View cases - Stewart McKelvey

56Cindy Richards, had child care noted on the spreadsheets and Mr. Torchia testified that he knewof no other case but these where “child care issues” had been raised.[202] Since it was her department who was supervising the information concerning theemployees recalled to the shortage, Ms. Storms had the opportunity to initiate CN’sAccommodation Policy in the case of the Complainant, but she did not. Interestingly, Ms. Stormstestified that she had initiated an accommodation in the case of another employee who had alsobeen recalled to cover the shortage in Vancouver. That employee had a terminally ill parent andshe gave him a leave of absence. She was also aware from a review of the CMC spreadsheets thatother employees had been excused from reporting to Vancouver due to disability and for variousother personal reasons which were left unexplained.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[203] In an email correspondence dated June 23 rd , 2005, Ms. Storms summarized her telephonediscussions with the Complainant and with Ms. Richards and Ms. Seeley. She mentioned that theComplainant had a son who was ill and that she had custody issues. She also mentions that theComplainant had written to Mr. Torchia. She further wrote that if the Complainant and the twoother women decided not to protect the shortage in Vancouver, their employment files would beclosed and their seniority forfeited. This email was sent to Ms. Gallegos, and copied toMr. Nashman, Mr. Torchia, Kenneth Sherman and Brian Kallin (Mr. Pizziol’s supervisor). Noneof these managers thought that it might be appropriate, in the face of the Complainant’s situation,to initiate the Accommodation Policy.[204] The evidence also indicates that CN did not apply its own accommodations guidelines andpolicies in the Complainant’s case. CN has a very comprehensive accommodation policy.This policy recognizes all the prohibited grounds enumerated in the CHRA, including “familystatus”, and the policy clearly indicates that, wherever possible, employment policies andpractices are to be adjusted so that “no individual is denied employment opportunities...” It alsospecifies that accommodation “means making every possible effort to meet the reasonable needsof employees.”