It’s just a mouse click away. When staff send e-mails to each other, they don’t spend much time thinking about what they said and how they said it. It has given new meaning to instant communication, but new technology brings new problems. Take for example the court case of Owen O’Neil.
This actuary and former employee of consulting firm Towers Perrin was fired after sending out an emotional e-mail criticizing a colleague and the company. His superiors took it to be a letter of resignation, and even though he denied this claim, the company still fired him. O’Neil took Towers Perrin to court for wrongful dismissal and was awarded $446,000 in damages.
Justice Peter Jarvis said although the e-mail, “was somewhat florid and a bit over the top,” there was no reference made to leaving Towers Perrin. Jarvis also said O’Neil’s e-mail was understandable in the given circumstances and that “such inappropriate statements are the predictable result of technology which allows instant and unconditional responses.”
Marcia McDougall, editor of The Canadian Employer, agrees. She said the case reflects a growing awareness of the limitations of this new technology and the limitations of its users.
“What makes e-mail such an attractive tool is correspondence speed and that can be the downfall of those using it. Courts are attuned to the fact that users often send first and think later, as O’Neil did,” she said.
Jarvis said O’Neil was a loyal and hard-working employee who worked with Towers Perrin for a number of years, and could not afford to, and never had intended to resign.
O’Neil sent out the controversial e-mail after heated discussions with staff over office space. He and his colleague, Alnasir Samji, worked together as unit leaders, although they had problems with each other in the past. In this incident, one member of Samji’s staff didn’t agree with a decision made by O’Neil. Samji told O’Neil he would speak with this worker and later sent an e-mail relaying what had happened.
Samji wrote, “I was not able to convince Ian re the office move. Also, he’s not keen on losing his assistant (not that this was ever on the cards). So, I guess we have to implement Plan B. Sorry, folks. I tried. Tracy is OK with her move. Let me know if there’s anything else you’d like me to do. Thanks.”
Annoyed by Samji’s apparent indifference, O’Neil quickly sent out a response detailing his disgust with the situation. The following message was used in court as evidence of his alleged resignation:
“...I do not wish to be part of any organization that not only accepts, but encourages and rewards this type of selfish attitude...If our colleagues do not believe that we are trying to do our best for all of them, then we have no alternative but to step aside and choose new unit heads who have the appropriate level of support.”
Robert Ruppel, O’Neil’s superior caught hold of the back-and-forth e-mails and called O’Neil into a meeting to talk about the problem.
The following day, Ruppel sent an e-mail to O’Neil explaining that his e-mail to Samji was “out of line” and it was obvious that he would like to “exit the firm.”
“I told you that your perspective was wrong and that you had again caused problems between you and Alnasir. Of course, this makes functioning as unit leaders together problematic,” Ruppel wrote. “You refused to accept that you had misinterpreted the situation. You indicated that you are unprepared to work with unit leaders that in your view are not doing what you expect.”
He went on to say that options had been prepared for O’Neil and should be discussed before he left for vacation.
O’Neil responded back saying Ruppel’s “recollection of the events and the discussions... (were) somewhat selective,” and he said he disagreed with the interpretation. O’Neil took his vacation, without accepting any option. When he came back to work he was fired, and asked to leave immediately with compensation of $232,197.
Jarvis said he felt 12 months was an appropriate period of notice, but in determining O’Neils compensation for that period, Towers Perrin undervalued his compensation from bonuses and profit-sharing. Jarvis increased the pay-out to $446,000.
The 60-year-old actuary was out of work for approximately a year before he was hired by KPMG.
McDougall said the message for HR professionals and employers is to try and gauge the emotion behind e-mail messages.
“If you have any doubt as to whether the sender was thinking clearly before sending the e-mail, ask for an explanation before disciplining the worker.”
She said it remains to be seen whether employees will begin using this “emotional defence” to retract statements made to co-workers by e-mail.
