Joe Show had been working with Fill $\text{'}$er Up$,$ a unionized company that manufactures bologna and other meat products in Calgary, Alberta, for $18$ years $-$ untill recently.

Last week, Joe was terminated for non$-$attendance. The employer claimed that Joe's non$-$attendance was excessive and that the company was justified in removing him.

Joe had been in the company's Attendance Management Program since last February when he returned to work after he broke his leg in an ATV accident while at his cabin, which resulted in him missing thirty consecutive days of work. He was counselled, and the company's expectations were discussed with him.

Two months after he returned to work, he developed a kidney infection and was off work for another two weeks $(10$ days in April$).$ Joe's attendance record was addressed, and it was noted that while his attendance had improved, it was still at an unacceptable level, well above the average for the industry in the province. Joe was given a letter explaining that if his attendance didn't improve, his employment would be terminated.

In the following months, he missed a day here and there due to sinus infections and other minor ailments. In January $2019,$ Joe was absent for one week after spraining his wrist in an altercation at a nightclub.

The employer dismissed Joe when he showed up late for work on April $22$nd$.$ Upon his arrival at work, he explained to his supervisor that his RV had been vandalized the night before and that he had been at the police station reporting the incident.

His attendance record showed the following days absent in each month of $2018-19$:

$\backslash$table$[[2018,$Days Absent$],[$Jan$,15],[$Feb$,15],[$Mar$,1],[$Apr$,10],[$May$,2]]$Joe Show had been working with Fill $\text{'}$er Up$,$ a unionized company that manufactures bologna and other meat products in Calgary, Alberta, for $18$ years $-$ untill recently.

Last week, Joe was terminated for non$-$attendance. The employer claimed that Joe's non$-$attendance was excessive and that the company was justified in removing him.

Joe had been in the company's Attendance Management Program since last February when he returned to work after he broke his leg in an ATV accident while at his cabin, which resulted in him missing thirty consecutive days of work. He was counselled, and the company's expectations were discussed with him.

Two months after he returned to work, he developed a kidney infection and was off work for another two weeks $(10$ days in April$).$ Joe's attendance record was addressed, and it was noted that while his attendance had improved, it was still at an unacceptable level, well above the average for the industry in the province. Joe was given a letter explaining that if his attendance didn't improve, his employment would be terminated.

In the following months, he missed a day here and there due to sinus infections and other minor ailments. In January $2019,$ Joe was absent for one week after spraining his wrist in an altercation at a nightclub.

The employer dismissed Joe when he showed up late for work on April $22$nd$.$ Upon his arrival at work, he explained to his supervisor that his RV had been vandalized the night before and that he had been at the police station reporting the incident.

His attendance record showed the following days absent in each month of $2018-19$:

$\backslash$table$[[2018,$Days Absent$],[$Jan$,15],[$Feb$,15],[$Mar$,1],[$Apr$,10],[$May$,2]]$