transport worker’ in the Directions, and that he was required to comply with the mandate to continue employment. Mr Girod argued that the mandate was not lawful and refused to comply, resulting in his dismissal for repudiation of his employment contract. The court had to determine whether Swan Transit had a valid reason for dismissing Mr Girod, and if his dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

The court found that Swan Transit had a valid reason for dismissing Mr Girod based on his inability to meet the inherent requirements of his role as a public transport bus driver, which included complying with the COVID-19 vaccination mandate. The court held that the mandate was a lawful requirement under the Directions, and Swan Transit was required to comply with it to ensure the safety of its employees and the public. The court further found that Mr Girod’s refusal to comply with the mandate was a repudiation of his employment contract, and Swan Transit was entitled to terminate his employment as a result. The court also held that Mr Girod’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, as Swan Transit had followed a fair procedure in issuing the notice of termination and had considered the relevant matters under section 387 of the Act.

The court dismissed Mr Girod’s application and issued an order to that effect. The court held that Swan Transit had acted reasonably in dismissing Mr Girod for his refusal to comply with the COVID-19 vaccination mandate, and that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The court further held that Mr Girod’s arguments against the legality of the mandate were not persuasive, and that he was required to comply with the mandate as a condition of his employment. The court’s decision underscores the importance of following lawful directions and requirements in the workplace, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.