Worker was shocked to be fired for not providing a doctor's until after his absence though it had been allowed previously
The Ontario Arbitration Board has ruled a warehouse worker should not have been fired for being absent from work when he followed a procedure which had been allowed before.
Brian Darroch worked in the manufacturing plant of Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd. in Waterloo, Ont. The company’s attendance policy requires employees to call in absences or lateness before a shift starts, except for “exceptional circumstances.” The policy stipulates voicemail messages must include the employee’s name, clock number, reason for absence and estimated date or time of return to work. At the plant, there are also rules posted which ask employees to report absences prior to the start of a shift. When Darroch transferred to his latest department, the supervisor told him at orientation to call him before the shift if he was going to be off sick.
On May 30, 2006, Darroch left a voice message on the supervisor’s voicemail saying he was sick and going to the doctor. There was no other explanation nor any indication when he would be back at work. Darroch was absent the next two days but the company didn’t hear from him.
On the fourth day of absence, June 2, with no word from Darroch, Waterloo Furniture decided to terminate him for violating its attendance policy. However, later that day, Darroch called in and said he had seen a doctor and had a note, which he would bring in. However, the company maintained Darroch had violated the policy by not calling in for two days and it had to enforce the rules.
Darroch claimed wrongful dismissal, saying his doctor’s note provided appropriate reason for his absence and he had followed a similar procedure years earlier in which the company accepted the doctor’s note to “backdate” the notice of absence after he hadn’t called in for a couple of days.
The board agreed Darroch failed to meet his obligation to inform Waterloo Furniture of his absence under the attendance policy for three days, which gave the company authority to fire him under the policy. However, the doctor’s note gave him proof of a “verifiable illness” and the company’s previous practice showed this was acceptable proof even if given days later.
“The company’s practice under (the policy) is not consistent in regard to its application of the provision to dismiss an employee after he or she has been on unreported absences,” the board said. “The evidence also reveals that the company has not dismissed employees who have more than two consecutive working days of unreported absences but who have subsequently verified their illness.”
The board ordered Darroch be reinstated effective the date of his termination. See Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd. v. U.S.W., Local 7155, 2007 CarswellOnt 4784 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).
Brian Darroch worked in the manufacturing plant of Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd. in Waterloo, Ont. The company’s attendance policy requires employees to call in absences or lateness before a shift starts, except for “exceptional circumstances.” The policy stipulates voicemail messages must include the employee’s name, clock number, reason for absence and estimated date or time of return to work. At the plant, there are also rules posted which ask employees to report absences prior to the start of a shift. When Darroch transferred to his latest department, the supervisor told him at orientation to call him before the shift if he was going to be off sick.
On May 30, 2006, Darroch left a voice message on the supervisor’s voicemail saying he was sick and going to the doctor. There was no other explanation nor any indication when he would be back at work. Darroch was absent the next two days but the company didn’t hear from him.
On the fourth day of absence, June 2, with no word from Darroch, Waterloo Furniture decided to terminate him for violating its attendance policy. However, later that day, Darroch called in and said he had seen a doctor and had a note, which he would bring in. However, the company maintained Darroch had violated the policy by not calling in for two days and it had to enforce the rules.
Darroch claimed wrongful dismissal, saying his doctor’s note provided appropriate reason for his absence and he had followed a similar procedure years earlier in which the company accepted the doctor’s note to “backdate” the notice of absence after he hadn’t called in for a couple of days.
The board agreed Darroch failed to meet his obligation to inform Waterloo Furniture of his absence under the attendance policy for three days, which gave the company authority to fire him under the policy. However, the doctor’s note gave him proof of a “verifiable illness” and the company’s previous practice showed this was acceptable proof even if given days later.
“The company’s practice under (the policy) is not consistent in regard to its application of the provision to dismiss an employee after he or she has been on unreported absences,” the board said. “The evidence also reveals that the company has not dismissed employees who have more than two consecutive working days of unreported absences but who have subsequently verified their illness.”
The board ordered Darroch be reinstated effective the date of his termination. See Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd. v. U.S.W., Local 7155, 2007 CarswellOnt 4784 (Ont. Arb. Bd.).
