View cases - Stewart McKelvey

15with this Article you are required to protect the shortage of Yard employees at Vancouver.”The Complainant testified that she never received this letter. This letter had been mailed to theComplainant’s former address in Jasper where she no longer resided.[63] The Complainant explained that before the recall of 2005, she had never refused beingforced to another location, but her family status had now changed making it a more difficultoption for her. In her March 4 th , 2005, letter to Mr. Pizziol she explained “I am in a very difficultsituation. I have 2 children: one aged 6 enrolled in kindergarten in a french immersion school inHinton, the other is 21 months old. We live in a hamlet, Brule, of less than 180 people situatednearly 40 km from Hinton. We have no immediate family nearby to help with the children. Thereis no registered daycare in Brule. There is a daycare in Hinton, however they only have standardbusiness hours. My husband is also a railroader who as you know is required to work around theclock and may be gone anywhere from 15 to 24 hours.” Consequently, she requested a 30 dayextension “to explore any options that may exist.”2010 CHRT 23 (CanLII)[64] Mr. Pizziol never replied to this letter. Mr. Pizziol was not called as a witness at thehearing and no explanation other than the fact that he does not work for CN anymore, was givenfor his absence.[65] On March 7 th , 2005, the Complainant made a follow-up call to Mr. Pizziol and left avoice-mail message explaining her family situation and the difficulties related to childcare.On that same day, she also wrote to the Local Chairperson of the UTU informing him of the lettershe had sent to her supervisor requesting the thirty (30) day extension, She also added “this is atroublesome situation for me and I don’t have many option due to my young family, [my husband]railroad career and where we live.”[66] On March 26 th , 2005, she again wrote to Mr. Pizziol asking him to consider her familysituation. She repeated what she had written in her earlier letter, informing him that it would bedifficult to take her children with her to Vancouver and that because of childcare responsibilities,neither was it feasible to leave them with their father whose own work obligations would cause