View cases - Stewart McKelvey

68as there was no evidence that the Complainant could have been set up in a full time position inJasper at that time or that this would have been the appropriate accommodation had CN followedits Accommodation Policy. There was also no evidence of any employees being set up in Jasperat that time.[243] The second date is March 1 st , 2006. According to the evidence, this is the date thatanother laid off employee from Jasper, who had been recalled and had reported to Vancouver, wasset up in Jasper. Since only four employees from Jasper, the Complainant, Denise Seeley, CindyRichards and this other employee, had been recalled and told to report to Vancouver, it might bereasonable to expect that the they would also have been set up in Jasper around March 2006. It isalso important to note that the Complainant was the laid off employee with the most seniority inJasper. Ms. Storms also testified that “because the Complainant’s seniority is very close to [that ofthe employee who was set up] it is safe to say that [she] would have been recalled to Jasper at thattime as well.”2010 CHRT 22 (CanLII)[244] Finally, evidence was produced that in March 2007, CN hired Conductors in Jasper andthat many of these new Conductors have since been set up. It is reasonable to conclude thereforethat, considering the fact that the Complainant had seniority over these new Conductors, that shewould have been set up in Jasper ahead of them.[245] With the admission of Ms. Storms, it is safe to conclude that the Complainant would mostlikely have been set up in March 2006, had she not been terminated and this date is therefore theone retained for her reinstatement.[246] In regards to her seniority, since seniority continues to accumulate even when anemployee is on lay off, it will in this case continue to accumulate as if there had never been abreach in her relationship with CN in July, 2005.