FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 17 -[103] 12 – Travel magazines; we should be able to read these in the office since it ispart of the job. Lunch break and coffee break is for yourself to unwind and clear yourmind so you can do your job more efficiently.[104] The plaintiff testified that travel magazines are produced by the industry, advisingof changes in it that Roberta Pozniak expected the employees to know. Being work-related, theplaintiff thought that they should be able to read these publications at work, but said that Ms.Pozniak would not allow that and, instead, expected that they be read in personal time. Ms.Wills confirmed not being able to read these at work except to get an answer for work purposes.It was alleged that Ms. Pozniak would quiz employees on the contents.[105] Roberta Pozniak testified that reading these was optional although she hadquizzed them one or two times. She encouraged the reading of them on breaks, at lunch or evenat home. One time, a picture of her was in one of the magazines, but, when she asked the staff,none had seen it.2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII)[106] The idea of reading on one’s own time to keep informed for the purposes of one’sjob is, I suspect, fairly common and, certainly in the degree that it was expected in this instance,does not support a constructive dismissal claim.[107] 13 – Staff meetings: these should be attended by all staff, including Walterwho should be there for the entire meeting, not just part of it. We should all have our sayand issues discussed. Also, we should be compensated for this extra time spent at work.Other businesses hold these meetings during business hours or pay overtime.[108] The plaintiff thought it was reasonable to have meetings to address concerns. Itseems there were meetings at times, but Walter Pozniak would rarely attend and soon leave, orwould attend and soon leave.[109] A meeting was held in the office on February 22, 2007, attended by the Pozniaks,Tina Kennedy, Debbie St. Pierre and the plaintiff. The plaintiff thought that all three of the staffhad approached Walter Pozniak regarding Roberta Pozniak and conditions in the office. She hadtold him that things had to change in the office. She saw that things were returning to the waythat they had been prior to her stress leave.[110] The meeting degenerated into arguing, so Walter Pozniak ended it and soughtletters from the staff that he could take up with Roberta Pozniak. Each of the staff producedsuch letters, but the plaintiff left the defendant’s employ before anything further wasaccomplished.