Bell Mobility rung up for more than $500,000
Bell Mobility has been ordered to pay an employee more than $500,000, including $15,000 to her partner for loss of companionship, after a supervisor physically assaulted her in the office.
Maria Piresferreira, 64, was an account manager selling cellphones and pagers to federal government departments, agencies and Crown corporations for Bell Mobility in Ottawa. She was one of six account managers in the Ottawa office who reported to sales manager Richard Ayotte.
Ayotte was in charge of assigning sales territories and accounts to the account managers and assisted them in their duties when needed. He believed in being firm and pushing his account managers. He would often be demonstrative and yell if he felt someone needed to have a fire lit under them. Sometimes he would berate someone who was not meeting sales targets, including yelling and swearing. Piresferreira, a quiet, sensitive person, sometimes became upset when this happened.
Trouble with government accounts
In 2004, government departments bought significantly fewer products due to the sponsorship scandal. Piresferreira, whose entire client list was made up of government bodies, was hit the hardest.
This slowdown was compounded by a new billing platform Bell Mobility introduced, which caused confusion among clients and a delay in invoices. Piresferreira took another hit when one of her biggest accounts was lost due to an error by executives, including Ayotte, that affected more than 2,000 cellphone activations.
Though most of the factors were beyond Piresferreira’s control, Ayotte expected her and all account managers to “take ownership” of their problems and investigate all avenues before coming to him for help. When Piresferreira, who felt she had exhausted all other possibilities, repeatedly asked Ayotte for help, he grew impatient and would yell and swear at her.
Piresferreira didn’t make a formal complaint because she felt she was in a vulnerable position in the highly competitive office. She began avoiding Ayotte by working as much as possible outside of the office.
In May 2005, Piresferreira found out the Blackberrys used by Industry Canada employees weren’t working in Washington, D.C. Industry Canada was one of her major clients so she informed Ayotte and the technical staff of the problem. Ayotte arranged for meetings with the clients to fix the problems but Piresferreira found out the government clients weren’t available on the date chosen.
Exasperation led to physical assault
On May 12, 2005, Piresferreira told Ayotte she wasn’t able to arrange the meetings. Ayotte began yelling and swearing at her, saying she wasn’t doing her job. Piresferreira insisted she had done everything she could and followed him down a hallway, trying to show him e-mails on her Blackberry proving her efforts.
Ayotte told her to get away from him as he wasn’t interested. Finally, he pushed Piresferreira’s left shoulder and she stumbled back against a filing cabinet as Ayotte walked away.
Piresferreira, feeling shaken and violated, went to Ayotte’s office and told him he shouldn’t have pushed her. Ayotte told her he was preparing a performance improvement plan (PIP) for her. She returned to her desk crying and went home soon after.
Piresferreira tried to arrange to meet Ayotte for him to apologize, but he ignored her efforts. Instead, when she returned to work he gave her the PIP and asked her to sign it. Piresferreira refused and filed a formal complaint against him.
Bell Mobility spoke to Ayotte about the incident but didn’t contact Piresferreira for her version of events. It scheduled a meeting but told Piresferreira it was to review her PIP. Piresferreira declined and took sick leave, which her doctor indicated was for anxiety stemming from workplace harassment.
Nobody from Bell Mobility contacted Piresferreira to find out how she was doing. Her emotional state deteriorated and she remained off work. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and her anxiety seriously affected her social and home life.
In September 2006, Bell Mobility informed Piresferreira that Ayotte was retiring and she could return to work. However, she refused because she said the assault and Bell Mobility’s response had poisoned the work environment. Bell Mobility considered this to be a resignation.
Employer’s actions contributed to stress disorder
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found Piresferreira’s post-traumatic stress symptoms were a direct result of Ayotte’s assault and the “escalating verbal abuse” prior to the incident. It found he showed “reckless disregard for her emotional well-being” and his implementation of the PIP was “calculated to produce harm” and meant to intimidate her. Bell Mobility’s overall response to the situation also contributed to Piresferreira’s depression and anxiety, said the court.
Bell Mobility was vicariously responsible for the assault because it had put Ayotte in charge of the Ottawa office and allowed him to treat the account managers in an aggressive way, found the court. Both Ayotte and the company also breached a duty of care to provide a safe and harassment-free working environment.
When Bell Mobility approached the situation as “damage control” by closing the case and moving ahead with the PIP, it showed a disregard for the effect this would have on Piresferreira, said the court.
Piresferreira was awarded $450,832 for loss of income from her sick leave and for another five years she planned to work, since she was 60 at the time of the assault and was unlikely to work again because of her stress. She also was awarded $45,000 in general damages for her disabling symptoms from the assault and $5,122.52 to cover her therapy and medications.
Piresferreira would have been entitled to 12 months’ pay in lieu of notice for Bell Mobility’s treatment of her, but awarding it would amount to “double recovery” with the other damages, said the court.
In addition to the $500,955 award, the court also ordered Ayotte and Bell Mobility to pay Piresferreira’s partner $15,000 for “loss of guidance, care and companionship” she experienced as a result of Piresferreira’s depression and anxiety.
For more information see:
•Piresferreira v. Ayotte, 2008 CarswellOnt 7733 (Ont. S.C.J.).
