The Ennis and All Saints’ Hospital instance discusses the dismissal of Bradley Ennis from the infirmary for inordinate absenteeism ( 17. 5 per centum versus a hospital norm of 7 per centum ) . The grievant. Bradley Ennis. was employed as a trauma nurse from May 1. 1991 to December 3. 2008. For a 16 twelvemonth period. up to January 2008. Mr. Ennis’ work public presentation was rated satisfactory ( 2 on a graduated table of 3 ) for most old ages and superior ( 3 on a graduated table of 3 ) for his last three old ages by his employer. In fact. during this 16 twelvemonth period there were no ailments sing the quality and truth of the employee’s work. As good. over the class of his employment. Mr. Ennis maintained his enfranchisement as a trauma specializer. a demand of the trauma unit. In December 2007 Mr. Ennis’s five-year-old girl died out of the blue. After his daughter’s decease. Mr. Ennis began to hold attending issues and was reprimanded on 3 separate occasions on January 27. 2008. July 23. 2008. and October 3. 2008 for being absent from work without permission. Three warnings were issued ; one verbal guidance and two written warnings. In December 3. 2008. Mr. Ennis was terminated by his employer.
The incident of his daughter’s decease led him to trust on kiping pills to get by. However. this dependence has caused a bead in Mr. Ennis’ work public presentation. Before Mr. Ennis’s discharge. Ennis sought intervention for a drug and intoxicant dependence and he is trying to return to work through arbitration. Ennis’s dependence counsellor. Dr. Cooper. claimed that Ennis has an 80 per centum opportunity of staying chemical-free and keep an acceptable attending every bit good as public presentation record after returning to work. Sing Ennis’s old abnormally high absenteeism record and his three backslidings after halting his guidance. the direction of the infirmary should non allow Mr. Ennis an chance to return to work. The direction has sufficient grounds to reject Ennis’s reinstatement. First. cogent evidence has to be made against Mr. Ennis demoing grounds of his absenteeism. Second. the direction must convert their oppositions that the disciplinary action was justified. Proof of absenteeism wasn’t hard to obtain. nevertheless ; because the justifications of disciplinary action is problematic. direction must demo that the mourner. Ennis. is blameworthy. or guilty.
To demo that Ennis is blameworthy. it is of import that direction provide grounds to turn out Ennis was cognizant of his duties as an employee. of the necessary safeguards and stairss required of him during the clip period of accusal. Management must besides turn out that Ennis was capable of transporting out these undertakings. and eventually turn out that he chose to make otherwise. Without all of these “elements of culpability” . direction can non turn out Mr. Ennis was guilty. To turn out Ennis was absent for 17. 5 % . about 10 % more than the hospital usual. analysis was taken into the guidance Sessionss that he missed. every bit good as the backslidings in May 2008. November 2008. and October 2009. to demo Mr. Ennis’ deficiency of consistent attending. This is paired with the fact that his absences were unaccounted for. which would include neglecting to name in ill. A big portion of grounds to turn out Ennis’ absenteeism is his most recent backsliding occurred on October 25. 2009. which was merely four months prior to the day of the month set for arbitration.
This showed a deficiency of enthusiasm for returning to work. despite the attempt Dr. Cooper. his dependence counsellor. had put forth saying that Ennis had an 80 % opportunity of being sober. Eighty per centum. nevertheless ; is non an ideal figure for Ennis. who will be managing the potentially deadly drugs. a hazard excessively great for both the patients and Ennis himself. Besides. despite the fact that there was another employee who had attained a 13 % ( about one eighth ) absence. Ennis. who had a per centum about a fifth of his expected work hours. was deemed excessively inappropriate. particularly for a place that other lives depend on. Thus. direction doubts his capableness to make his old. satisfactory. public presentation degree. Agreed upon by the direction of the infirmary. state of affairss like this were to be dealt with utilizing the construct of progressive subject. which is similar to holding 3 work stoppages. It would be a method to guarantee that Ennis. every bit good as a brotherhood representative. are cognizant of the disciplinary action that could result if Ennis continued his hapless public presentation.
It was agreed that verbal guidance would be the first measure prior to any other disciplinary actions. If the employee does non better their public presentation. the normal patterned advance of subject will be followed through ( Hebdon & A ; Brown. 2008 ) . Ennis’ actions lead direction through the full patterned advance of subject. and by the terminal. after the 2nd written warning. gave them no other pick but to dispatch him from his place. This is a major factor in why direction hold ‘just cause’ for ending Bradley Ennis from his place here at All Saint’s Hospital. because both the brotherhood and the infirmary agreed upon these footings. Management feels that Mr. Ennis does non demo any ground to be an exclusion to these footings. Management feels that they did non handle Ennis with unjust or unfair subject. and due to his action we feel the concluding measure of expiration was the lone option. There are a figure of normally accepted regulations to whether an employer has used ‘just cause’ in the instances of subject and discharge.
Management feels that there is without inquiry merely cause in this instance. Harmonizing to the text edition chapter 9 “Strikes and difference resolution” . during an arbitration procedure. stand foring merely cause to train is decidedly the cardinal point for both brotherhoods and direction. By and large talking. adequate grounds. which was merely cause for disciplinary actions. is presented by direction ( Hebdon & A ; Brown. 2008 ) . Ennis’s expiration followed the processs regulated in the Collective Agreement Clause. since the necessary verbal guidance and two written warnings for inordinate absenteeism ( 17. 5 per centum as against a hospital mean rate of 7 per centum ) were given on January 27. 2008. June 23. 2008. and October 15. 2008. severally. Although the measure of suspension without wage was skipped. the expiration was still considered justified based on the clause that certain offenses are sufficiently serious to justify immediate discharge and/or a faster patterned advance through the procedure ( Hebdon & A ; Brown. 2008 ) . Harmonizing to the Article 32-Corrective Action And Discipline: “32. 1 Employees can be disciplined merely for merely cause. Such subject must be sensible and commensurate with the earnestness of the violation”
When associating to the instance. Ennis failed to name in ill excessively many times. and as mentioned above. have stressed both employees and patients with his carelessness. Furthermore. because his girl died at the infirmary he worked at. it should do sense that forestalling another incident from go oning to person else would be an imperative for Ennis. every bit good as the infirmary. As support for evidences to end. based on absenteeism. several instances are presented. Management found a mention from National Auto Radiator Mfg. Co. Ltd. and U. A. W. . Local 195 ( 1976 ) . 11 L. A. C. ( 2d ) 48 ( Brandt ) at pp. 52-3. the arbiter stated: “It is clear in jurisprudence that an employer can end employment for “blameless absenteeism””
Another mention. see Re United Rubber Workers and Seiberling Rubber Co. Ltd. ( 1969. 20 L. A. C. 267 ( Weiler ) ; and Re U. A. W. and Massey-Ferguson Ltd. ( 1969 ) 0 20 L. A. C. 370 ( Weiler ) .
As with the instances presented above. the employer may end. in a non-disciplinary mode. if an employee fails to present the services. which are stated in the contract of employment. It is the employer’s right to demand he hold this vantage point. which provides sufficiency of a ground for expiration. aside from subject for blameworthy absenteeism. It is commonplace to inquire whether the employer’s regulation or order is moderately related to the efficiency and safety of operations. In the instance of Mr. Ennis the employer’s regulation is for an employee to name in and notify direction of a future absence from work. This is most surely related to the efficient and safe operations of a infirmary. If a nurse every bit of import as Ennis. a long helping “trauma specialist” . is losing in action without pre-warned presentment so person is non having the attention they need. If Ennis does non demo up for work. and does non name in ill so there is no manner of adequately make fulling his topographic point. The instance clearly states that Ennis had inordinate absenteeism and was non naming in his absence. In bend. Ennis was repeatedly doing his workplace less of an efficient and safe operation.
These absences would non hold required such drastic steps had Ennis called and informed his employer of his absences. Harmonizing to 34 L. A. C. ( 3d ) 296. 1988 CLB 11915. 9 C. L. A. S. 100. the griever’s employment was terminated. The missive of expiration stated that. “these grounds include inability to execute your occupation duties and deficiency of needed attending at work to continue your portion of the employment contract. both of which have continued after several verbal and written warnings” . This instance is similar to Mr. Ennis’s instance. He had inordinate absenteeism to execute his occupation duties and deficiency of needed attending at work. Harmonizing to 193 L. A. C. ( 4th ) 190. 2010 CLB 4419. 101 C. L. A. S. 163. the Hospital says that the griever’s employment was terminated for guiltless absenteeism. The discharge missive reads. in portion. as follows: “I sorrow to inform you that your employment with the Sault Area Hospital will be terminated due to your inordinate absenteeism.
We have been run intoing on a regular footing to discourse your ill clip. which has been systematically and significantly above the departmental and hospital norm. Despite all attempts to modify your occupation responsibilities and work environment to suit your abilities. you remain unable to go to work on a regular basis” . Same as Mr. Ennis’s instance. his inordinate absenteeism rate is 17. 5 per centum as against a hospital norm of 7 per centum. Hence. he is no uncertainty to be terminated. More specifically. by analyzing the first demand of blameworthiness to turn out Ennis’ guilt. the direction points out that he. the mourner. was cognizant of what was required of him ( Hebdon & A ; Brown. 2008 ) . Ennis was hired since May 1. 1992 by the trauma unit of All Saints’ Hospital and was responsible for supervising patient attention. administering potentially deadly drugs. monitoring patient governments. and reding patients and their households refering attention options. For a “trauma specialist” . it should be obvious that Ennis non merely knew what should hold been done. but was trained every bit good. to get by with his daughter’s decease. Not merely that. the fact that Mr. Ennis sought intervention for his daughter’s decease shows that he was capable of get bying decently. which is the 2nd demand ; turn outing the mourner was capable of executing.
The last demand to turn out Ennis’ guilt is to demo that the mourner chose non to execute what was required of him. An obvious point in this respect is the fact that Ennis did non name in sick for a three twenty-four hours absence. Another major point is the advice direction provided to Ennis on October 15. 2008. which was a reminder that the infirmary had resources. specifically the confidential Employee Assistance Plan ( EAP ) . to assist employees get by. which includes issues affecting drug and intoxicant dependence. and the “recent decease of his girl that might be impacting his attendance” . Not merely did direction supply an mercantile establishment for Mr. Ennis. Ennis chose non to use the chance for aid. turn outing that he “chose to make otherwise” . Management makes certainly the regulations. orders. and punishments are applied fairly and without favoritism. The footings of subject were agreed upon in a corporate understanding. This means that in any instance that needs subject. the same patterned advance of subject will be followed unless a instance proves to be a dramatic exclusion. Therefore. as Mr. Ennis’s instance did non demo any ground to be an exclusion. it followed the normal. agreed upon patterned advance of subject. Although Ennis did non hold old record. the rapid diminution in public presentation is outstanding.
This standard is satisfied because of the repetitiousness of Ennis absences. With repetition absences and utilize a drug and intoxicant. we see expiration as the sole punishment for the offenses. Based on the above analysis. directions feel that it is clear the ‘just cause’ was usage in the discharge of Bradley Ennis. Bradley Ennis should non be allowed to acquire his place back. He was terminated December 3. 2008 for neglecting to name in ill. inordinate absenteeism. Given the significance of the responsibility of a trauma nurse. any carelessness may take to serious effects. Though Ennis had received a public presentation evaluation of satisfactory or superior before the offenses and actively sought intervention after the discharge. there is no warrant that Mr. Ennis will non acquire involved in another backsliding. Ennis’s dishonesty has ruined the trust that he built with his employer. The bad luck Ennis suffered and the past good public presentations can non warrant his return to the place.
- Hebdon. R. & A ; Brown. T. C. ( 2008 ) . Industrial Relations in Canada. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd.
- National Auto Radiator Mfg. Co. Ltd. and U. A. W. . Loc. 195 ( 1976 ) . 11 L. A. C. ( 2d ) 48 ( Brandt )
- Re United Rubber Workers and Seiberling Rubber Co. Ltd. ( 1969 ) . 20 L. A. C. 267 ( Weiler ) ;
- Re U. A. W. and Massey-Ferguson Ltd. ( 1969 ) . 0 20 L. A. C. 370 ( Weiler ) .
- Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto and C. U. P. E. . Loc. 2316 ( Re ) . 34 L. A. C. ( 3d ) 296. 1988 CLB 11915. 9 C. L. A. S. 100.
- Re Sault Area Hospital and C. A. W. -Canada. Loc. 1120 ( Re ) ( 2010 ) . 193 L. A. C. ( 4th ) 190. 2010 CLB 4419. 101 C. L. A. S. 163