FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 11 -plaintiff would be able and expected to do more work and more difficult work, which appears tohave been the case, and that this complaint does not support a finding of constructive dismissal.[59] 4 - One full hour for lunch, from the time I leave. It is an unpaid lunch from 11:45a.m. to 12:45 p.m. If I am delayed leaving because I am with a client, on the phone with aclient or helping Walter, then I get a full hour from whenever I leave.[60] Employees’ lunch breaks were staggered so there was always someone on duty and theoffice would not be understaffed if one was not back on time, the plaintiff said, and hers was11:45 to 12:45. Her problem was that, even when she was unable because of work demands toleave on time, she was expected to return on time. Ms. Wills confirmed that, if she was late, Ms.Pozniak would “go up one side and down the other”.2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII)[61] Roberta Pozniak testified that the plaintiff had requested the 11:45 to 12:45 lunch periodto accommodate her banking period. She also said that it was rare for any of the staff to leavelate for lunch. However, the plaintiff started picking her times, which interfered with the other’slunches, so Ms. Pozniak became stricter, requesting that the staff try to be back on time.[62] It seems that this concern was resolved in some fashion, and it was not pursued at trial.[63] 5 - No more derogatory comments or putdowns about my work or my personalappearance. I’m always neat and clean and do not need to be told my jeans or shoes arenot good enough to wear on “dress down” Fridays but good enough for Saturday.[64] The plaintiff did not allege that any vulgarity had been directed at her, but did say thatRoberta Pozniak said on one occasion, “What are you, stupid?”. Ms. Wills claimed that theplaintiff got verbally abused with respect to work-related matters when Ms. Pozniak wouldquestion, “What’s wrong with you?”, and “Why didn’t you get it done?”[65] Also of concern to the plaintiff were comments Ms. Pozniak made about her personalappearance, including that she “looked tired today” or that it was “time for a haircut”, althoughshe did not recall the last time Ms. Pozniak had said to get her hair done. She did recall that, atChristmas around 1995, Ms. Pozniak had given her a gift certificate for that. On anotheroccasion, Ms. Pozniak had told her to wear makeup, which the plaintiff generally did not use.Also, about one or two years after starting to work for the defendant, the plaintiff said, Ms.Pozniak had spoken to her regarding her wardrobe, taken her shopping and bought clothes forher, embarrassing the plaintiff.[66] The office had casual Fridays and the plaintiff complained that Ms. Pozniak was too strictabout what the staff could wear even on them, and that what was acceptable one day was not thenext. Ms. Wills confirmed that Ms. Pozniak could get angry over shoes.