Arbitrator calls employer's approach to absenteeism 'mechanistic'
A 21-year registered nurse at Niagara Health System has been reinstated with full back pay after an arbitrator ruled the employer mechanically applied its attendance support program without considering her individual circumstances.
In a decision dated Feb. 3, 2026, Matthew Wilson found that while the nurse had excessive absenteeism, the employer failed to properly assess whether her attendance would improve after resuming the program following a 2.5-year pandemic pause.
The case centered on whether the employer's Attendance Support Program was applied fairly when it terminated the nurse in March 2023 after she exceeded thresholds during the final phase. The employer had paid her $51,210 in termination and severance pay.
5 stages to attendance management
The employer paused its Attendance Support Program in March 2020 due to the pandemic and resumed it in September 2022. Employees enrolled in the program received a letter advising of the resumption and their current phase.
The program had five stages of progression for non-culpable absenteeism. After April 2019, employees progressed to the next phase if absent for 37.5 hours or three occurrences in a four-month period. The program specifically excluded absences related to chronic conditions and WSIB-covered injuries.
The nurse, who was at stage 4, received a letter dated August 29, 2022 but no meeting occurred to discuss her status after more than two years without contact.
Wilson found this problematic. The nurse’s last meeting under the program was in January 2020, where the employer used a checklist to emphasize the impact of absenteeism and offer assistance. The arbitrator noted that given the 2.5-year gap, "the employer should have taken the time to restate those messages to the grievor."
Absences trigger termination
Three incidents moved the nurse into the final phase between September and December 2022: a suspected heart attack in September, a COVID screening failure in October, and an absence in December. The nurse testified she experienced symptoms consistent with a possible heart attack on Sept. 17, 2022, was admitted to hospital, and had a cardiac catheterization on Sept. 19.
Wilson wrote that "the details surrounding this absence warranted further inquiry from the employer to better understand the details of the incident and whether it ought to have been excluded from the ASP."
The Oct. 24 absence was equally problematic. The nurse attended work but failed the employer's COVID-19 screening test and was sent home. The adjacent days, Oct. 25 and 26, were excluded from the program as COVID-related, but Oct. 24 was counted as an occurrence.
Wilson found no explanation for this inconsistency and called it "unreasonable to count this absence to trigger the termination of employment."
Absenteeism rate declines
The employer's witness, manager of wellness and health promotion, testified that he reviewed the attendance history and time frame in the program as predictor of continuing patterns.
However, he acknowledged in cross-examination that "in the last three reporting periods, the grievor's sick leave usage declined even though it continued to exceed the thresholds set out in the ASP."
The nurse’s absenteeism rate had declined substantially: 24.26 percent from October 2018 to March 2019, dropping to 13.85 percent, then 10.40 percent, and finally 8.65 percent in the final phase from September to December 2022. Yet the employer terminated her employment without meeting with her about this improvement.
‘Robotic’ process for attendance management
Wilson emphasized that an attendance support program cannot be applied without individual assessment: "It cannot be applied mechanistically and formulaically. There must not be a rigid or robotic process in following the steps of such a program without individual assessment."
The arbitrator found the employer's decision-making process "was devoid of any conversation with the grievor about her circumstances." The employer did not consider that her son's mental health condition was under control, that complications from her rheumatoid arthritis medication had resolved, or that other medical issues had been addressed.
Wilson concluded: "A mechanistic approach to innocent absenteeism occurs where an employer ignores the extraneous circumstances of the employee, fails to make inquiries where the situation warrants it, or reaches a judgement without having all the relevant information."
The employer was ordered to reinstate the nurse without loss of service or seniority and compensate her for lost wages and benefits.
