View cases - Stewart McKelvey

55He never had any discussion with the Complainant, nor did he delegate the matter to anothermanager so that he could discuss the Complainant’s request with her. He felt that he knew whatshe needed and that he had given her what she needed.[193] For her part, Ms. Storms, who was monitoring the CMC spreadsheets, knew that theComplainant’s situation had been labeled “child care issue”. In her evidence she suggested thatmany of the employees recalled had also raised child care issues and that it was becoming ageneral theme. However, no other employees, other than the Complainant, Denise Seeley andKasha Whyte, had child care noted on the spreadsheets and Mr. Torchia testified that he knew ofno other cases but these where “child care issues” had been raised.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[194] Since it was her department who was supervising the information concerning the recalledemployees, Ms. Storms had the opportunity to initiate CN’s Accommodation Policy in the case ofthe Complainant, but she did not. Interestingly, Ms. Storms testified that she had initiated anaccommodation in the case of another employee who had also been recalled to cover the shortagein Vancouver. That employee had a terminally ill parent and she gave him a leave of absence.She was also aware from a review of the CMC spreadsheets that other employees had beenexcused from reporting to Vancouver due to disability and for various other unexplained personalreasons.[195] In an email dated June 23 rd , 2005, Ms. Storms summarized her telephone discussions withthe Complainant and with Ms. Whyte. She mentioned that the Complainant had child care issuesand that Ms. Whyte had a son who was ill and that she had custody issues. She also mentions inthe email that both had written to Mr. Torchia. However, she also wrote that if the Complainantand the two other women decided not to protect the shortage in Vancouver, their employmentfiles would be closed and their seniority forfeited. This email was sent to Ms. Gallegos, andcopied to Mr. Nashman, Mr. Torchia, Kenneth Sherman and Brian Kalin (Mr. Pizziol’ssupervisor). None of these managers thought that it might be appropriate, in the face of theComplainant’s situation, to initiate the Accommodation Policy.