View cases - Stewart McKelvey

26supervisor the result would have been the same, because the supervisor would have had to cometo either Mr. Morris or himself for approval.[109] Ms. Storms testified that she does not recall having read the letter of May 1 st , although acopy had been sent to Mr. Lyon. She added that she may have discussed it with Mr. Torchia, butshe can’t recall the specifics of this conversation. She also indicates that she was not aware thatthe Complainant had an issue with a custody order.[110] Since she had heard nothing further from Mr. Torchia and since CMC was calling her totake emergency trip, the Complainant assumed that her suggestion of staying in Jasper and doingemergency work had been accepted. As noted previously, the Complainant had booked “OK” foremergency trips in June 2005 and she had been called for nine (9) tours of duty during that period.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[111] Mr. Torchia testified that in the last week of May or at the beginning of June 2005, he wasat a meeting with Albert Nashman, CN’s general manager of the Western Operation Centre, andBryan Boechler, General Chairperson for the UTU. Although the meeting was about differentissues, at one point Mr. Boehcler requested another extension for the Complainant and the othertwo employees. According to Mr. Torchia, he and Mr. Nashman granted a further extension untilJuly 2 nd , 2005. From Mr. Torchia’s understanding, it was clear that this was the last extensionthat would be granted. On cross-examination, he testified that he was not aware if this decisionhad been conveyed to the Complainant. He further added that CN had “accommodated” theComplainant by granting her more time to report. He said that the possibility of granting a“compassionate leave of absence” never crossed his mind. He explained that a “leave of absence”was normally granted for reasons which were “appropriate to the operational requirements ofCN”. He added however that he was not aware that some employees recalled to Vancouver hadbeen granted leave of absence by their supervisors.[112] Mr. Torchia also testified on cross-examination that it was “not fair” to conclude that hehad not applied CN’s accommodation policy in this matter. He added that the Complainant had“family status issues” and that he had “accommodated” these by extending her time to report to