CALGARY, ALBERTA — A recent Canadian arbitrator ruled that Cargill Inc. would not have to pay about $20 million in damages for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the early months of 2020.

A report from the Calgary Herald said three deaths and 951 cases of COVID-19 were associated with Cargill’s High River beef processing plant. Over the last four years, the United Food and Commercial Workers Local (UFCW) No. 401 fought for the union members who died during this time period.

The three people who died were two employees, Hiep Bui and Benito Quesada, and the father of Cargill employees, Armando Sallegue.

In his decision, published in June, James Casey, the arbitrator in the case, wrote about the ever-changing nature of Canada’s and Cargill’s response to the pandemic in early 2020.

“Public health authorities, governments, employers and unions were all struggling with determining the best way to respond to this public health crisis, Casey wrote in his decision. “Advice from public health authorities and governments was rapidly changing and evolving sometimes on a daily basis.”

Casey went on to say that as arbitration started in April 2023, the efficacy of safety measures like masking, physical and social distancing, and isolation evolved in very significant ways and continues to evolve. 

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cargill and other food processors were named critical infrastructure in Canada and the US and ordered to remain operational. 

During this arbitration, the union sought damages and argued that Cargill did not provide a safe work environment. However, Casey stated in the arbitration that the company worked with the knowledge available from late February to April 2020.

“The conclusions that Cargill took appropriate action to protect the safety of employees during this period are based on what Cargill knew and should have known during the relevant time frame,” Casey wrote. “It is not appropriate to second-guess Cargill’s decision based on current scientific knowledge about COVID and current regulatory advice.”

The arbitrator’s decision can be read here.