Famiily Rejects Zurich’s Vindication

Pierre WauthierInvestigations into workplace bullying rarely (if ever?) result in an indictment against the employer/company. Why? And what does it mean when a law firm gives the employer/company a clean bill of health?

Most recently, an investigation into the suicide of  Zurich Insurance Group Chief Financial Officer Pierre Wauthier, 53, who killed himself in the summer of 2013, found the company was blameless.  Wauthier left a note accusing company chairman Josef Ackermann of creating an unbearable work environment.

Zurich, an international insurance giant based in Switzerland, asked the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, known as Finma, to  direct an investigation into Wauthier’s suicide.  The investigation was conducted by a law firm that concluded Zurich’s leaders, including Ackermann, had placed no “undue pressure”  on Wauthier.  Ackermann resigned three days after Wauthier’s suicide, saying he believed Wauthier’s family wanted him to do so.

A couple of years ago, the University of Virginia conducted a high-profile investigation into the suicide  of Kevin Morrissey, the managing editor of The Virginia Quarterly Review, which found the university to be without fault.   This despite the fact that Morrissey had complained 17 times to the human resources office about his treatment by the Review’s editor Ted Genoways.

According to published news reports, Wauthier’s widow, Fabianne,  attended Zurich’s annual shareholder meeting earlier this month, along with her daughter and her late husband’s mother and brother, and publicly blamed months of internal tension at the company for her husband’s death.

She called the investigation  into Wauthier’s suicide “derelict” and “incomplete.” She held up her late husband’s laptop and said the investigators had not even bothered to review its contents.
“How can anyone, Finma included, so categorically exclude work from all the potential reasons,” she asked.

Why do investigations into workplace bullying so often yield conclusions that raise more questions than they answer?  If Wauthier had not felt his workplace environment was  intolerable, it is not likely he would have written that  it was intolerable  in his suicide note.  Kevin Morrissey’s repeated complaints to HR indicate that he, at least,  felt there was a serious problem.

As yet, there is no DNA test to ascertain when a supervisor’s treatment crosses the line into workplace abuse.  When law firms investigate workplace bullying, they often probe whether the bullying rose to the level of a “hostile workplace” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin and color.  This theory requires the plaintiff to show that he/she was subjected to  intimidation, ridicule and insult that was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions” of employment.

Federal courts  are themselves  hostile to “hostile workplace” claims, dismissing them at a disproportionately higher rate than other types of cases.  Federal judges typically  dismiss all but the  most egregious and obvious bullying, and require the rest to be tied to an obvious claim of prohibited discrimination under Title VII.

Workplace abuse is usually much more subtle than the schoolyard variety. And it exacts a potentially severe toll on the victim long before a federal judge would find it  violates Title VII’s “hostile workplace” provision (provided  there was a corresponding, valid claim of prohibited  discrimination).  Regardless of the so-called investigations that found the employers faultless, two men are dead and there is little real doubt that their workplace was a factor in their deaths.

Workplace bullying  can wreak severe havoc on the employer too. Wauthier’s suicide undermined investor confidence in Zurich and led to Ackermann’s resignation, leaving the company without a chief executive officer and a chief financial officer.  The University of Virginia found itself mired in a maelstrom of  bad publicity for many months that distracted its  leadership and besmirched its reputation.

Employers must be held accountable for workplace abuse long before a defense-side corporate law firm theorizes, after the fact,  that a federal judge might declare the abuse to be illegal if it was paired with a solid claim of  prohibited  discrimination under Title VII.  The employer controls all facets of the workplace. Only the employer can stop workplace bullying and abuse.

0 thoughts on “Famiily Rejects Zurich’s Vindication”

  1. I recently spoke to someone who was terminated from the same company that I worked for.
    He said he let go after giving the boss an evaluation on her performance.
    I was not going to keep my feelings about what she did to me a secret and told him to complain to hr.
    He said he did nothing wrong. I told him to complain anyway because she is a bully.
    He said employment is at will and he will not complain. So she gets away with her bullying.

    1. A lot of workers are afraid to complain and for good reason. Sometimes, though, if you don’t complain, the bullying will continue until the bully succeeds in getting you fired or until you can’t take it any longer and are forced to quit. A complaint may be what saves your job. Regardless of what your friend does, if a bully continues bullying someone will complain eventually.

  2. I have only just read this piece, although I am familiar with the suicide of Pierre Wauthier and to an extent the background situation that he inherited and no doubt contributed to the pressure that he was put under. Zurich has brushed this under the carpet as it attempts to battle the competing forces of appearing to be a good global corporate citizen while, at the same time, juggling a strategy in which it aims to keep dividend hungry shareholders while maintaining market share.

    The new Chairman, Tom de Swann, talks a good game about the shareholder benefits of good corporate citizenship and ethical corporate governance, but too many of its executives fail to meet the standards necessary to achieve those goals. A complete cultural overhaul is necessary and that will require a changing of the executive guard.

    Bullying is rife within the organisation and the idea that HR will be the guardians of employees rights is laughable when the HR department is doing the bullying to achieve a manager’s goals. The managers have an HR department that is either too overwhelmed to act responsibly or lacks independence such that it is coerced to support the “biggest dog” in any dispute. This corrupt culture reinforces any agency problems that may arise when managers act against the interests of the shareholders.

    My partner had a disagreement with their manager over a resource issue and was effectively told to shut up and get on with it. Feeling that the manager’s actions were not in the interests of the company, my partner raised the complaint to the next level and was told the issue would be resolved. A week later, my partner was told by the immediate line manager that the raising of the complaint up the reporting structure had caused a break in their relationship and that my partner would have to leave the company. In the absence of my partner resigning immediately, he was issued with a termination notice at the end of last month and told by the attending HR representative that unless he provided a resignation letter and signed a confidentiality letter, there would be no pay-out of his long term performance bonuses nor a reference – presumably to protect the company’s reputation of “good” corporate citizenship.

    Terminating someone’s employment is within the gift of any manager in Switzerland – with or without cause – but one would hope that if a termination is to take place, it is in the interests of the shareholder and not for the short term benefit of a management diva.

    As Edmund Burke is famously reported to have said; “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *