NCJ Number
96980
Date Published
1985
Length
29 pages
Annotation
This paper explores the conceptual issues which underly absentee employee disputes and examines the choices an arbitrator must make in such cases.
Abstract
Some of the elements of absenteeism are discussed, and absenteeism is divided into two categories: casual absenteeism, which refers to intermittent, repetitive, or short-term absences of 1, 2, or 3 days; and extended absenteeism, which refers to a relatively fixed or lengthy period of absence ordinarily prompted by sickness or injury. Employers' handling of the two types of absenteeism is described. Employer attendance control programs focus on curbing casual absenteeism; however, because extended absenteeism is far less disruptive, extended absences are ordinarily exempt from discipline, unless they become chronic or excessive. Attempts by employers to distinguish between excused and unexcused absences are examined, and arbitrators' difficulties with such cases are delineated. The meaning of 'excessive' absenteeism is considered, and the impossibility of arriving at a sound definition is noted. Cases of excessive absence due to illness or injury are reviewed, and differences of opinion among arbitrators are examined. A minority of arbitrators finds that discharge is unwarranted for excessive absenteeism due to illness; the majority view, however, is that discharge is justified for chronic, excessive absenteeism even when such absence is due to illness. No-fault absentee plans are characterized: all share the principle that the employee's reason for being absent is irrelevant. Finally, the potential of such plans for inequitable results is reviewed. Thirty-six references are listed.