Frequently absent worker wasn't alcoholic, just irresponsible
An Alberta worker’s frequent unjustified absences were the result of irresponsibility, not alcoholism, the Alberta Arbitration Board has ruled.
Kyle Norman, 26, was a process operator for Tack Coal in Hinton, Alta. His work schedule consisted of four days of 12-hour shifts followed by four days off and the shifts could be during the day or overnight.
On Nov. 4, 2008, while Norman was working as an equipment operator about 17 months after he was hired, Tack gave him a counselling report that indicated he had missed 186 hours of work for the year up to that date when the average annual absenteeism rate was nine hours missed. The report required him to provide medical notes for absences and contact his foreman if he was going to miss a shift. It also said if his attendance didn’t improve, he could be subject to discipline “up to and including termination.” Norman signed an acknowledgement that he received the report.
In February 2009, Norman transferred to his process operator position and met with management to discuss his attendance. Tack management told him attendance was importance and help was available if he needed it. Norman said it was “a new start” for him and he wanted to do well.
On May 27, 2009, Tack held an attendance review meeting with Norman after he missed 198 hours in the first five months of the year. It told him his job was in danger and it would monitor his attendance.
Norman called in sick for a shift in July, but it was in fact because his friend had died. Tack discovered the real reason but allowed it for compassionate reasons. At the time, Norman guaranteed he would show up for his next shift. However, this didn’t happen.
On Aug. 31, Norman was disciplined for sleeping on the job. He then missed three days of work following the Labour Day holiday. He was again warned at an attendance meeting that he could be fired if his attendance didn’t improve. However, he called in sick shortly before his next scheduled shift on Sept. 23, 2009, and missed the next three days as well.
However, Norman was seen at a bar on the evening of his fourth missed shift on Sept. 26, while he was supposed to be off sick. The following week, he called in sick again and was seen at another bar and later hosted a party at his home. By Oct. 8, Norman still had not come back to work and demanded a doctor’s note from him. Norman, who to this point hadn’t seen a doctor, quickly made an appointment and obtained a note.
Tack was skeptical of the note as it was aware of his partying and was prepared to dismiss him. Norman admitted he hadn’t been sick but was an alcoholic, which gave him the impulse to party and avoid work. Tack didn’t believe him and fired him on Oct. 28, 2009. Norman claimed the company didn’t accommodate his mental disability, which was the reason for his misconduct.
After hearing from medical experts that Norman was not addicted to alcohol but instead his impulsive and reckless behaviour and dishonesty was the result of “his long-term difficulties coping successfully with life,” the board found his “maladaptive patterns of behaviour” were not a mental disability that required accommodation. It also found his issues with drinking, partying, overspending and other things were related to “personal choice and immaturity,” not mental health issues.
The board found Norman’s dishonesty in his short period of employment with Tack along with his excessive absenteeism were sufficient to give the company just cause for dismissal.
