View cases - Stewart McKelvey

29[121] The Complainant also testified that at one point in the spring of 2005, she telephonedMr. Torchia and had left a message asking to meet with him. He did not respond to this message.Mr. Torchia has no recollection of this call, although he does not deny it. In his crossexamination,he also stated that he did not normally meet with employees and that his dealingswere with the Union.[122] According to Mr. Torchia, it is unusual that these types of questions would go directly tohim. He added that employees making these kinds of request would normally address them totheir supervisor. The employee’s supervisor would handle these demands directly and they wouldrarely rise to “his level”. But, on cross-examination, he testified that even if the Complainant hadgone to her supervisor, the result would have been the same, because the supervisor would havehad to come to either Mr. Morris or himself for approval.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[123] Since she had heard nothing further from Mr. Torchia and since CMC was calling her totake emergency trip, the Complainant assumed that her suggestion of staying in Jasper and doingemergency work had been accepted.[124] Mr. Torchia testified that in the last week of May or the beginning of June of 2005, he wasat a meeting with Albert Nashman and Bryan Boechler, General Chairperson for the UTU.Although the meeting was about different issues, at one point Mr. Boechler requested anotherextension for the Complainant and the other two employees. According to Mr. Torchia, he andMr. Nashman granted a further extension until July 2 nd , 2005. From Mr. Torchia’s understanding,it was clear that this was the last extension that would be granted. On cross-examination, hetestified that he was not aware if this decision had been conveyed to the Complainant. He furtheradded that CN had “accommodated” the Complainant by granting her more time to report.He said that the possibility of granting a “compassionate leave of absence” never crossed his mindand from his perspective this was not what the Complainant was asking, although he admitted thathe had never talked to her.[125] Mr. Torchia further explained that a “leave of absence” was normally granted for reasonswhich were “appropriate to the operational requirements of CN”. He added however that he was