Woods-Forde v The Bermuda Hospitals Board [2013] SC (Bda) 77 Civ
The Plaintiff worked at the hospital, and was the subject of a disciplinary investigation arising from an allegation concerning a personal dispute with a work colleague. The plaintiff denied the allegation and was later fired for gross misconduct both for the personal dispute itself and for lying about it.
She claimed for wrongful dismissal on the basis that her conduct was not gross misconduct such as to justify firing her. At trial it was conceded by the hospital that the actual allegation that had resulted in an investigation was not itself gross misconduct, and they relied only on the lying about the allegation.
Justice Hellman HELD that the denial was not gross misconduct (at [49]-[54]). The hospital's policies set out the type of dishonesty which it considered to be gross misconduct, which were essentially financial dishonesty.
He awarded her three months' salary in damages, which he said was equivalent to a suitable period to enable her to find another job ([62]-[65]), taking into account her poor health and the difficult labour market.
The plaintiff was also diabetic, so also claimed damages for the loss of her health insurance and having to finance her own overseas medical treatment. The judge agreed that these were damages that could be claimed, as when she entered into employment, the parties could have anticipated that wrongful dismissal would result in her losing the benefit of the health insurance [69]. He calculated the loss by looking at her medical expenditure over the year following her dismissal, and then pro-rating it to the three month period that he found was a reasonable notice [72].
The plaintiff also claimed damages for loss of reputation, as it is more difficult to find a job when you are fired in such circumstances. However, this would have involved the court choosing not to follow the House of Lords case of Addis. Justice Hellman acknowledged that Addis has been criticised but that it is not for him to depart from House of Lords authority at the Supreme Court level ([73]-[76].
Comment - it is surprising that the issue of loss of health insurance has not come up before on termination of employment. This judgment gives a helpful guide as to how such a loss might be calculated in suitable cases.
The Plaintiff worked at the hospital, and was the subject of a disciplinary investigation arising from an allegation concerning a personal dispute with a work colleague. The plaintiff denied the allegation and was later fired for gross misconduct both for the personal dispute itself and for lying about it.
She claimed for wrongful dismissal on the basis that her conduct was not gross misconduct such as to justify firing her. At trial it was conceded by the hospital that the actual allegation that had resulted in an investigation was not itself gross misconduct, and they relied only on the lying about the allegation.
Justice Hellman HELD that the denial was not gross misconduct (at [49]-[54]). The hospital's policies set out the type of dishonesty which it considered to be gross misconduct, which were essentially financial dishonesty.
He awarded her three months' salary in damages, which he said was equivalent to a suitable period to enable her to find another job ([62]-[65]), taking into account her poor health and the difficult labour market.
The plaintiff was also diabetic, so also claimed damages for the loss of her health insurance and having to finance her own overseas medical treatment. The judge agreed that these were damages that could be claimed, as when she entered into employment, the parties could have anticipated that wrongful dismissal would result in her losing the benefit of the health insurance [69]. He calculated the loss by looking at her medical expenditure over the year following her dismissal, and then pro-rating it to the three month period that he found was a reasonable notice [72].
The plaintiff also claimed damages for loss of reputation, as it is more difficult to find a job when you are fired in such circumstances. However, this would have involved the court choosing not to follow the House of Lords case of Addis. Justice Hellman acknowledged that Addis has been criticised but that it is not for him to depart from House of Lords authority at the Supreme Court level ([73]-[76].
Comment - it is surprising that the issue of loss of health insurance has not come up before on termination of employment. This judgment gives a helpful guide as to how such a loss might be calculated in suitable cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment