EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
UD390/14
Siobhan O'Higgins - claimant
Against
Liberty Insurance Limited - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. McGrath B.L.
Members: Mr. J. O'Neill
Mr J. Flannery
heard this claim at Dublin on 25th May 2015, 28th November 2016 and 16th February 2017
Representation:
Claimant: The claimant in person
Respondent: Mr. Tom Mallon BL, instructed by Mr Kevin Langford, Arthur Cox & Co, Solicitors, 41-45 St. Stephens Green, Dublin 2
Determination:
The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of three days of hearing – 25th May 2015, 28th November 2016 and 16th February 2017.
The claimant has brought a claim under the Unfair Dismissals legislation by way of Workplace Relations complaint form dated 7th March 2014. The dismissal herein is a constructive dismissal with the burden of proof necessarily shifting to the claimant to demonstrate that she tendered her resignation due to the conduct of the employer. In considering the evidence, the Tribunal must be shown that the claimant’s resignation was reasonable in all the circumstances.
The claimant tendered a short letter of resignation from her place of employment on 22nd January 2014. The claimant, it is noted, has a legal background and had been engaged by the respondent (and its predecessor) since 2008.
The claimant was a Claims Handler within the Professional Indemnity Department of the insurance company. It is well documented that the insurance business was going through serious upheaval in the years that the claimant was employed. Nowhere was this more evident than in this particular entity. The need to restructure and make redundancies was indicated in evidence. The claimant very much felt the burden of the extra workload that fell to her.
The claimant described a difficult working environment with bad tempers and blame allocation being a part of the everyday life. The claimant described a number of things which happened in 2013 which impacted negatively on her own sense of self-esteem. Somebody described her as “illegal” though what this meant was not explained.
The claimant’s own performance at work came under scrutiny. The claimant had never had such issues raised before 2013 and links the purported deterioration to the arrival into the workplace of FS who joined as a senior manager in mid-2013. The claimant’s line manager (AMcC), who was a Claims Process Manager, gave evidence that she was obliged to conduct regular reviews of all Claims Handlers who reported to her. She stated that there had been ongoing issues with things like failing to move reserves in line with developing information, failing to meet targets and payments being made without management oversight.. These were, it was believed, fundamentals of the job of the Claims Handlers. AMcC rejected the suggestion that the claimant was overburdened with too much work.
The Tribunal finds that there was a straining of the relationship between the claimant and AMcC and the Tribunal accepts that the claimant felt isolated and alone and somewhat persecuted in the workplace. However, the Tribunal must also find that the claimant’s discomfort did not manifest itself in such a way that the employer could be deemed to be on notice of her unhappiness. In fact it seems the claimant kept her head down and got on with her day to day employment.
It was against this backdrop that AMcC and FS found that there were some serious performance issues that needed to be addressed. The claimant was upset that her performance was being called into question and believed the attack was personal rather than professional. The evidence, on the other hand, does tend to show that there were some issues which management were entitled to seek to remedy and therefore this was an appropriate workplace intervention.
In January 2014 the claimant attended two meetings regarding her performance and whilst the claimant was offered support and training in connection with this it is clear that her preferred option was to be moved to some other area with a change in line-management.
The second meeting in January 2014 was on the 22nd. This was held with the HR Manager and ostensibly was to confirm the nature of the training that would be needed. It is accepted that the meeting confirmed that the claimant’s request to be moved would not be accommodated and that training would be provided.
There was also some unusual reference to kidnapping which was not fully explained to the Tribunal but presumably was something to do with a previous comment when the claimant, turning in late for work, was told that her “disappearance” had been put down to her being kidnapped.
The claimant was upset that the reference to kidnapping had come up in the course of the performance review meeting and within a couple of hours tendered her resignation which refers, it is noted, only to her disagreeing with management views on her performance.
There was some written and oral interaction over the next couple of days and it is possible that the claimant may have been able to reverse this dramatic step at this time had she so wished. She made no attempt to do so and it was some three to four weeks later before the claimant accepted that she may have over reacted in the initial instance. By this time however the employer moved on and had distributed the workload to other Claim Handlers and simply it seems, absorbed the workload.
On balance the Tribunal finds that the claimant has not established that she acted reasonably or that her employer’s conduct forced her hand in some way. In making this finding the Tribunal has to accept that the employer had some concerns over the claimant’s performance which needed to be addressed and the claimant never articulated or triggered a formal grievance procedure such that would put her employer on notice of the fact of the claimant’s unhappiness within the workplace.
The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)