Employees failing to call in sick properly could be unhealthy to the employer
By Jeffrey R. Smith
An employee who comes to work sick isn’t likely to do anyone much good.
Even if the employee wants to be there, she’s likely to be less productive. And if she has something that’s contagious, it could spread to other employees. Sometimes it’s best just to take the day off and recuperate.
However, every employer seems to have workers that abuse sick days. They take time off when they’re not really sick, or at least not sick enough to prevent them from doing their job. Either way, someone who calls in sick puts extra pressure on the employer to cover the workload, especially if the business is industrial and the employee directly contributes to producing something. The employer either has to redistribute the workload among the employees present or find a last-minute replacement. To facilitate this process, most employers have a procedure to follow for an employee to call in sick and provide notice of their absence.
If an employee doesn’t follow the proper procedure to notify the employer, productivity, staffing levels and the workload of other employees could be affected, not to mention confusion over where the employee is and if she’s even coming back. So how serious should a failure to provide proper notification be?
The Toronto District School Board has an established policy for calling in sick that requires employees to contact the board’s call centre. The appropriate officials would be notified and arrangements would be made. However, in 2010, an employee called a board official’s line early in the morning and left a message indicating he would be absent. Despite the official’s voicemail instructing him to call the call centre, the employee did not. The official didn’t learn of the employee’s absence until three days later, when the employee called to say he was well enough to return to work.
The board gave the employee a written warning for not following reporting procedure and told him he would not be able to use his sick leave credits for the three days he was off — instead, the employee would not be paid for the days. But an arbitrator ordered the board to pay the employee for his sick days, finding the failure to pay was too harsh a punishment, as the employee had already received a written warning, which should be sufficient to rectify the misconduct.
Failing to follow outlined procedure for reporting absences may not seem like serious misconduct, but there is usually a reason the process is in place. In this case, the employee was aware of the policy and had acknowledged he had read it, but he didn’t follow it and ignored a reminder on the voicemail. The employer had no idea where he was for three days and, for many employers, this kind of absence without notice could have a negative effect on the workplace.
Should sick days be an inherent right or should they be contingent on the employee owning up to the responsibility of properly notifying the employer and not potentially hurting productivity?
Jeffrey R. Smith is the editor of Canadian Employment Law Today, a publication that looks at workplace law from a business perspective. He can be reached at [email protected]. For more information, visit www.employmentlawtoday.com.
