View cases - Stewart McKelvey

60[215] According to Ms. Ziemer, although there are no mechanism to evaluate the application ofthe policy, CN’s expectations is that the front line supervisors are doing the right thing in terms ofthe policy, are living up to the policy and are abiding by the intricacies of the policy. She addedthat when the policy is not followed, Human Resources usually hear about it through variouscorrespondences, or from their counterparts on the labour relations side. As a general rule, shetestified that CN is operating on the notion that its supervisors are following the policy in terms ofwhat they have been taught and what CN’s expectations are.[216] Ms. Ziemer also testified on cross-examination that the process described in theaccommodation policy would start as soon as an employee came forward and reported a problemor special need, although she added that that would not necessarily always lead to a decision thataccommodation is necessary. When asked by Complainant’s counsel why this process had notbeen initiated in the Complainant’s case, she answered that she did not know, because she had notbeen involved in this case. She also added that usually the employee goes to his or her immediatesupervisor as the first step.2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[217] Mr. Torchia testified that he had not met with the Complainant, because this wouldordinarily be done by the Complainant’s supervisor. He added that he did not know for “a fact”whether her supervisor had met with her, but he would “assume he did” because he had atelephone conversation with him and that he was aware of the situation.[218] On cross-examination, he testified that he had received training with regard to the duty toaccommodate “many years ago, in the early nineties”. For her part, Ms. Storms testified that shedid not recall receiving any training on CN’s accommodation policy. She added that she knewabout the policy and that if she had some concerns about it, she would talk to somebody inHuman Resources. Ms. Storms further added that she never really used the accommodationpolicy, because CMC does not get many requests for accommodation. She did acknowledgethough that there were times where CMC had accommodated employees because of seriousillnesses in the employee’s family or because somebody needed time off for personal reasons.