|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-389 August 15, 1945
Discharge For Habitual Absence Without Reasonable Cause
GRIEVANCE: Fisher Flint No. 1 -- Case C-111 "I protest discharge meted out by Labor Relations Department in view of the fact my absence was due entirely to sickness, also request pay for all time lost."
Umpire’s Decision: The grievance is dismissed. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 581 and General Motors Corporation—Fisher No. 1 -- Flint—Case C-111
On Monday, March 5th, 1945, the complainant, Employee F. complained that he was ill and requested permission to leave the plant. At the Plant Medical Department he stated that he was suffering from nausea and diarrhea and was allowed to go home. He did not return to the plant until March 14th, 1945. At that time he was interviewed in the Labor Relations Office and informed that on the evening of Tuesday, March 6th, he had been observed drinking in a bar directly across the street from the plant. Management also pointed out that during the period of his absence he had visited the plant on three occasions, twice on Friday, March 9th, 1945, to get, his pay check and to report the loss of some keys, and once on Monday, March 12th, 1945, to inquire about a refund of his bond deduction. On March 9th, moreover, Management had sent a Company representative to his place of residence to determine why he had not reported for work and had found that he was not home. In view of F.’s failure to give any satisfactory explanation which could reconcile these facts with his claim of illness, and after considering his long prior record of discipline for excessive absenteeism, Management discharged him for "Habitual absence without reasonable cause." In this grievance F. claims that his discharge was unjustified and asks reinstatement with back pay. F.’s record of absenteeism is among the worst which has come to the Umpire’s attention. He was originally hired in 1930, was laid off early in 1942 at the termination of civilian production, and was rehired to work on war production on May 14th, 1942. During the following six months he was absent from work on 30 occasions and as a result, on November 10th, 1942, received a one-week disciplinary layoff. During the next seven months he was absent on 36 occasions and on June 3rd, 1943, received a written reprimand. During the next seven months he was absent on 34 occasions, and on January 11th, 1944, received a verbal warning. During the next eight months he was absent on 32 occasions and on September 9th, 1944, was given a two-week disciplinary layoff. During the four months between the time of his return from this layoff and January 15th, 1945, he was absent 12 times and on the latter date was given a four-week disciplinary layoff. This four-week layoff was later reduced to two weeks with the understanding that if his attendance record failed to improve he would be discharged. The number of absences revealed in this record is bad enough. Even more significant, however, is the fact that the majority of the absences which he attempted to excuse by a claim of illness occurred on weekends. F. seems to have had the consistent habit of becoming ill on Friday and well again on Tuesday. So far as the Umpire knows, nothing in medical science can account for such a remarkable correlation between the state of F.’s health and the state of the calendar. His record is not such as to inspire confidence in his present good faith. The Union makes no attempt to excuse or condone F.’s record. It contends only that in the instant case his excuse was in fact bona fide; that though he was able to be "up and around" from time to time during the nine days of his absence, he was nevertheless too sick to come to work. It first attempted to explain his presence in the bar on the evening following his initial claim of illness by the fact that he lived by himself in a nearby hotel and had to take his meals in restaurants nearby. It developed at the hearing, however, that no food is served in the bar in which he was observed. F. then attempted to explain his presence by stating that he had gone to the bar to buy cigarettes. It seems, however, that cigarettes are available only on Wednesday evenings at this bar and it is established beyond question that he was seen there on Tuesday. It is evident from the testimony of these who observed him, moreover, that his conduct in the bar was not that of a sick man. In view of his presence at the bar on March 6th and his visits to the plant on March 9th and 12th, it appears to the Umpire beyond question that F. was physically able to return to work many days before he actually did. As Management had already exhausted the possibilities of improving his attendance by corrective discipline, his discharge was justified and is upheld.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE August 15, 1945. |