In a previous post found
here we considered the basic requirements for an Attendance or
Absenteeism Management Plan. This post looks at two key and
vexing issues in particular.
1. Disabled employees – an AMP must
(a) put their employment in jeopardy solely on the basis of
absences due to disability,
(b) automatically or arbitrarily impose disciplinary
consequences for a failure to meet attendance
expectations that are based on average employee absenteeism,
(c) make them considered for termination as a result of
absences at an earlier time than employees without
2. Medical information – may be
requested when needed to:
(a) verify whether an absence is legitimate,
(b) verify a claim for sick pay or disability benefits,
(c) verify fitness to return to work,
(d) ensure the safety of the employee, other employees, clients
and the environment,
(e) determine what forms of accommodation might be necessary,
(f) determine the anticipated duration of the accommodation.
The employer is always subject to the duty to accommodate a
disability to the point of undue hardship and an AMP must provide
flexibility in order to allow the employer to fulfill that
duty. Medical information should be examined closely and
management should avoid making assumptions about an employee's
ability to work or the need for accommodation. An effective
AMP will identify true attendance problems; for example, by
distinguishing between genuine illness and sick leave abuse.
In appropriate circumstances, an employee may be dismissed for
excessive non-culpable or innocent absenteeism. However, the
fact that an employee has progressed through an AMP does not itself
justify dismissal for non-culpable absenteeism. The decision
to dismiss an employee must be based on the specific circumstances
of the employee and an evaluation of the duty to accommodate.
An employee must always be warned before they are dismissed that
they must improve their attendance or face dismissal. Such a
warning is not considered disciplinary in itself.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
A former teacher at Bodwell High School has learned a valuable lesson from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal— it is not discriminatory for an employer to offer child-related benefits to only employees with children.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).