View cases - Stewart McKelvey

48followed in this case and that “at some point Human Resources would have been involved.”No evidence of any involvement by Human Resources was presented at the hearing.[162] It is also clear from the evidence of CN other witnesses that they felt that theaccommodation policy was not any of their concerns. Mr. Torchia, for example, testified incross-examination that he knew that CN had an accommodation policy in 2005, although headded that he had never received any formal training on it. He was also unable to say if there hadbeen any “in house” training or seminars on the application of the CHRA for managers andsupervisors, although he added that he was sure there had been. He added that throughout hiscareer he had dealt with issues of accommodation in various grievances and in his dealings withthe Union.2010 CHRT 23 (CanLII)[163] Asked by CN counsel whether she was familiar with the duty to accommodate under theCHRA, Ms. Storms answered “No, not specifically. I know that it’s there and if I had to deal withit I would refer an employee to Human Resources.” On cross-examination she added: “I knew ofit but I didn’t know the specifics of it. From our end what we handle is the pay end of it and oncethe accommodation is made we’ll be directed by Human Resources and the Division to adjust thepay, that’s my area of responsibility. I would have simply left it in Pizziol’s hands. I don’t knowwhat he would have done with it. He may have gone to his boss, he could have gone several waysand I have no idea, you would have to ask Mr. Pizziol.” (The emphasis is mine.) Mr. Pizziol wasnot called as a witness.[164] Ron Morrese, the General Supervisor of Operation, a senior manager at CN, testified thathe had probably seen the accommodation policy, although he did not remember the details.He added that he was always in “operations” and that Human Resources dealt with the policy.He explained that they had the authority to tell “operations” what to do in those cases.[165] 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 him or to other supervisors or managers of CNexplaining her situation. There was also no evidence that she had met with anybody at Human