View cases - Stewart McKelvey

17Jasper had received such notification. On that same day, she also sent a letter to Ms. Stormsrequesting her to reconsider her situation.[70] Joe Lyon wrote to the Complainant on March 30 th , 2005. In this letter, he informed theComplainant that her request for a thirty (30) extension had been authorised and that the date atwhich she would be expected to report to Vancouver was “moved to March 29 th ”.The Complainant testified that she never received that letter. The letter also makes reference to atelephone conversation of March 30 th , 2005 between the Complainant and Joe Lyons.The Complainant testified that she had no recollection of a telephone conversation on that date.2010 CHRT 23 (CanLII)[71] On April 27 th , 2005, Joe Lyon again wrote a letter to the Complainant informing her thatCN had accommodated her need for additional time to consider her options and “make thenecessary child-care arrangements”. The letter went on to state that while CN recognizes that her“child-care [issues] are important personal responsibility” her obligation to CN is “to managethose personal obligations in such a way that you are able to fulfill your employment andcollective agreement obligations”. The Complainant testified that she never received this letter.The address on the letter was not the correct address. CN acknowledged that the letter had beenreturned to the CMC stamped “unclaimed” by Post Canada and had not been remailed to theComplainant.[72] In her letter of March 4 th 2005, the Complainant had requested a thirty (30) extension toreport for work. According to CN, the Collective Agreement allows for such an extension whenan employee is employed elsewhere at the time they are notified to report for work. This was notthe case for the Complainant. Notwithstanding the provision of the collective agreement, during ameeting in May 2005, between officers of CN and officers of UTU, CN advised the union that itwould extend the time period for the Complainant to report for work until June 30 th , 2005.[73] Mr. Torchia testified on cross-examination that he had had discussion, sometime inMay 2005, with the General Chairperson of UTU regarding the possibility of extending the timethe Complainant had to report to cover the shortage. These discussions took place in Edmonton