View cases - Stewart McKelvey

19[82] The entry on these charts for March 16 th , 2005, indicates that employee E had “15 days toreport, 30 requested. G. Spanos pls advise or arrange travel.” On April 20 th , 2005, the entryshows “Per Manitoba Zone [E] has been given a compassionate LOA until further notice – perRon Smith – due to personal issue.” [The emphasis is mine.] Ms. Storms explained thatRon Smith was the manager of the running trade employees for the Manitoba zone. Ms. Stormsindicated that she knew a bit more about this employee’s situation, because she had talked withhis supervisor after the Seeley hearing. In response to questions put to her by CN’s counsel, sheexplained that Employee E’s situation was very similar to employee U. He also had a terminallyill parent and that would explain the entry of May 19 th , 2005, which indicates “Per Manitoba zonethis individual has been given a compassionate [leave of absence] until further notice perA. Nashman and K. Carroll”. Mr. Carroll was the general manager of the Vancouver, southdivision, at that time and Mr. Nashman was the general manager of the Western Operation Centre.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)Employee E was on a leave of absence until July 30 th , 2005 and afterwards absent without leavefrom July 31 st to September 8 th . On September 10 th , he is transferred to another terminal(Brandon, Manitoba) and, finally, he resigns on October 19 th .[83] When asked on cross-examination why this employee had never reported to Vancouver,Ms. Storms testified that his supervisor had indicated that the employee had not reported toVancouver because “he was training him to be a supervisor, but that ultimately he resigned.”This answer is not consistent with the answer she had given previously to CN’s counsel, when shehad stated that the situation of this employee was similar to that of Employee U.[84] Employee FG was shown on CN’s Amended Statement of Particulars as having resigned,but at the hearing, Ms. Storms testified that this was a mistake. This employee had been recalledto the Vancouver shortage and he reported there on March 22 nd , 2005. But from that date untilSeptember 21 st , 2005, the employee was on “sick leave”. He was granted what is described as“a leave of Absence under the Family Leave Act”. When asked to explain what the “FamilyLeave Act” was, Ms. Storms answered that she did not know. A quick research, did not allow the