|
January 24, 2003
Ottawa—Employers who tolerate abusive employees are
violating the employment contracts of other workers, says the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in a recent ruling that
demonstrates the costly consequences of harassment in the workplace.
In Stamos v. Annuity Research & Marketing Service
Ltd., Justice Dambrot found that the
president of Annuity had seriously altered the tone in the office by
bringing his uncle, Mr. Hammami, on board in the
summer of 1999. Described as explosive and irrational, witnesses said that Hammami “appeared to have difficulty dealing with women
in the workplace.” Later, said the court, two employees left, citing Mr. Hammami’s behaviour as one of the reasons they decided
to quit.
Justice
Dambrot found that Mr. Hammami
started his attacks against the plaintiff, Sophia Stamos,
in the autumn of 1999. Though Ms. Stamos was a
veteran employee who had climbed the ladder of promotions, Hammami accused her of sabotaging the office’s computer
systems and undermining him. Asking the president for assistance, Stamos was told to avoid Mr. Hammami
and to keep her door locked. Later, the president bowed
to Hammami’s complaints by altering Ms. Stamos’ job title, but leaving her responsibilities and
pay the same. And in January 2000, Hammami
replied to Stamos’s strongly worded demand to
leave her office by kicking her door, the court found.
Ms. Stamos then tried to find a way to depart. Annuity
agreed she would be paid a bonus if she stayed to train her replacement,
and her work remained up to the usual standard. The court ruled, however,
that Ms. Stamos could not meet these terms since
Mr. Hammami, was still poisoning the environment
at work by continuing to make demeaning comments about women. Unable to
face Hammami, Stamos
was forced to quit, said the court.
Every
employer, said Justice Dambrot, owes a
contractual duty to its employees to “treat them fairly, with civility,
decency, respect, and dignity.” By failing to protect Ms. Stamos from Mr. Hammami’s
harassment, the court concluded that the employer had breached this
contractual duty. For the constructive dismissal, Justice Dambrot awarded Stamos 6
months’ salary, the $3000 bonus she was promised by Annuity, $3600 in
stress related dental work, and $2500 in mental distress damages.
“By
imposing corrective discipline against the harasser and ensuring the victim
was protected, this case would have never gone to trial” said Jorge
Talbott, a consultant and lawyer with the Ottawa management consulting firm Labour Relations Consultants. “This
is ultimately about the costly penalty that employers pay for ignoring
standard management practices.”
|
