View cases - Stewart McKelvey

15[69] According to the “Respondent List of Exhibits” in this hearing, CN put into evidence theCATS records for five employees. (See Exhibit R-1, Tab 27 through Tab 31 inclusively.) It alsoput into evidence two other CATS records (See Exhibits R-10 and R-11). Ms. Storms wasquestioned and cross-examined thoroughly on them by counsels. For its part the Commission putinto evidence the CATS records for fifteen other employees. (See Exhibits HR-1, Tab 5 throughand including Tab 10 and HR-2, Tab 23 through and including Tab 30).[70] The remainders of the CATS records disclosed by CN were put into evidence by thecomplainants’ counsel (See Exhibit C-33). These documents were not put into evidence in theformat provided by CN. The complainant’s counsel, during her cross-examination of Ms. Storms,explained that she had created what she described as “a document in a new format by re-sortingthe information contained in the original Excel spreadsheet provided by CN”. This newdocument was re-sorted in such way that it showed which employees recalled to Vancouver were“available” on any given date in the year 2005.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[71] On the last day of the hearing, CN’s counsel raised an issue concerning the accuracy ofsome of the information on the spreadsheets. On January 18 th , 2010, more than two months afterthe hearing, CN filed a motion asking permission to reopen its case to file further new evidence.This motion was dealt with in a ruling which can be found at 2010 CHRT 6.[72] CN produced the documents and, as noted earlier, decided to put it in through the evidenceof Ms. Storms. We can infer from this that CN felt that she had sufficient knowledge of theinformation contained on these documents to be able to testify to them. We will go over some ofthe information contained in these documents in some detail, as it was apparent that they wereimportant for all the parties. In order to protect the privacy of the employees concerned, they willbe identified by letters which do not correspond to their actual names.[73] The documents indicate that employee AB, although recalled did not report to theVancouver shortage. On March 22 th , 2005, he was “set up” at the Sioux Lookout terminal. Hecontinued to work there to the end of the year. Having been “set up” at his home terminal, he did