View cases - Stewart McKelvey

60about the policy and that if she had some concerns about it she would talk to somebody inHuman Resources. Ms. Storms further added that she never really used the accommodationpolicy, because CMC does not get many requests for accommodation. She did acknowledgethough that there were times where CMC had accommodated employees because of seriousillnesses in the employee’s family or because somebody needed time off for personal reasons.[211] She further testified that although she remembered having read the policy, she was notvery familiar with it and did not have a detailed knowledge of it. She did not know if anybodyelse at CMC had had training on the policy. On cross-examination from counsel for the CHRCshe answered that to her knowledge none of the dispatchers and/or members of the BoardAdjustment Group, who were primarily responsible for contacting the employees recalled tocover the shortage in Vancouver, had any training regarding CN’s accommodation policy. Askedto explain how they would recognize an issue of accommodation if one came up, Ms. Stormsanswered that they knew that CN accommodates people and that sometimes they are aware of anemployee’s situation. The general rule would be for them to refer an employee with specialrequest to his supervisor.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[212] According to the Complainant’s evidence, CN’s accommodation policy was not followedin her case. She added that she never met with her supervisor, the trainmaster in Jasper, nor didshe get any response to the letters she had sent to supervisors or managers of CN explaining hersituation. There was also no evidence that she had met with anybody at Human Resources or thatshe had been referred to them. It is clear from the evidence that CN did not follow the procedureset out in its own policy and that it had decided that “family status”, at least in terms of parentalobligations and responsibilities, was not a ground of discrimination for which accommodationwas required. It is also clear that CN never did an individualized assessment of the Complainant’ssituation as it was required to do.[213] In her letter to Mr. Torchia, the Complainant suggested as a possible accommodation thatshe be granted a compassionate leave of absence for the duration of the Vancouver shortage.The evidence indicates, based on the return to Jasper of another employee who had been forced toVancouver, that this would have been around March 2006. If the leave of absence had been