View cases - Stewart McKelvey

29at the end of May or in the first week of June with Mr. Nashman and Mr. Boechler. Yet this emailseems to suggest that it is Mr. Nashman who had made this decision. Mr. Nashman was notcalled as a witness.[120] On July 2 nd , 2005, the Complainant wrote to Peter Marshall, CN’s Senior Vice-Presidentfor Western Canada. She again requested that CN consider her situation and grant her acompassionate leave of absence. She included in this letter a copy of her correspondence toMr. Torchia. No response was received from Mr. Marshall or from his office.[121] On July 4 th , 2005, CN wrote to the Complainant advising her as follows:2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)This letter will confirm as per Article 115 and 148 of Agreement 4.3 your seniorityrights are forfeited and your services with the Company have been dispensed with.Your employment file is now closed.[122] Ms. Storms testified that she does not remember if she had spoken with the Complainant’ssupervisor before terminating the Complainant’s employment, but she did add that as a generalrule, the employer does not proceed with such a decision without talking first to the supervisor.She added that if she had not personally done so, Mr. Lyon would probably have spoken to thesupervisor. Neither Mr. Pizziol, the Complainant’s supervisor, nor Mr. Lyon were called aswitnesses.[123] Ms. Storms added that she had followed Mr. Torchia’s and Mr. Albert Nashman’sdirections to terminate the employment of the Complainant.[124] After her termination, the Complainant kept hoping that CN would review its position.She testified that in early 2006, she noticed that the Jasper yard was progressively growing shortof employees. She therefore decided to write again to Mr. Marshall on February 6 th , 2006,indicating that she was “ready, willing and able and would gladly return to work in Jasper to helpalleviate this shortage.”