Worker had clean record and acknowledged he was wrong in taking sick day when he wasn't sick
An arbitrator has ordered an employer to reduce the suspension given to an employee who called in sick under false pretences but came clean about it the same day.
David Hall was a cut-link journeyman for BA International, a company that inspected and handled Bank of Canada paper currency. Hall was hired in 1998. Due to the nature of BA International’s business, the workplace was a high security environment and employees required a certain level of security clearance. Hall’s clearance was at the “secret” level, which was needed to do his job.
Early in the morning on May 26, 2015, Hall called his work and said he was sick and needed to stay home. His supervisor called him back that afternoon to say he would need to submit a medical certificate verifying his absence due to illness. Hall immediately said he wasn’t really sick, but needed to take the day off because there was no water at his home.
Hall explained that when he discovered there was no water at his home that morning, he knew he was going to be late for work but couldn’t request a day off without pay. He claimed he immediately regretted doing it and planned to talk to his supervisor the next day.
Hall said he knew he still had vacation days remaining and he was embarrassed about his actions. He acknowledged he was wrong and exercised bad judgment by calling in sick.
BA International took Hall’s misconduct seriously, because his job required a high level of trust in a high security environment. By initially misleading his employer, Hall demonstrated a capacity to be fraudulent, which raised serious questions for BA International about whether it could trust him anymore. In addition, the company felt had Hall’s supervisor not called him back to ask for a medical certificate, Hall probably wouldn’t have admitted that he lied.
The company felt Hall’s misconduct was serious enough to warrant termination of employment, but it took into consideration his 17 years of service and the lack of discipline on his record. Rather than dismissing Hall, BA International decided to suspend him for 10 days without pay.
The union grieved the suspension, arguing that while Hall’s actions deserved some discipline, a 10-day suspension for an employee with such long service was unfair, particularly since he owned up to his misconduct and acknowledged he was wrong. The union also noted that a year earlier, another employee had been suspended for one day for not bringing in a doctor’s note after being requested to do so.
The arbitrator noted that the collective agreement allowed BA International to request a doctor’s note for any medical absence before the employee returned to work. In addition, sick leave was based on a self-reporting system and abuse of it is often difficult to detect. As a result, lying about it was a significant breach of trust, said the arbitrator.
However, the arbitrator found the union had a point when it argued that Hall’s length of service and lack of discipline on his record were mitigating factors. It was also important that Hall immediately came clean when his supervisor called him back about the doctor’s note, said the arbitrator.
“(Hall) recognized what he did was wrong, showed contrition and, as noted in the correspondence imposing the suspension, appeared to appreciate the seriousness of his actions,” said the arbitrator.
While it was important that employees who abuse sick leave be disciplined, the arbitrator noted it was also important to encourage employees to be forthcoming about their actions when confronted by the employer. Therefore, Hall shouldn’t receive greater discipline for trying to correct the situation than a co-worker who didn’t bring in a doctor’s note when ordered to do so, said the arbitrator.
