View cases - Stewart McKelvey

12evidence confirming that this was the case was submitted. The employee was again laid off againon April 24 th , 2005. From that date to the rest of the year, employee P moved around within theSaskatchewan zone “taking a clearance” at other terminals.[53] The expression “taking a clearance” refers to the situation where a laid off employee withseniority in the Western region elects to go to another terminal where a position he can hold isavailable. When a position becomes available at his home terminal, the employee will returnthere. If an employee is exercising his seniority and “takes a clearance”, he or she is said to beworking and will not have to report to cover a shortage. According to Ms. Storms, this wouldhave been an option for the Complainant. In order to do that, Ms Storms explained that theComplainant would have had to call CMC and inquire where she could “take a clearance”.2010 CHRT 23 (CanLII)[54] Employee Y was also called to protect the shortage in Vancouver on February 25 th , 2005.On that day he was on a “leave of absence”, but according to Ms. Storms, CMC would havecontacted him within the next few days. Ms. Storms added that she had checked into thisemployee’s work record and that it indicated that he was “Absent without Leave” onMarch 4 th , 2005 and that his employment was terminated. But then she added, “I don’t knowexactly what the details were, but I believe there was a mistake made and he should have just beenshown laid off at that time.” Whatever happened, this employee did not go to the shortage andwas eventually “set up” at his home terminal on March 15 th , 2005. On April 9 th , he was againlaid off and then on April 30 th , he was given a leave of absence by his trainmaster. Ms. Stormstestified that she tried to contact his trainmaster as well as the Superintendent of his Division tosee why this employee had been given a leave of absence, but that the trainmaster had retired andthe Division had not kept any records of this instance. She also stated that the Superintendentdidn’t have any recollection of this situation. Ms Storms also added, “We had a hard timecontacting the employee and quite frankly he was dodging us. He did work the majority of time athis home location. He either worked or was in training or was on a leave of absence for themajority of the shortage.” Finally, on December 25 th , 2005, this employee was “set up” inSaskatoon.