View cases - Stewart McKelvey

49[178] In February 2005, the Complainant received a telephone call from CN telling her that shehad to report to Vancouver to cover a shortage. After calling her local union representative shewas told to write to CN to request her 30 day extension, as per the collective agreement.[179] On March 18 th , 2005, she wrote to Mr. Torchia explaining her circumstances, her son’shealth problems and potential custody issues that may arise if she was to leave Jasper.She requested to be excused from reporting to Vancouver on compassionate grounds.[180] On April 25 th , 2005, the Complainant received a letter from CN telling her that CN hadaccommodated her need for additional time to make the necessary child care arrangements andinforming her that she had to manage these personal obligations in a manner which would able2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)her to fulfill her employment obligations. She also received on April 30 th , 2005, a phone callfrom her supervisor, Mr. Pizziol, who informed her that although sensitive to her situation,CN was requesting that she provide a reasonable time frame to report to Vancouver. That sameday she wrote a second letter to Mr. Torchia explaining again her son’s health situation andrequesting a meeting with him. She also received on June 22 nd , 2005, a telephone call fromMs. Storms, who told her to report to Vancouver on July 2 nd , 2005. The Complainant then wrotea third letter to Mr. Torchia, again reiterating her family situation.[181] The evidence does not establish that the Complainant was a parent that preferred to stay athome and not work at all. The evidence establishes that although Conductors have anunpredictable work schedule, the Complainant had made the necessary arrangements to fulfill thefull range of her duties as a Conductor, including being on a 2 hour call 7 days a week, for workout of Jasper. The only issue for her was that she could not leave her son in Jasper at the time ofthe Vancouver shortage.[182] In her various correspondences with CN, the Complainant had explained her familysituation. But, she never received any answer to any of these. CN’s witnesses testified thatparental responsibilities such as child care were not a “satisfactory reason” to not protect ashortage. CN considered that the complainant’s situation did not qualify as requiring