FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- 13 -[74] The complaint about the Pozniaks yelling in the office had two aspects. One involvedyelling at the plaintiff. The other involved the Pozniaks yelling at each other, or on thetelephone.[75] Mention has already been made of Roberta Pozniak yelling at the plaintiff for being lateon three occasions. In addition, she said that Ms. Pozniak had yelled at her about files, readingtravel magazines, or computer issues. If the computers were down, she said, Ms. Pozniak wouldyell at her as if it was her fault.[76] When asked to demonstrate what she meant by “yelling”, the plaintiff raised her voicesomewhat, although it was not particularly loud, falling well short of a yell. However, sheaccused Ms. Pozniak of being angry, aggressive and confrontational, and of using a nasty tone.At some unspecified point, she had yelled back at Ms. Pozniak, “quit yelling at us. It’s nothelping!”2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII)[77] The plaintiff alleged that the Pozniaks yelled in the presence of the employees andcustomers. This made her cringe and she felt embarrassed, intimidated and afraid. It led toanxiety and panic attacks. She related it to her becoming physically ill on her way to work oneday. That was on one of the occasions when she said Ms. Pozniak yelled at her for being late.Specific examples involved Ms. Pozniak yelling on the telephone in her office at Bell Telephoneand the Public Utilities Commission. Also, she said that the plaintiffs would argue betweenthemselves in raised voices, making it hard to work as she would have to cover the telephone sothat clients could not hear.[78] Ms. Wills did not recall Ms. Pozniak yelling, but said that Ms. Pozniak had a tone ofvoice even if she was not yelling.[79] Ms. Kennedy recalled Ms. Pozniak yelling at the Public Utilities Commission, definitelymaking her feel uncomfortable, the Pozniaks arguing between themselves, and Ms. Pozniakyelling at her and the plaintiff. She recalled Ms. Pozniak yelling at the plaintiff many times,although not necessarily the specifics of each time. For example, if the printer did not work, shesaid that Ms. Pozniak would “get out of control” and blame the plaintiff, or if the internet wentdown, Mr. Pozniak would question why, blaming the plaintiff for things that were not her fault.Ms. Kennedy referred to the demeanour of Ms. Pozniak in such instances, implying it wasunpleasant.[80] Ms. Pozniak denied yelling at the plaintiff or at any employee in 15 to 16 years. Whenone was late, she said, she would say so, but not raise her voice. She added that, if, for example,a computer was down, she would after a while ask if it was back up. If not, she would get to the
- 14 -bottom of the problem and the help desk would be called. She denied ever blaming the plaintifffor the computer or printer being down.[81] Ms. Pozniak did recall yelling or raising her voice to the Bell Telephone and PublicUtilities Commission in the fall of 2005 or spring of 2006 regarding issues that she was havingwith them.[82] I find that occasions of Ms. Pozniak “yelling” at someone on the telephone, whatever“yelling” means to the plaintiff, does not amount to constructive dismissal. Nor does the arguingbetween the Pozniaks in the office. There was no evidence as to the frequency of such events,but one has to remember that the plaintiff worked there for 17 years. Also, the expression“yelling” seems to have been used quite liberally by the plaintiff and one or more of theplaintiff’s other witnesses, taking into account the plaintiff’s demonstration in court of what shemeant by yelling, which was not very voluble, and the repeated comments by the witnesses thatit was not so much the volume as the tone of voice that Roberta Pozniak used. Also, what ischaracterized as yelling at the plaintiff appears to be more in the nature of stern talk by Ms.Pozniak in her role as manager which the plaintiff was uncomfortable with.2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII)[83] In any event, the evidence under this heading does not rise to the level of demonstratingconstructive dismissal.[84] 7 – If I’ve made an error, or you think I did, don’t just accuse; ask about it and wecan discuss it calmly. Just because a note in a file has my writing or email doesn’t meanthat it’s my error.[85] The plaintiff alleged that being blamed for others’ errors was a regular occurrence andwas upsetting to her. Ms. Kennedy confirmed this and said it got worse over time although shedid not recall the specifics of what the plaintiff got blamed for.[86] The only specific example involved what was referred to for convenience in the trial asthe “Bangladesh ticket”. There was much testimony and discussion about this at the trial, mostof which need not be repeated here. Briefly, a junior employee had reserved a ticket toBangladesh for a client at a low price, but failed to submit payment and lost that reservation.The file was given to the plaintiff to reserve the space again, which she did, but it was no longeravailable at the low price. The difference in price would have to be absorbed by the defendantand amounted to several hundred dollars. The plaintiff was instructed not to issue the ticket yetin the hope that a better price would become available. Before the ticket was issued, thereservation time expired and the reservation was cancelled again. This caused a lot of concern inthe office and Walter Pozniak instructed the plaintiff to correct the situation. Meanwhile,Roberta Pozniak wanted her to deal with other files. It is not clear whether the error leading to
Page 1 and 2: The Labour Relations BoardSaskatche
Page 3 and 4: 3unionized workforce at their plant
Page 5 and 6: 5[15] In addition, there was some h
Page 7 and 8: 7Employee “D”: He was on his pr
Page 9 and 10: 9[37] The Board did not have the be
Page 11 and 12: 11[48] Shortly after Mr. Copeland b
Page 13 and 14: 13credible reason for the disciplin
Page 15 and 16: 15outlined by the Board in RWDSU v.
Page 17 and 18: 173. Order for captive audience mee
Page 19 and 20: 19for his failure to produce the wi
Page 21 and 22: 21[95] Similarly as noted in the qu
Page 23 and 24: 23[103] Also, in The Newspaper Guil
Page 25 and 26: 25rights under the Act. The Employe
Page 27 and 28: 27The determination of whether, in
Page 29 and 30: 29respect to the section of the Alb
Page 31 and 32: 31meetings, would have been within
Page 33 and 34: 33[143] In respect of the complaint
Page 35 and 36: - 2 -[2] The plaintiff, Susan Chart
Page 37 and 38: - 4 -by the time she finished there
Page 39 and 40: - 6 -[24] Testimony was received fr
Page 41 and 42: - 8 -would feel grateful for the fo
Page 43 and 44: - 10 -[49] 2. Comfortable, even tem
Page 45: - 12 -[67] Another complaint was th
Page 49 and 50: - 16 -member about something amusin
Page 51 and 52: - 18 -[111] Given that the meeting
Page 53 and 54: - 20 -[130] Some of the plaintiff
Page 55 and 56: - 22 -[146] The plaintiff’s expla
Page 57 and 58: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIOBETWEENC
Page 59 and 60: Page: 3[5] In his application, the
Page 61 and 62: Page: 5(c) By the Employer at any t
Page 63 and 64: Page: 7continuation, in the amount
Page 65 and 66: Page: 9D. ANALYSIS[23] It is well-s
Page 67 and 68: Page: 11[28] The appellant submits
Page 70 and 71: Page: 14[37] When parties contract
Page 72 and 73: Page: 16addressing the issue of a c
Page 74 and 75: Page: 18application of mitigation:
Page 76 and 77: Page: 202008 ONCA 479, 91 O.R. (3d)
Page 78 and 79: Page: 22[56] Notably, the concern e
Page 80 and 81: Page: 24termination without cause,
Page 82 and 83: Page: 26[64] The costs on the appli
Page 84 and 85: The parties agree this Board has th
Page 86 and 87: Mr. Wallace. The evidence is that M
Page 88 and 89: Mr. Mutter and Mr. Wallace each tes
Page 90 and 91: Mutter spoke. He testified he was a
Page 92 and 93: saw (or was told by the crew) Mr. K
Page 94 and 95: and heard, as well as other factors
Page 96 and 97:
When viewed in that light, it is fa
Page 98 and 99:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COL
Page 100 and 101:
Balogun v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP P
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 2of the immediate problem that
Page 115 and 116:
Page 4- He admitted that he had pla
Page 117 and 118:
Page 626 26. The Grievor's conduct
Page 119 and 120:
Page 8he had a problem with was fro
Page 121 and 122:
Page 10supervisor. Counsel argued t
Page 123 and 124:
Page 12hope to gain a financial ben
Page 125 and 126:
Page 1483 83. McKinley is an import
Page 127 and 128:
Page 16(iv)Has the employer attempt
Page 129 and 130:
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 131 and 132:
[1] This is an Application under se
Page 133 and 134:
[10] Sean McKay also testified on b
Page 135 and 136:
THE LAW[19] Section 5 of the Code p
Page 137 and 138:
that ensued. There is no evidence t
Page 139 and 140:
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO___
Page 141 and 142:
[1] The applicant has filed two App
Page 143 and 144:
CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS[11] The ap
Page 145 and 146:
tasks beyond his functional limits
Page 147 and 148:
do what they can and that if someon
Page 149 and 150:
checking summaries before stating t
Page 151 and 152:
Roehl in June or to the respondent
Page 153 and 154:
Section 10 of the Code defines hara
Page 155 and 156:
was assigned duties that required h
Page 157 and 158:
-last portion of the day he levels
Page 159 and 160:
[66] I recognize that some of the c
Page 161 and 162:
was made aware on May 22/07 that hi
Page 163 and 164:
“To be honest Tony I don’t know
Page 165 and 166:
is older, or believed that the appl
Page 167 and 168:
[91] The applicant also submitted t
Page 169 and 170:
steps to address allegations of dis
Page 171 and 172:
this period lessening, in my view,
Page 173 and 174:
[109] The respondent submits that i
Page 175 and 176:
that the events of May 22 may have
Page 177:
Accordingly, I am requiring the par
show all

FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?