Periodontist raised voice while reprimanding receptionist

A receptionist who quit after her employer used harsh words in reprimanding her lost her case for constructive dismissal

A receptionist who quit after her employer used harsh words in reprimanding her lost her case for constructive dismissal because the Ontario Superior Court of Justice did not know exactly what was said.

Elena Zlatogourskaia worked as a receptionist for Herbert Veisman, a periodontist and implant surgeon, for 20 months.

In February 2002 Veisman received X-rays, photographs and records about a patient referred from another doctor. Zlatogourskaia was sent to a photocopy shop downstairs to make duplicates and, because the shop had a backlog of orders, left the materials there overnight.

When Veisman found out what Zlatogourskaia had done, he severely reprimanded her in the reception area. He told her to either apologize or to leave the practice. Zlatogourskaia ran to a back room crying. At the end of the day she went home, and never returned to the office.

She testified that while being reprimanded the doctor yelled and cursed at her. She said he’d done so before and she left his employment because she “could not stand it any longer.”

Veisman said Zlatogourskaia did not take kindly to criticism and her response was often to run to a back office in a flood of tears. He said on this occasion she apologized but it was insincere. Zlatogourskaia said she didn’t apologize.

The court said there is an implied duty that parties to an employment contract must act in good faith, which includes “civilized, decent treatment” toward each other. This is fundamentally broken whenever an employer treats his employee with disrespect.

The court was unable to conclude, however, that Veisman had done so. It ruled he was justified in reprimanding Zlatogourskaia, as leaving the materials unattended was a serious breach of confidentiality.

A reprimand crosses the line and becomes disrespectful treatment if it is unnecessarily harsh, cruel or vindictive, said the court. But the words used which Zlatogourskaia said were curses directed at her were never revealed. The onus was on her to disclose them, and since she didn’t the court could not rule she was justified in thinking she couldn’t remain in the doctor’s employ.

A dental assistant testified the doctor did not pick on or abuse Zlatogourskaia as she claimed. The court acknowledged the assistant was not a “disinterested witness” but nonetheless found her testimony to be reliable and trustworthy.

As such the court found Veisman had not mistreated Zlatogourskaia. It concluded she was thus not constructively dismissed and was not entitled to damages.

For more information see:

Zlatogourskaia v. Veisman, 2005 CarswellOnt 7315 (Ont. S.C.J.)

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!