The grievor had developed a cavalier attitude toward attendance. He was fired. The arbitrator found that, despite the grievor's long service, the employer's efforts to have him mend his ways had been both adequate and ineffective.
A worker was fired after repeated unauthorized absences from the workplace. The union grieved.
T.B. was employed as a Painter for a housing authority. T.B. began with the employer as a seasonal worker in 1988. After about 10 years he secured a full-time position as a painter and plasterer. T.B. was part of a crew that worked to refurbish vacant housing units.
There were no issues with the quality of T.B.’s work. However, his frequent absences from the worksite became an issue after T.B. returned from a special leave in 2007.
Generally, a driver delivered supplies to the crews on site. T.B. was permitted to leave the work site to get materials but only with a supervisor’s direct permission: simply leaving a voicemail did not satisfy the reporting requirement.
After his supervisor discovered T.B. to be absent from the worksite a number of times, T.B. was issued a written warning on Nov. 27, 2007 reminding him that he needed prior permission before leaving the worksite.
In 2008, T.B.’s sick leave absences also came under scrutiny. He was told in a meeting on April 14, 2008 that he required a medical note for every sick leave absence.
Absent from the worksite
On Oct. 3, 2008 a supervisor again found T.B. to be absent from a worksite. When T.B. showed up 20 minutes later, the supervisor issued a verbal warning. T.B. was told not to leave the worksite without permission again.
T.B. was absent from the workplace again on Oct. 30. He was issued a 20-day suspension.
T.B. did not return from his suspension on Dec. 10 as scheduled. He took sick leave and an unpaid leave until Dec. 18. T.B. returned on Friday, Dec. 19 but was a no-show when his supervisor came to check on him on the following Monday.
T.B. first reported that he had showed up for work that morning but then left after he began to feel ill. He said that he had called his supervisor. However, when questioned on the particulars of his story, T.B. admitted that there was no call and that he had slept in.
T.B. was fired.
Discipline questioned
The union argued that dismissal was excessive and punitive in the circumstances. T.B. had nearly 20 years of service with the employer. There had been no attempt to rehabilitate T.B. and the employer had not properly applied the standard steps of progressive discipline, the union said.
The employer said that it had tried a number of times to make T.B. follow proper reporting procedures and that it had applied progressive discipline to no avail.
The employer said that T.B. did not initially tell the truth about the circumstances of his final absence. No evidence had been presented concerning T.B.’s needs for rehabilitation or how his failure to be rehabilitated may have affected his ability to follow standard reporting procedures. The employer took the view that there was no possibility of restoring the employment relationship.
The Arbitrator agreed.
The employer had just cause to discipline T.B. for his failure to follow reporting procedures and for his lack of candour.
The Arbitrator rejected the union’s assertion that the employer had misapplied the steps of its progressive discipline system.
“I find that the Employer properly applied the principle of progressive discipline, by warning the Grievor that further conduct would result in a more severe penalty and giving him the opportunity to correct his behaviour, before the Employer imposed the more severe disciplinary penalties of suspension and dismissal. The Grievor was warned in the letter dated Nov. 13, 2008, that he would be dismissed from employment if he failed to follow supervisory direction or failed to comply with Employer policies or procedures.”
T.B. violated clear directions, the Arbitrator said. His actions showed disregard for the Employer’s reporting policy.
The termination was warranted.
