About Margaret Hick's employment with AIG and
events that led to her termination and claims of bad faith practices by AIG Life Insurance
of Canada. |
|
(1) General information
(A) Commenced employment with AIG Life Insurance of Canada on October 30, 2000.
(B)
Prior to October 30th, 2000 Margaret was employed by Laurier Life for over 9 years. Her
supervisor at AIG, was her Supervisor at Laurier Life.
(C) June, 2001 Lichen Planus - symptoms began to appear at the same time Margaret was
working an extensive amount of overtime. Her supervisor and human resources were notified
of her condition and the medication that was involved. |
|
(2) June, 2001: First performance
appraisal
(A) Margaret was pleased with the comments and results.
(B) Letter from AIG on June 27,
2002 AIG makes reference to her performance as being satisfactory.
Reference Item: Letter June 27, 2002 |
|
(3) July 1, 2001: Letters of
appreciation to Margaret
Margaret has in her possession several memos thanking her for her efforts. |
|
| (4) February, 2002: (exact date unknown)
Staff meeting (A) It was relayed to Margaret and other members
of her department by Dolly, that overtime would be discontinued because of 9-11.
(B) Dolly also stated "that all employees would have to stay on their own time to get
their daily work completed. "Margaret did go in early and worked some of her lunch
hour.
(C) Margaret would not stay after hours, because she was too tired and exhausted. The
medication she was taking to control the "Lichen Planus." had severe side
effects. Her supervisors were aware of her condition but showed no compassion towards her
and bullied her because she was ill and would not stay late.
|
|
(5) June 7, 2002: E-mail
from Margaret's supervisor thanking her for her for a great job.
Margaret was rewarded for her efforts with a an extra 1/2 day off with pay.
Reference item: Copy of
e-mail |
|
(6) June 21, 2002: Impromptu meeting
threatening to fire Margaret
(From Margaret's notes)
Dolly shocked Margaret so much by her malicious, nasty manner, these items may be out of
sequence.
(A) Dolly stated "Serena wanted to fire her," the prior week but gave no reason.
(B) I was told that one of the two other employees that were let go earlier this year
are still unemployed.
(C) It was implied that other members of New Business had signed documents with Human
Resources to complete their work on their own time, if it is not completed within the
normal workday.
(D) She told me I put work off to be done the next day because I will not work late on my
own time to get it done.
(E) Dolly informed me that she was told by higher management that the mail-room should
have a supervisor, and she mentioned that the function could be given to an employee that
has only been with the Company for a short-time. In the same sentence she told me that the
mail-room was over staffed.
(F) I was told that I show no effort to get my work completed within the normal work
day regardless of volume.
(G) She told me that it is equal work for equal pay, my health condition did not
matter.
(H) Dolly told Margaret, she would give her the worst performance appraisal in company
history and that is all she would need to fire her. |
|
(7) June 24, 2002: Letter
to Mr. McCarthy (President of AIG Life of Canada,) hoping he would do something about the
bullying tactics of his supervisors.
Margaret knew how her Supervisor would react (other employees had warned her) after the
meeting of June 21, 2002. She did not want to quit her job or be fired. The letter was an
attempt to save her job. Based on facts and rumors about how other employees were
treated, she thought for sure, Dolly would set her up to be fired.
All AIG had to
do after Margaret gave them the letter, was honour her rights accorded by law.
Reference Item; Copy of letter |
|
(8) June 25, 2002: E-mail changing the date
and conditions of Margaret's performance appraisal.
These e-mails, reaffirmed Margaret's fear that she would be set-up and fired.
Reference
Items; Copy of
e-mail |
|
(9) June 27, 2002: Letter
from AIG to Margaret - Employment Warning Letter
With respect to employment law in Ontario, I understand, the warning letter and an
opportunity to improve are usually required in performance-related cases. The
warning ensures that the employer has communicated to the employee the required standards
of performance and the consequences of failing to meet those standards. Courts will
support dismissal of an employee for just cause where the employer has provided an
adequate warning and a reasonable opportunity for the employee to improve performance but,
that is not the case with Margaret. In fact, we can prove she was set-up. The
decision to threaten dismissal actions against Margaret and the implementation of that
decision have had, a devastating effect on her physically and mentally.
Items in
the letter are condonable, malevolent and fraudulent in their nature.
(A) Paragraph one acknowledges receipt of Margaret's letter (dated
24th, 2002)
No mention is made that they would honour rights accorded her by law.
(B) The second & fourth paragraphs of letter dated June 27th, 2002
are malicious and offensive in assuming Margaret is responsible for neglect or refusal to
fulfill duties of some contractual obligation. On Friday June 7th, 2002 Ms. Dolly Harrial
forwarded an e-mail to Margaret that praises Margaret for her contribution to a great job
of building a highly reputable department and a great Team and other confidence building
remarks.
(C) Paragraph 3 of letter dated June 27th, 2002 implies the conscious
doing of a wrong by Margaret. The paragraph contemplates a state of affirmatively
operating with a furtive design or ill mind when Margaret applied for the position.
It is implying that Margaret lied on her employment application. When in fact, Dolly
Harrilal telephoned Margaret while she was employed at Laurier Life Insurance (for over 9
years) a Company that is a competitor of AIG and stated she wanted to hire Margaret.
Margaret accepted the employment under the assurances from Ms. Harrilal that she would
have job security. Since Ms. Harrilal was herself a former employee of Laurier Life
and Margaret's supervisor, while she was employed by Laurier Life, Margaret trusted her
and accepted employment.
(D) Paragraph 5 of letter dated June 27th, 2002 suggests a conspiracy
involving constructive fraud designed to mislead or deceive others about Margaret's work
ethics and ability to perform her duties so they can terminate her employment.
This paragraph along with the e-mail dated Tuesday June 25th, 2002, reinforces
Margaret's fear that they would provide her with the worst performance appraisal in
company history and that is all they would need to fire her. (See meeting June 22, 2002)
(E) Paragraph 6 of letter dated June 27th, 2002 is a conscious doing of a
wrong because of the dishonest purpose to imply incompetence, regarding Margaret's ability
to perform her duties. To demand that Margaret sign this letter is discriminatory in
nature. Margaret is not the only employee in the mailroom. Therefore it is not her
responsibility to ensure that all employees in the mail-room perform their duties.
Reference Items; Letter |
|
|
|
Continued on page two click here |
|
|
|
