Discharge for Absenteeism?

Absenteeism has been a major problem for the city of Metropolis. The overall absenteeism rate has been about 6 percent for the past year. However, no unionized employee has been disciplined or discharged for excessive absenteeism under the provisions of labor contract. At the first week of Septembers department heads meeting (department heads meet early every Thursday to discuss various issues), the discussion centered on absenteeism. The consensus expressed by supervisors and managers was that the city administration was unwilling to back managers who might try to enforce the rules. The labor contract between the city and the union that represented most of the employees contained the following provisions:

Section 4.1. The city of Metropolis maintains the exclusive right to discipline an employee for just cause.

Section 8.3. The city of Metropolis has the right to discipline an employee for absenteeism. Excessive absenteeism may result in discharge.

During the meeting, the mayors chief administrative assistant, Nicole Powers, stated that the mayor did not want any adverse publicity regarding city personnel matters since the next year was the election year. However, Shane Dwight, the director of HR, took a more hardline approach, saying. Work rules need to be uniformly and consistently enforced throughout the city. Department heads should build their cases, and if the suspension without pay or being discharged is unwarranted, then so be it! Several managers and supervisors remarked that union leaders would be hostile to any suspension or discharge for absenteeism.

Ricardo Moreno-Varela, director of utility administration, said, We need to be objective, but if someone is a habitual offender, document your case. Well throw the disciplinary action on the wall and see if it will stick.

Shane Dwight then added, Most employees want to do the right thing and only a small minority are abusing our attendance policies. When infractions occur, we must take disciplinary action with the objective of improving the employees future behavior. Remember to investigate thoroughly before recommending disciplinary action.

The Discharge of Charlie Pulfer: Pulfer had been an employee in the sanitation department for almost 15 years. A review of his personnel file revealed the following:

he had the ability and experience to do the assigned work.

his overall performance has been satisfactory.

he had received annual pay advances as prescribed by union contract; and

his work performance the past several years has not been good.

On Friday, September 18, he failed to show up for work or call in. He was given an oral warning. The second Friday in October, he did the same thing, and was given a day off without pay. His manager and the HR manager told him and the union steward that they were not going to tolerate such behavior.

On October 30, he called in two hours before a scheduled shift and said that he was not feeling well and would not be in to work that day. A review of his personnel records from January to October revealed that Pulfer had missed 16 of the days that he was scheduled to work. Any time he worked overtime during the week, he would fail to show up for his next regularly scheduled Friday or Monday. On only three occasions, he brought in notes from a doctor indicating that he had been sick; the other was for a variety of personal reasons.

The first Friday in December was the last straw. He failed to show up for work and failed to call in. This was his regularly scheduled workday. At a meeting, with union representatives and Charlie Pulfer, the administration informed him that he was being discharged for excessive absenteeism and failure to call in again.

This maintains that Charlie was terminated for just cause, because he had failed to carry out his responsibilities as an employee. His recent absences were a glaring example of a total disregard of his responsibilities.

The unions position: Charlie Pulfer admitted that he failed to report to work last Friday. He said he did not feel good, tried to call in, and all the lines were busy. He admitted that he never thought about sending an e-mail. He maintained that he had a valid excuse, and when he arrived on Monday, he explained to a supervisor, Im sorry about Friday, the darn furnace went out on me. One of my kids was sick, and I needed to get heat in the house. You know, it was less than that day. It took me most of the day to overhaul the blower.

The union reminded management that Charlie had worked for the city for many years, and until recently, he had never been disciplined. Charlie Pulfer would not be able to find comparable work in todays economy, and he and his family would suffer severe economic hardships. The union requested that he not be discharged, and that the city reinstate him with back pay and full benefits, since this was an unjust action by the city administration.

Questions

1. What is the average absenteeism rate in America for county government? How does city Metropolis absenteeism rate of 6 percent compare with the absenteeism rate of other city and county governmental units and industry?

2. Based on your findings, how serious is the citys absenteeism problem?

3. What should the city do to minimize absenteeism?

4. This case will probably go to arbitration. The arbitrator will have several possible options, such as:

The city would be correct in terminating Pulfer.

The citys tally of discharge was too severe (e.g., five days off without pay. What would be more appropriate?).

The city should not have penalized Pulfer in any way because of his reasons for his latest absence.

If you were the arbitrator, how would you rule and why?