View cases - Stewart McKelvey

59[206] She further testified that most of these cases had been dealt with at the local level.She further added that supervisors are trained to pick up on that type of request. But, she stated“unfortunately we can't supervise what they're doing out there in the field in terms of putting theactual teachings to use. We would like to think that they are well conversant in our policies, welltrained. But whether or not that Supervisor A at Location B would be able to pick up on the issuecoming forward, I can't say definitively that that would happen.”[207] According to Ms. Ziemer, although there are no mechanism to evaluate the application ofthe policy, CN’s expectations is that the front line supervisors are doing the right thing in terms ofthe policy, are living up to the policy and are abiding by the intricacies of the policy. She addedthat when the policy is not followed, Human Resources usually hears about it through variouscorrespondences, or from their counterparts on the labour relations side. As a general rule, CN isoperating on the notion that its supervisors are following the policy in terms of what they havebeen taught and what CN’s expectations are.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[208] Ms. Ziemer also testified on cross-examination that the process described in theaccommodation policy would start as soon as an employee came forward and reported a problemor special need, although she added that that would not necessarily always lead to a decision thataccommodation is necessary. When asked by Complainant’s counsel why this process had notbeen initiated in the Complainant’s case, she answered that she did not know, because she had notbeen involved in this case. She also added that usually the employee goes to his or her immediatesupervisor as the first step.[209] Mr. Torchia testified that he had not met with the Complainant, because this wouldordinarily be done by the Complainant’s supervisor. He added that he did not know for “a fact”whether her supervisor had met with her, but he would “assume he did” because he had atelephone conversation with him and he was aware of the situation.[210] On cross-examination, he testified that he had received training with regard to the duty toaccommodate “many years ago, in the early nineties”. For her part, Ms. Storms testified that shedid not recall receiving any training on CN’s accommodation policy. She added that she knew