View cases - Stewart McKelvey

30not aware that some employees recalled to Vancouver had been granted leave of absence by theirsupervisors.[126] On June 22 nd , 2005, the Complainant received a telephone call from Ms. Storms.Ms.Storms advised her that she had to report to work in Vancouver on July 2 nd or she would befired. The Complainant testified that she had asked Ms. Storms if she was familiar with hercircumstances, to which the latter answered “no”.[127] On June 22 nd or 23 rd , 2005, in an email in response to Ms. Storms’ email recapping hertelephone conversations with the Complainant, Mr. Torchia wrote: “As far as I am concerned they[the Complainant and the two other women] have been given enough time to sort out theirpersonal affairs. If they wish to extend any further they will have to arrange with theirsupervisor.” Brian Kalin, who was Mr. Pizziol’s supervisor, wrote on the same day: “There are nofurther extensions. I agree with Joe - they’ve had several months to get their affairs in order. It’sdecision time for them now.” Brian Kalin was not called as a witness, so we have no details ofwhat he knew about the Complainant’s circumstances. There is also no evidence that anybodyfrom CN informed the Complainant that she should be dealing with her immediate supervisor,Mr. Pizziol, about her request to be excused from reporting to Vancouver.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[128] Also of interest in the email chain that CN produced at the hearing is an email whichMr. Torchia testified as being from Albert Nashman. Mr. Torchia added that it had perhaps beenpasted in from another email but he wasn’t sure. He also could not make out the date of this email.This email stated: “I talked to Boechler last night. Told him that we are not going to continue todelay this process. They have an obligation per the collective agreement to protect. I told himwhat are we suppose to tell the next group that says they don’t want to go. If he wants to file agrievance then so be it.”[129] The content of this email seems to be inconsistent with Mr. Torchia’s prior evidence to theeffect that he had made the decision that there would be no further extensions during the meeting