Drummond vs Health Shield Friendly
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 06 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | 00459/10IT |
| Court | Industrial Tribunal (NI) |
| Respondent | Health Shield Friendly |
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 459/10
CLAIMANT: Paul Drummond
RESPONDENT: Health Shield Friendly Society Limited
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr Ian Wimpress
Members: Mr John J McAuley
Mr Robert John Gunn
Appearances:
The claimant represented himself.
The respondent was represented by Mr B T McCluggage, Barrister-at-law, instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP.
Sources of Evidence
1. The tribunal received bundles of documents from both parties and heard oral evidence from the claimant, Mr Jonathan Burton, Mr Michael Carpenter and Mrs Maxine Wilson.
The Claim and the Response
2. In his claim form the claimant complained of unfair dismissal arising from the termination of his employment with the respondent. The claimant alleged that following his promotion to the role of Business Development Manager he was given unreasonable targets and was subjected to unfair criticism by his line manager at a Performance Development Review. He became ill due to stress and emailed his line manager and complained about the conduct of the Performance Development Review and corrupt practices within the organisation. Subsequently he asked the Human Resources Business Partner [Mrs Latham] to dismiss three executives on the basis that they had changed statistics in relation to the use of policies. The claimant’s company credit card was stopped and he was locked out of the system. The claimant considered that, during further email exchanges he was treated unfairly because he had disclosed corrupt practices. The claimant wrote to the Managing Director and indicated that he intended to resign because the situation had become intolerable. After the claimant was suspended for not attending a return to work meeting, he was the subject of a disciplinary process but was unable to access a friend to assist him because an email was circulated to staff instructing them to have no contact with him. The claimant raised a grievance and attended a meeting with Mrs Wilson [the respondent’s Finance Director] but did not receive an outcome of the grievance. He attempted to arrange a meeting with Mrs Wilson but it was cancelled at short notice. The claimant was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing and claimed that he did not receive the relevant documentation from the respondent and as a result he did not attend the disciplinary hearing. He was dismissed in his absence and he appealed against his dismissal. The claimant alleged that he provided a list of fifty questions which he wanted the appeal panel to address during the appeal but it refused to do so. The claimant also believed that the outcome of the disciplinary hearing had been predetermined on the basis of his subsequent discovery that his company pension was stopped before the initial disciplinary hearing was convened
3. It is apparent that these factual assertions gave rise to three heads of claim namely substantive unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal on the basis of a public interest disclosure and automatic unfair dismissal on the basis of a failure by the respondent to adhere to the relevant statutory dismissal procedure.
4. In its response the respondent provided a detailed factual rebuttal of the claimant's claim which it is not necessary to set out extensively at this juncture. The respondent admitted that the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct and contended that the dismissal was fair. In relation to the contentions set out in the claim form the respondent contended that the claimant put forward a convincing argument for appointing him Business Development Manager for Northern Ireland and that the Personal Development Review, while identifying areas where the claimant needed to improve, was supportive and positive. The claimant sent an email to his line manager alleging that he was coerced into the Business Development Manager role and alleging corruption on the part of the respondent. The claimant failed to substantiate the allegations of corruption that were said to form the basis for his instruction to dismiss three senior executives. In subsequent communications the claimant was abusive, insulting and threatening to the respondent's staff and as a result disciplinary proceedings were instigated against him. The claimant failed to attend his disciplinary hearing and was dismissed for gross misconduct. Following his dismissal, the respondent amended the claimant's pension details to show him as a leaver. The claimant appealed against his dismissal but refused to participate in the appeal unless he was first reinstated. The appeal panel refused to accede to this request and proceeded with the appeal. The appeal panel issued a detailed written decision in which it upheld the decision to dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct.
The Facts
5. The claimant commenced employment with the respondent on 26 June 2006 as a Development Officer. The respondent is an incorporated Friendly Society specialising in Health Cash Plan schemes for companies and individuals throughout the United Kingdom. It is a mutual organisation which is run for the benefit of its members. It is non profit making with surpluses being reinvested for the benefit of the membership. The respondent’s business is to provide health insurance in the form of a health cash plan to cover day to day health benefits such as visits to dentists, opticians and physiotherapists. It has an annual turnover of £20,000,000. It is mainly sold on a business to business basis. The organisation’s head office is in Crewe and has approximately one hundred employees. It had very little presence in Northern Ireland prior to 2006. The organisation is run by a board of directors and Mr Burton has been its Chief Executive Officer since 2001. Up until November 2009, the organisation did not have a dedicated Human Resources unit and the Human Resources function was undertaken by Mr Burton's personal assistant and Human Resources Business Partner, Mrs Rachel Latham. In November 2009, Mrs Tricia Goodchild was appointed as Human Resources Manager.
6. On 12 June 2008, the claimant sent an email to Barbara Tolly Brown and copied it to Mr Willets seeking a break down of Canyon Europe’s claims history for Sam Cooke of Canyon Europe as he wanted to put a case to his Managing Director to include the rest of the workforce in the scheme. As Mrs Tolly Brown was on holiday Mr Willets emailed Melanie Price, the Claims Manager, on the same date and asked her to provide the claims information to him. Ms Price replied to Mr Willets by email, copied to Mr McAndrew, on 16 June 2008 and stated as follows:
“Hi Dave
Don’t know how best to play this one.
Claims paid compared to the premium means that we are returning 39%.
Good for us (and its needed) but not particularly a good selling point to get everyone else on board.”
Mr Willets emailed Mr McAndrew on the same day advising him that Canyon were looking to add about 50 people to the scheme and asking if it was alright to provide the claims information. Mr McAndrew replied by email the next day as follows:
”I can’t see why we cannot improve these figures, but if you think that he will be happy with them then let him have them as they are.
It’s up to you.”
On 17 June 2008, Mr Willets emailed the claimant and provided him with the figures. He then made the following comment:
“I suggest that they slightly increase the figures to show better usage by the 49 members that we have.”
He then provided the inflated figures and asked the claimant what he thought. The claimant was understandably not happy with this suggestion and it would appear that as a result the inflated figures were not passed on to Canyon Europe.
7. Some restructuring and promotion took place in 2008/2009. On 21 August 2008 a congratulatory email was sent by Mr Woods, the Executive Director – Sales and Marketing, to four members of staff who were being promoted to their new positions with effect from 1 January 2009. Mr Willets was amongst those who were promoted. According to Mr Burton on...
To continue reading
Request your trial