Differences Margaret noticed between working at Laurier and AIG

Margaret noticed a difference in the atmosphere at AIG on the very first day she worked there.  She came home and said  "I think I made a mistake by leaving Laurier. A lot of people expressed their concerns of being over-worked."  To Margaret, the atmosphere at AIG appeared to be more structured towards maximizing employee output under a strict time restraint without concerns for the individuals health or well being.

AIG  Relocation - New office too confining for healthy environment

The old office on Wellington Street was a large pod that comfortably held four employees. The ventilation was excellent, and the office equipment was well spaced.

The new office on Yonge Street was a room half the size of the old office, with no windows and totally inadequate ventilation.  The room housed three employees, three computers, a scanner, a fax machine and a copier, there was very little room to move without bumping into a person or a desk.  The room was very hot continuously, and after much complaining another duct was opened up in air shaft, but it made little difference.  Finally a fan was brought in, it made conditions a little easier, but the stuffiness caused headaches.  Another, factor was the door had to stay closed for a portion of the day, because of the security regarding handling the money.

Employment period

In the spring of 2001 Margaret was diagnosed with the disease "Lichen Planus".  Her supervisor was informed of her condition and that, Margaret was under the care of a dermatologist to reduce the symptoms and prevent damage to the organs in her body and her nervous system.

At the same time (spring 2001) Margaret began working an extensive amount of extra hours. Several months later, without warning Margaret was called to a meeting and told she wouldn't be authorized for overtime pay. Yet, adequate help to perform her duties was not supplied. Margaret took the stand that she would not work without being paid. She continued to put in a solid effort to perform her duties but there was not enough time in a working day to do so.

In February 2002 (exact date unknown - Friday staff meeting) it was relayed to Margaret and other members of her department by Dolly that overtime would be discontinued because of 9-11.  Dolly also stated "that all employees would have to stay on their own time to get their daily work completed."  Margaret did come in early and worked some of her lunch hour but refused to work after her regular departure time.  She was too tired and exhausted because of the medication she was taking to control her "Lichen Planus."

Her supervisors continued to harass her to complete her work on time but offered no constructive solutions. Margaret did work, through her breaks and some of her lunch hour time was devoted to her job.

Despite the constant pressure of her supervisors, Margaret never received any formal written or verbal communications from them, that her performance was not satisfactory. However, Margaret has in her possession several memos, e-mails and letters praising her for her work and co-operation from fellow employees. Including a document dated June 7th, 2002.  In this document (e-mail) sent by her supervisor is in praise of Margaret for her efforts over the past year. Margaret is also awarded an extra half day off with pay for her efforts.

On Friday June 21st 2002, I picked Margaret up at the go train as usual when she returned from work. She got in my van and started to cry. She told me that Dolly (her supervisor) suggested she quit and not risk the consequences of being fired. Dolly told Margaret that if she didn't stay on her own time and get her work done, that her next performance appraisal would be the worst in AIG company history (click here for e-mail dated June 25th) and that is all they would need to fire her. She also told Margaret she would be lucky to get two weeks severance pay and no letter of reference. Dolly also said Margaret would have to sign a letter agreeing to do the work on her own time and that other employees had signed similar letters.

Monday June 24^th, 2002 Letter to Mr. Peter McCarthy (President) and Dolly Harrilal (Supervisor) AIG Life of Canada.

Margaret was upset the entire week-end and I thought she was going to have a nervous breakdown. I couldn't talk to her about it. I left it alone until Sunday night and I drafted a letter and she agreed to its contents and she handed it in.

(Note: On review of the Employment Standards Act website - It recommends that employees try to solve the problem.  All AIG had to do after Margaret gave them the letter was honour her rights granted by law.

Tuesday June 25^th 2002 - E-mail making changes to Margaret's appraisal.

Thursday June 27^th 2002 - Letter from Dolly Harrilal

In this letter, items appear that are condemnable, malevolent and are a direct assault on Margaret's character, nature and her stature which she considers to be worthy of a high level of respect.

Friday June 28^th 2002 - Letter to AIG - Demand for Compensation

Their letter of June 27^th, 2002 caused me to become so angry, it was almost to a point I was considering violent ways to get even. Instead I managed to control my anger and focused to find out why they would take this position against my wife. I came to the conclusion they wanted her out because of her health condition and or she would not work without being paid.

On June 28th, 2002 Margaret gave AIG a letter demanding compensation for violating her rights under the Employment Standards Act Ontario and  the Canadian Constitution

July 5^th 2002 Letter from AIG to Margaret - Threatening further disciplinary action including termination of Employment.

Margaret was given the letter at about 11:40 am by Marjory C. Mackay (Human Resources Manager) at AIG. Margaret went for lunch and phoned me from a phone booth. She was very upset about the letter. I told her to come home. She went back to the mail room picked up her personal belongings and told Dolly she was going home because she wasn't feeling very well.

(1) Posting information: rights and  obligations poster
Not displayed in the workplace where it's likely to be seen by employees.

(2) Hours of work:
Margaret was never asked to sign a written agreement to work more than 8 hours a day or 48 hours in a week. She worked an extensive amount of overtime starting in November 2000 under the impression she had to or she would be fired. She worked more than 48 per week in a pay period.

(3) Reference to: give up right to overtime pay:
Impromptu meeting (Friday June 22^nd 2002) between Margaret and Dolly Harrilal, and letter dated June 24^th, 2002 from Margaret Hicks and letter from Dolly Harrial dated June 27^th, 2002

An employer and an employee can't agree that the employee will give up his or her right to overtime pay under the ESA. Any such agreement isn't allowed, and the employee is still entitled to overtime pay even if they sign a letter.

Note: In the meeting on Friday June 22^nd, 2002 Dolly told Margaret that she would have to sign a letter that she will finish her work on her own time. She also told Margaret that other employees had signed similar letters.

(4) Prohibition against reprisals:
Employers are prohibited from penalising employees in any way for:

*exercising or trying to exercise a right under the ESA .

Margaret's letter dated June 24^th, 2002 informed AIG that she would take the necessary action to protect her rights under ESA. There response (letter June 27^th, 2002) lists  condemnable and malevolent claims which are an attempt to invoke her termination of employment.