View cases - Stewart McKelvey

14(v)The Complainant’s recall to work[58] On February 25 th , 2005, the Complainant received a phone call from an unidentifiedemployee of the CMC, in Edmonton. This employee asked her: “If CN were to set you up, howlong would you take to report to duty?” She replied that that really depended on whether she wasbeing “set up” in Jasper or if she was going to be forced somewhere else. According to herrecollection, as she wrote it in a letter dated March 4 th , 2005, addressed to C. Pizziol, theTrainmaster at the Jasper terminal, the CMC employee answered that “it did not look likely thatshe would be forced anywhere as all terminals were short, including Jasper”. In that case shefigured that she would probably need a couple of weeks to figure out some sort of child carearrangement for her two children. This evidence of the Complainant was not challenged by CN.2010 CHRT 23 (CanLII)[59] No other employee from CMC, other that the Director, Elaine Storms, was called as awitness. Elaine Storms was not privy to this conversation between the Complainant and theunidentified CMC employee.[60] The next day, on February 26, 2005, Joe Lyons, the Manager Operations,Crew Management Centre, Western Operations, spoke on the telephone with the Complainant’shusband. He informed him that the Complainant was being forced to Vancouver to cover ashortage under the provisions of the collective agreement.[61] Joe Lyons, who used to work under Ms. Storms, was not called as a witness. Besides thefact that he no longer works for CN, no other explanation was given for his absence.[62] CN also produced at the hearing a letter from Joe Lyons to the Complainant datedFebruary 28 th , 2005, which states: “Further to our telephone call on February 25, 2005, recallingyou to CN you are recalled to the working board effective immediately as per the provisions ofArticle 115 of Agreement 4.3. There is also a shortage at Vancouver which requires the Companyto invoke the provisions of Article 89.10 and 148.11(c) of Agreement 4.3. This Article providesthat non protected employees are required to protect work over the seniority territory. In keeping