View cases - Stewart McKelvey

58[202] Once the door is opened, the process provides that there should be a meeting between theemployee and is supervisor, so that the latter can get a feeling of what is the problem. Ms. Ziemeracknowledged that the simple exchange of letters at this stage would not be as efficient. At thatmeeting the supervisor should ask for more information about the reasons for the request anddiscuss possible solutions.[203] Ms. Ziemer testified that she had no hands on implication or any personal knowledge ofthe Complainant’s situation. She also added that Human Resources is not always involved inthese cases. Whenever possible, they are resolved at the local level. She further stated that CNhad trained its managers well enough that they have the abilities to make a good managementdecisions, protecting the operation and making, where necessary, small adaptations or smalladjustments to the working conditions of the employee.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[204] Ms. Ziemer gave various examples of situations where CN had accommodated employeeson the basis of “family status”, starting with her own situation. She explained that her husbandhad been severely injured in a skiing accident. For a period of ten weeks, he could not move hisarm or upper body. During this period, she explained that she was allowed not to travel and wasgiven a flexible working schedule. She also testified to the accommodations given to anindividual in Vancouver so he could be available for his son who was involved in illegalactivities, including gang-related activities and to a Conductor whose daughter had a significantpsychological breakdown. This employee was allowed to work closer to home for a ratherlengthy period of time. She added that CN had also accommodated a market manager upon herreturn from parental leave because her child had a severe eating disorder. This employee wasgiven additional time off upon completion of her parental leave.[205] On cross-examination by Counsel for the CHRC, Ms. Ziemer was reminded of two otherexamples that she had referred to in the Seeley hearing. One of these was an accommodation foran employee which allowed him to be absent from the working board every second weekendbecause he only had visitation rights for 48 hours every two weeks. The other was anaccommodation granted to an employee who was involved in a lengthy custody battle in Court.This person was given additional time off for this reason.