The High Court has dismissed a former sales manager’s claims against Royal Liver Assurance over a disciplinary warning, a transfer between Dublin sales districts and alleged work-related stress.
In a judgment delivered on 21 October 2008, Ms Justice Laffoy ruled that the disciplinary process did not breach the employee’s contractual or constitutional rights. She also found that the transfer was not shown to be a penalty or to have caused financial loss, and that psychiatric or psychological injury was not reasonably foreseeable to the employer.
The employee had worked for the insurer since 1977. The dispute followed a complaint by his personal assistant about his conduct in July 1997. The company investigated and issued him a final written warning in September that year. The warning lapsed after 12 months, and a bonus payment withheld during the disciplinary period was restored.
The employee argued that he had been denied a fair process because he and his representative could not question the personal assistant. The judge found the investigation prompt and thorough enough in the circumstances. The accounts largely agreed on what had been said, with the main dispute concerning the employee’s tone and demeanour. The judge concluded that questioning the complainant was not necessary to avoid an unfair hearing or outcome. She noted that the manager had referred to earlier incidents, but said those matters were disclosed in advance and were not determinative.
The court also refused the employee’s request for a declaration that the disciplinary action was unlawful. By the time the case was heard, nearly ten years had passed and the warning had long expired. The judge said the declaration would not protect the employee’s rights in the circumstances, even if a breach had been established. She separately found that he had not proved the process unlawful.
During a business restructuring in 1998, the employee was moved from the Dublin South West district to Dublin West. The judge found that the personal assistant’s wish to return to her former role without working under him was one factor in the decision, alongside the wider reorganisation and other management considerations. She found no intention to punish him. The company offered income protection, which continued for six years, and other support.
The employee claimed that remaining in Dublin South West would have produced higher commission, affecting his earnings, redundancy payment and pension. The court found no evidence showing what the restructured district might have earned or that the transfer had reduced his income. The alleged losses therefore could not be quantified.
The employee also sought damages for stress. The judge found that the employer had no reason to know he was vulnerable to psychological injury; he had not informed it that he was receiving treatment for stress. The personal injury claim failed, and the court ordered that the entire claim be dismissed.