View cases - Stewart McKelvey

22accurate” and she added that “it would be up to the terminal to release this employee and lay himoff. If the terminal set him up and he is not working, there is not much CMC can do about it.”[93] Employee W reported to Vancouver on April 14 th , 2005. From that date until July 29 th ,he worked eighteen (18) days. July 29 th , 2005, was his last day in Vancouver. On July 30 th , thisemployee is transferred to his home terminal. He gets set up there but does not work fromAugust 13 th to September 19 th . He works on September 20 th , but then does not work againbefore November 12 th , when he is transferred to another terminal for seven (7) days. He returnsto his home terminal on November 19 th , where he does not work until the end of the year.Ms. Storms testified that she does not know why this employee was not working.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[94] In CN’s Amended Statement of Particulars, employee BC is indicated as having resigned.But according to the documents submitted at the hearing it is indicated that this employee “will beon Great West Life – long term insurance benefits.” According to Ms. Storms, the dispatcher atCMC probably talked to this employee’s supervisor. The employee was excused from reportingto Vancouver.[95] What the Tribunal concludes from this evidence is that many of the employees recalled tocover the shortage in Vancouver either did not report and were not terminated or if they did reportthey were shown as being “available” for work on various days, but did not work.(v)The Complainant’s recall to work[96] Before addressing the facts regarding the Complainant’s recall to cover the shortage inVancouver, the Tribunal notes that in her cross-examination Ms. Storms indicated that she did notpersonally keep a file specific to the Complainant’s situation. She added that Joe Lyon, CN’sManager Operations, Crew Management Centre, Western Operations, and also the manager of theBoard Adjustment Group, who reported directly to her, would most likely have kept thecorrespondence in a “Vancouver shortage file” and that the Complainant’s letters would have