View cases - Stewart McKelvey

27Vancouver. On cross-examination he added that he understood that CMC would let the threeemployees know that they had been granted an extension.[114] He added that at about the same time he received a call from Bryan Boechler,the General Chairperson of the Union, about these three employees. He said that Mr. Boechlerhad indicated that these employees were having “child care issues” and he requested that they begranted more time to report to Vancouver. Mr. Torchia testified that he believes that, at that point,an extension had already been granted.[115] The spreadsheets prepared by the CMC regarding the recall do not support Mr. Torchia’sevidence. On the sheet dated “March 18/05 as of 13:00” a notation in the row for the2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)Complainant states: “15 days to report, 30 requested – OK to April 6 th per A. Nashman.”The Tribunal also notes that the notation marked for D. Seeley reads “16 days to report.30 requested – OK to March 29 th per A. Nashman” and in the row for C. Richards, the notationstates “Message at residence to get medical done – wants 15 days.” So it seems from theseentries that the extension of time to report was granted by Mr. Nashman and not Mr. Torchia. Forher part, Ms. Storms testified that she had spoken to Mr. Torchia on a few occasions, but she didnot recall specifically what was said.[116] The Complainant testified that on April 30 th , 2005, she received a letter dated April 25 th ,signed by Mr. Lyon. In this letter Mr. Lyon states: “The Company has accommodated your needfor additional time to consider your options and make the necessary child-care arrangements…The Company cannot grant any further time for you to report. You must provide your response asto whether you will be reporting for work in Vancouver or not by May 6, 2005.” Upon receipt ofthis letter, the Complainant said that she called Mr. Lyon to ask if he had been in contact withMr. Torchia. Mr. Lyon told her that he had not.[117] Ms. Storms testified that she did not have a direct involvement in the drafting of theApril 25 th letter, which she described as a “standard letter”, but she is sure that Mr. Lyon wouldhave discussed its content with her. She added that she had talked to Mr. Torchia at that time and