View cases - Stewart McKelvey

19When asked by CN counsel why he had not been discharged for failing to report, she answered:“I can’t speak to that. His manager … could have done something. I don’t know exactly why, likeI said, I think it just fell through the cracks. Because he was working, we didn’t obviously keepvery good tabs on him.” Finally, on December 25 th , 2005, this employee was “set up” inSaskatoon. On cross-examination, Ms. Storms added that his supervisor thought that he mightneed this employee, so “he was not releasing him”.[82] Employee U was called to cover the shortage in Vancouver at the same time as everyoneelse. Ms. Storms testified that she had personally talked to this employee and had been informedby him that his father was terminally ill. She added that she had then taken it upon herself to2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)extend his time to report. This employee stayed on the laid off board until June 26 th 2005, atwhich time he was given a leave of absence by the trainmaster at his terminal. On July 24 th ,he was “set up” at his home terminal. His father passed away in October and he booked off onbereavement leave. After that, he stayed at his home terminal for the remainder of the year.[83] Employee E was on laid off status when the recalled procedure started. Initially, when theystarted contacting employees for the shortage, the staff at CMC would just write notes in theirwork records as they were making the calls. But, because the shortage was so large, things weregetting a little awkward and Ms. Storms instructed her staff to put charts together so that theycould see where things were and how many people would cover the shortage. The information wefind on these charts were gathered and recorded by different employees at CMC. The first chartwas produced on March 7 th , 2005. The last entry was for May 19 th , 2005. After that, the list wasdiscontinued. By that time Ms. Storms explained that “most of the 47 recalled employees hadresponded or been dealt with.”[84] The entry on these charts for March 16 th , 2005, indicates that employee E had “15 days toreport, 30 requested. G. Spanos pls advise or arrange travel.” On April 20 th 2005, the entryshows “Per Manitoba Zone [E] has been given a compassionate LOA until further notice – perRon Smith – due to personal issue.” [The emphasis is mine.] Ms. Storms explained thatRon Smith was the manager of the running trade employees for the Manitoba zone. Ms. Storms