FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

7Employee “D”: He was on his probationary period and his department was nolonger in need of additional assembly workers.Employee “E”: He was a junior operator, so we still had a senior operator with20 years experience to keep the machine going.Employee “F”: He was on his probationary period, and had attendance andperformance issues.[25] Following the discussion to identify the employees who would be laid off, Ms.Outerbridge testified that she then prepared lay off letters for each of the chosen employees.To prepare these letters she testified she used a standard template. The lay off letters wereprepared by her for Mr. Holodryga’s signature.2011 CanLII 72774 (SK LRB)[26] That afternoon (June 22, 2011), four employees were asked to come to DougRiddock’s office where Mr. Riddock and Ms. Outerbridge advised them of their permanent layoff. Only four employees were terminated that day, according to Ms. Outerbridge’s testimonybecause one of the employees who was to be laid off, Mr. Dunbar, was away that afternoon at adental appointment and as a result, they determined to withhold the lay off of one of the otheremployees, Mr. Phan, until Mr. Dunbar had returned to work.[27] Ms. Outerbridge testified that the lay off of Mr. Dunbar and Mr. Phan was to haveoccurred on June 23, 2011. She testified, however, that Mr. Riddock was in meetings and couldnot be found by her. As a result, she redid the lay off letters for Mr. Dunbar and Mr. Phan forthe following day.[28] Mr. Lepper visited the Regina plant on June 24, 2011. The evidence disclosedthat he was a frequent visitor to the plant, but his visits were not on a regular schedule. Duringhis visit, Ms. Outerbridge testified that Mr. Lepper participated with her in a series of four “toolbox” meetings with employees.[29] The Agenda for those meetings was hand written by Mr. Lepper. She wasunable to provide a copy of the agenda which he prepared. However, she did produce Minuteswhich she took at the meetings.