View cases - Stewart McKelvey

28[116] On cross-examination, Ms. Storms added that CN had a number of employees with“issues with children at home”, but she could not recall how many besides the Complainant,Kasha Whyte and Denise Seeley. She further added that “it was kind of a general theme becauseso many people have children.” During his cross-examination, Mr. Torchia testified that no othercases based on family issues, other than these three, had been brought to his attention. No otherentries on the CMC spreadsheets, other than those for the Complainant, Denise Seeley andKasha Whyte, mentioned “family issues” or “child care issues” to explain the failure to report tothe shortage. Mr. Torchia also added that during his conversations with Ms. Storms he had notbeen informed that other employees had been exempted from reporting to Vancouver.2010 CHRT 24 (CanLII)[117] On June 22 nd or 23 rd , 2005, in an email in response to Ms. Storms’ email recapping hertelephone conversations with the Complainant, Mr. Torchia wrote: “As far as I am concerned they[the complainant, Kasha Whyte and Denise Seeley] have been given enough time to sort out theirpersonal affairs. If they wish to extend any further they will have to arrange with theirsupervisor.” Brian Kalin, who was Mr. Pizziol’s supervisor wrote on the same day: “There are nofurther extensions. I agree with Joe - they’ve had several months to get their affairs in order. It’sdecision time for them now.”. Brian Kalin was not called as a witness, so we have no details ofwhat he knew about the Complainant circumstances. There is also no evidence that anybody fromCN informed the Complainant that she should be dealing with her immediate supervisor, Mr.Pizziol, about her request to be excused from reporting to Vancouver.[118] Also of interest in the email chain that CN produced at the hearing is an email whichMr. Torchia testified as being from Albert Nashman. Mr. Torchia added that it had perhaps beenpasted on from another email but he wasn’t sure. He also could not make out the date of thisemail. This email stated: “I talked to Boechler last night. Told him that we are not going tocontinue to delay this process. They have an obligation per the collective agreement to protect.I told him what are we suppose to tell the next group that says they don’t want to go. If he wants tofile a grievance then so be it.” (The underlining is mine.)[119] The content of this email seems to be inconsistent with Mr. Torchia’s prior evidence to theeffect that he had made the decision that there would be no further extensions during the meeting