View cases - Stewart McKelvey

27Vancouver. He further added that the Complainant had been given more time to makearrangements, but that she hadn’t and was therefore “terminated”.[113] On June 27 th , 2005, the Complainant was informed by a letter from L. Gallegos,Manager Operation at CMC, that she must report to Vancouver by July 2 nd , 2005. She wasfurther advised that if she failed to report her seniority rights would be forfeited and her positionwith CN terminated. This letter also made reference to a telephone conversation onJune 22 nd , 2005, between the Complainant and Elaine Storms. During that conversation,Ms. Storms also informed the Complainant that she had to report to Vancouver by July 2 nd , 2005or her employment would be terminated.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[114] The Complainant recalled this telephone conversation. She said that she told Ms. Stormsthat there must be a mistake and she asked her to speak to Joe Torchia about her situation.The Complainant thought that her situation had been dealt with because CN was allowing her tocover the emergency board in Jasper. The Complainant testified that she thought that this was theanswer to her request for a compassionate leave of absence. Following the letter ofJune 27 th , 2005, the Complainant was not allowed to cover anymore work on the emergencyboard.[115] Ms. Storms testified that she was aware at this point that the Complainant had an issuerelating to her children. She indicated that she did not know the details of the situation.She added that she remembered parts of the telephone conversation of June 22 nd , 2005.She testified that the Complainant had told her that she could not report to Vancouver because of“child care issues”. She further testified that she did not recall specifically if the Complainant hadmade a request for more time, but if that had been the case she would have referred her to hersupervisor and to the Union. Ms. Storms also indicated that if the Complainant had indicated thatshe had an arrangement with Mr. Torchia, she would have called him and if he had indicated thathe had allowed more time, she would have granted more time. But she further added that in herconversation with Mr. Torchia, he had clearly mentioned that the provisions of the CollectiveAgreement had to be applied in this case.