A LEGAL assistant whose allegations of bullying and harassment by her employers were thrown out by the Employment Appeals Tribunal has failed in her attempt to appeal the decision in the Circuit Civil Court.
Carolyn Lambert, who had asked Judge Jacqueline Linnane to overturn the tribunal’s ruling, lost her appeal and was ordered to pay the legal costs of the three-day hearing.
She had sued her former employers, Matheson Ormsby Prentice solicitors, Sir John Rogerson’s Quay, Dublin, for compensation for alleged constructive dismissal.
Ms Lambert claimed that her refusal to fill in personal details on a Voluntary Health Insurance (VHI) questionnaire had triggered a negative reaction against her by her employers and office colleagues.
Judge Linnane found she had failed to discharge the onus of proof of constructive dismissal – that she had been forced into a situation of having no option but resigning.
Barrister Tom Mallon had told the court that Matheson Ormsby Prentice denied any instance of bullying or harassment or that complaints she had made about other staff had been ignored.
Ms Lambert, formerly of Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin, but who now works in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told the court she had joined the firm in 2002 and had a good working relationship up until December 2006.
She said that in 2006, she had declined to fill out a VHI flu vaccination form on the basis that any sensitive information on it might be shared with other insurance companies. She claimed this had sparked off a campaign of bullying by her colleagues including sneering and a whispering campaign.
Ms Lambert had told Judge Linnane she tendered her resignation only after obtaining what she described as a better job elsewhere. She agreed with the judge that she had taken up the new position with another company after having submitted her resignation to Matheson Ormsby Prentice in August 2008. She had not taken a case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal until February 2009.
She agreed she had failed to prove constructive dismissal against the firm in the tribunal and had also failed to convince it of any link between her attitude to the VHI questionnaire and the events that had followed her decision.