09.07.2015 Views

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

67[234] There are three possible starting dates that the Tribunal could reasonably fix for theComplainant reinstatement. The first date suggested is July 2 nd , 2005, which could be seen as theeffective date for implementation of the Complainant’s request to be accommodated by being “setup” in a full time position in Jasper. The Tribunal does not accept this as an appropriate date asthere was no evidence that the Complainant could have been set up in a full time position inJasper at that time or if this would have been the appropriate accommodation. There was also noevidence of any employees being set up in Jasper at that time.[235] The second date is March 1 st , 2006. According to the evidence, this is the date thatanother laid off employee from Jasper, who had been recall and had reported to Vancouver, wasset up in Jasper. Since only four employees from Jasper, the Complainant, Denise Seeley,Kasha Whyte and this other employee, had been recalled and told to report to Vancouver it mightbe reasonable to expect that the they would also have been set up in Jasper around March 2006.Ms. Storms testified that “because the Complainant seniority is very close to [that of the employeewho was set up] it is safe to say that they would have been recalled to Jasper at that time as well.”2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[236] Finally, evidence was produced that in March 2007, CN hired new Conductors in Jasperand that many of these new Conductors have since been set up. It is reasonable to concludetherefore that the Complainant had, at that time, seniority over these new Conductors and that shewould have been set up in Jasper ahead of them.[237] With the admission of Ms. Storms, it is safe to conclude that the Complainant would mostlikely have been set up in March 2006, had she not been terminated and this date is therefore theone retained for her reinstatement.[238] In regards to her seniority, since seniority continues to accumulate even when anemployee is on lay off, it will in this case continue to accumulate as if there had never been abreach in her relationship with CN on July 2 nd , 2005.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!