ICBC firing of adjuster who ignored distressed client and elderly woman in pain upheld

The firing of a former adjuster for B.C.'s public auto insurer who ignored injured and distressed clients when they called for help has been upheld by a labour arbitrator.

The Insurance Corporation of B.C. dismissed the worker after he mishandled several claims, including ignoring a client who was suicidal, refusing to take a call from a 79-year-old client in distress and denying acupuncture benefits to a customer who was entitled to them, according to a March 2 decision.

The employee also showed up late for work more than a dozen times, acted disrespectfully when given feedback and was "overconfident and nonchalant about job requirements," arbitrator Nicholas Glass wrote.

Glass wrote that ICBC showed a "great deal of patience" with the employee and that any lesser discipline would not have changed his behaviour. 

The worker, he wrote, "proved incorrigible in the most precise sense of the word."

ICBC suspended the worker three times in one year before firing him in August 2020, the decision says.

The case ended up in Glass's hands after the union representing ICBC workers grieved the firing, arguing the corporation had overstepped and there was no misconduct.

Suicidal customer ignored

The employee, who joined the Crown corporation in November 2016, had been promoted twice and was tasked with handling injury claims.

Glass's decision details several instances where the worker erred in his role over 18 months. 

That includes his handling of a situation in February 2020, when he was asked by his manager to urgently contact an assigned customer whose medical report indicated they were suicidal. 

When the manager came back from a 10-day vacation, they discovered the employee had not contacted the client and had left the office abruptly for a week. 

A month went by before the adjuster contacted the customer. The manager ultimately called the customer themselves and did a wellness check while the adjuster was away.

"The reputational risk could have been disastrous had something occurred," the manager wrote in notes compiled from a meeting about what happened.

In another instance, the employee was suspended for five days after he refused to take a call from a senior in serious pain.

According to the decision, a colleague instant messaged the worker and said he had received a call from a 79-year-old woman who was confused about her claim, had lost her glasses and was in a "tremendous amount of pain." 

The colleague stressed the call was urgent, but the worker asked she be transferred to voicemail. 

"Perhaps speaking to customers when they are not in an emotional high is a better MO," the adjuster wrote to his colleague. 

'Serious misconduct' by worker

On still another occasion, the adjuster rejected a claim to approve acupuncture benefits, citing a lack of medical documentation, without getting the needed manager approval first. This led to an "unpleasant confrontation" with the doctor who requested the claim. 

A colleague later approved the same claim and noted the employee was argumentative when she followed up with him. The worker was suspended for three days over the incident.

The adjuster also failed to reach out to another customer injured in a car collision more than two weeks after he received their claim. The adjuster argued the customer was in hospital and too medicated to speak with him but later admitted he couldn't have known whether this was true. 

Glass said several of the incidents cited comprised "serious misconduct" and showed the worker was culpable. 

He noted the union argued "valiantly" on behalf of the worker but said their arguments were not persuasive.