There has been very little progress on many vaccine mandate complaints in Victoria. 

The Victoria Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) says that a mere 15 per cent of the flurry of complaints against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination requirements are advancing. 

The commission says it is not the best place for resolution. 

Red Union, the driving force behind most of these complaints, now aims to test the waters in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) with a select few cases.

VEOHRC has been inundated with hundreds of complaints concerning employers enforcing vaccine mandates upon their workforce since the outbreak of COVID-19. 

However, only about 60 of these complaints are currently moving forward. 

VEOHRC asserts that a significant proportion of complaints did not qualify for dispute resolution due to various reasons.

The human rights body says it meticulously assessed each complaint, considering jurisdiction, the potential for resolution, and whether discrimination fell under Section 75 of the Equal Opportunity Act - a provision permitting discrimination under specific circumstances to comply with Victorian law.

“In many of the complaints we received related to vaccine mandates it appears this Section 75 provision may apply,” a VEOHRC spokesperson has told reporters.

“We believe the subject matter of the complaints would be more appropriately dealt with by VCAT's Human Rights List via hearing and determination.”

The vaccination mandates, introduced in October 2021 by Premier Daniel Andrews, sparked an uprising among workers who refused to get vaccinated. 

Seeking support, numerous dissidents sought refuge with the Red Union, which lodged a bulk of the complaints with VEOHRC. 

Red Union operates as a business with “industrial associations”, distinct from registered unions under the Fair Work Act.

Chris Dekker, senior industrial advocate at Red Union, said the group does not want to pass judgement on vaccine mandates' righteousness but rather to expose the plight of individuals who had legitimate concerns about vaccination but felt disregarded in a one-size-fits-all approach.