NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The Court of Appeal has overturned an Industrial Tribunal ruling that awarded a bank employee, who was terminated for sending a work-related email to her personal account in order to work from home, $57,000.
Avis Munroe, named as the respondent, was employed with Itau Bank and Trust Bahamas Limited as a fiduciary billing officer from October 31, 2014, to November 4, 2016.
She sent the work-related email to her personal Yahoo email account on November 1, 2016.
The bank said the email contained confidential client information and amounted to a material breach of the bank’s policies.
But Munroe said that it did not and she had no ill intent, but rather, the email was sent so that she could work from home due to her “substantial workload”.
The email was flagged by the bank’s system and brought to the attention of management.
Munroe was advised that the bank’s staff would require access to her personal laptop at her home to delete the email and any other of the bank’s information.
A letter prepared to that effect said: “In order to avoid any adverse consequences of such action by countersigning this letter you consent to authorize employee(s) of Itau to accompany you to your residence…” and search her personal computer in her presence.
Munroe signed the letter consenting to the search.
While at her home, the email was found on her personal laptop and deleted.
She was notified of her termination on the same day due to her “material breach” of the bank’s policies and procedures.
In January 2021, the Tribunal determined that Munroe’s termination was not wrongful as it was satisfied that the bank was justified in its belief that Munroe committed the “impugned conduct”.
However, the Tribunal found that Munroe’s dismissal was unfair because the use of the words ‘in order to avoid any adverse consequences’ induced her to consent to the search and meant that “by so consenting adverse consequences, inclusive of termination, would not follow”.
The Tribunal awarded $57,949 in damages for unfair dismissal.
The bank appealed the decision.
Munroe also filed a notice seeking to uphold the decision and ask the appellate court to find that the dismissal was also wrongful.
The appellate court said there was nothing in the consent letter which could reasonably be interpreted as the bank having held out a promise or inducement to Munroe that she would not have been dismissed if she consented.
In the ruling, Court of Appeal Justice Jon Isaacs said the Tribunal’s finding of unfairness, based on such interpretation, is “unreasonable and illogical and cannot be sustained”.
“By sending the email containing the appellant’s client’s information over an unsecure platform the respondent (Munroe) put the information in jeopardy of being made public,” read the ruling.
“This constituted a breach of the terms contained in her employee handbook.
“In the circumstances, the Tribunal’s finding that the respondent’s dismissal was not wrongful cannot be faulted.
“The Tribunal’s finding that the respondent’s dismissal was unfair cannot be sustained as there was nothing in the consent letter, which could reasonably be interpreted as the appellant having held out to the respondent a promise or inducement that she would not have been dismissed if she consented to the search of her personal laptop.
“The finding of unfair dismissal on this basis is unreasonable.”
