|
About Margaret Hicks' 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
(10)
June 28, 2002: Letter to AIG from
Margaret in reply to their letter of
June 27, 2002
Margaret needed
and wanted her job. She thought the
letter would be her last hope to
prevent her from being set-up and
fired.
Reference Item;
Letter |
|
(11)
July 5, 2002:
Letter
to Margaret from Marjory C. Mackay
Human Resources Manager, AIG Canada
The letter
threatens disciplinary action, up to
and including the termination of
Margaret's employment.
Reference Item;
Letter |
|
(12)
July 8, 2002:
Appointment with family physician -
for anxiety and high blood pressure
I attended this
meeting with Margaret & her doctor
at Margaret's request. The Doctor
gave Margaret a prescription for "Ativan
0.5mg sublingual. This medication
was used to reduce blood pressure
and anxiety. He also gave her a
letter that was forwarded to AIG
that Margaret would not be returning
to work until at least August 1st,
2002. |
|
(13)
July 8, 2002:
Letter to AIG (Margaret's supervisor
- Ms. Dolly Harrilal)
From Margaret's
doctor about her not being able to
work till at least August 1, 2002.
E-mail also sent and acknowledged.
|
|
(14)
July 15, 2002:
Appointment with dermatologist -
Lichen Planus severe - medication
not working
I attended the
meeting with Margaret and her
Dermatologist at Margaret's request.
He explained that he had done
everything physically possible to
help Margaret and in about 94% of
the cases his treatments and
medications are successful. However,
in Margaret's case he could not do
any more for her and suggested that
it is possible that her condition
could be caused by an emotional
occurrence and a psychiatrist may be
able to help with therapy and
medication. |
|
(15)
July 16, 2002:
Forms for short-term disability
benefits forwarded to TAS by
registered mail
All the forms
received from Tower Administrative
Company were filled out by
Margaret's doctor, with an unknown
date of return for work and mailed.
|
|
(16)
July 30, 2002:
Letter from TAS advising Margaret's
file was forwarded to Canada Life
Based on this
letter, we assumed that Canada Life
held the short-term policy and not
AIG. |
|
(17) July 31, 2002:
E-mail to Dolly Harrilal
with a copy to Serena informing AIG
because of the way Margaret was
being treated I was posting the
story on the website.
This
e-mail informed AIG because of the
"hardball tactics" being used
against Margaret I was fighting back
by posting the articles on my
website as I said I would in my
letter to them of June 28, 2002.
That day Scoreboard Canada's
web section devoted to Margaret's
story received 108 hits directly
from AIG.
|
|
(18)
August 02, 2002:
Received letters from Blaney
McMurtry (AIG's lawyers) over
articles posted by Ron Hicks on the
website and threatening to take
action against Scoreboard Canada
Inc. They C.C.
Margaret.
(A) The Letter
threatens legal action against
myself for posting articles on
Scoreboard and threatening that if
Margaret condoned this activity she
could possibly be dismissed for
cause.
(B) They also sent a letter to ID
Internet Direct Ltd, threatening
legal action against them, for
hosting Scoreboard Canada's website,
if they did not take Scoreboard
down.
(C) They state "We further note that
if your spouse, Margaret Hicks, is
involved or in any way condoning
this activity, then she is in breach
of her employment relationship. If
this action continues, she will
jeopardise her employment and
potentially be dismissed for cause." |
| |
|
|
|
