In Prince George Transit Ltd. v Teamsters Local Union No. 31, the arbitrator upheld the dismissal union of a transit driver with significant absences, finding the absenteeism was excessive and that there was no reasonable likelihood of sustained improvement in future attendance.

Background

The employer, a public transit provider, employed the worker as a spareboard operator for approximately three years. In this role, the worker was expected to be available to fill in for scheduled transit drivers as needed, making consistent attendance especially important.

1. The Attendance Management Policy

In February 2023, the employer introduced an attendance management policy, which was not challenged by the union. The policy defined non-culpable absenteeism to include absences outside the employee’s control (e.g., illness or injury).

The policy also set an “acceptable absenteeism threshold” of five absences within a 12-month period and outlined a series of escalating meetings to address attendance concerns, with termination identified as a possible outcome.

1. The Worker’s Attendance Record

The worker’s attendance record was a central issue, with a total of 104 absences between 2021 and 2024. The worker provided several reasons for the absences, including illness, lack of sleep, sunburn, and personal appointments. The absences were often short notice, with the worker notifying the employer the day before or the day of a scheduled shift.

The impact on the employer’s operations was significant, often resulting in route cancellations or supervisors stepping in as drivers. As a result, the employer incurred overtime costs and service disruptions affected both customers and other drivers.

The employer followed the process outlined in the attendance management policy and held multiple attendance meetings with the worker, during which the policy, expectations, and operational impacts were clearly explained. During the meetings, the worker disclosed that some of his absences were related to personal challenges he was experiencing. However, when asked how the employer could support him, the worker advised that, due to the personal nature of those issues, there was nothing the employer could do to assist. In subsequent meetings, the employer again asked whether any accommodations could be considered to help improve his attendance and suggested that he use the Employee Assistance Program, which the worker declined to access.

Despite these efforts, the worker did not propose any solutions or accommodation and the absences continued after each meeting. The employer eventually issued clear warnings, both verbally and in writing, that continued absenteeism could lead to termination of employment. After the worker failed to improve his attendance, the employer terminated his employment.

The Decision
The issue before the arbitrator was not whether the attendance policy was strictly followed, but whether the legal test for non-culpable or innocent absenteeism in a unionized workplace had been met.To justify termination for innocent absenteeism, the employer must show:

1. The absenteeism was excessive; and
2. The worker is unlikely to achieve regular attendance in the future.

Under the first step in the test, the arbitrator agreed with the employer and found that the worker’s absenteeism was excessive. In reaching this conclusion, the arbitrator considered:

• The volume of absences;
• The operational impact on the public transit system; and
• The importance of reliability in a driver role.

Upon considering the totality of the circumstances, the arbitrator found that the worker’s absenteeism disrupted service delivery, increased costs, affected co-workers, and risked reputational harm for the employer.

The arbitrator also found that the second part of the test was met, concluding that the worker was unlikely to achieve regular attendance going forward. In reaching this determination, the arbitrator noted that the worker’s absences were intermittent and arose from a variety of different causes, making them more difficult to manage than a single, prolonged illness. The worker had been given multiple opportunities to improve his attendance and was advised of the consequences of failing to do so. The employer also made efforts to offer support, but the worker did not meaningfully engage with those efforts. Despite repeated warnings, there was no sustained improvement in attendance. Taken together, these factors supported the conclusion that the attendance issues were likely to continue and the arbitrator upheld the termination.

Excessive absenteeism in unionized workplaces is rarely straightforward, particularly when the absences are non-culpable. This decision highlights the need for a measured, well-documented approach, while confirming that there are limits to what employers must tolerate. Even where absences are beyond an employee’s control, termination may be justified if attendance is excessive and unlikely to improve.

Key Takeaways

• Policies are helpful, but not determinative: Attendance management policies can provide a useful framework for assessing absenteeism. However, arbitrators may look beyond whether the policy was strictly followed and instead focus on the overall circumstances, including the extent of absenteeism and its impact on the workplace. In a unionized environment, any decision to dismiss must also align with the terms of the collective agreement, which must be considered alongside applicable policies.
• Documentation, communication, and support matter: Employers should clearly communicate expectations, document attendance concerns, and provide workers with opportunities to improve. Offering support and demonstrating efforts to engage in the accommodation process can be critical in defending a decision to dismiss a worker.
• The future outlook is key: Termination for non-culpable absenteeism ultimately turns on whether attendance is likely to improve. A pattern of frequent intermittent absences with no sustained improvement, despite warnings and support, can support a finding that the employment relationship is no longer viable.

This blog is provided as an information service and summary of workplace legal issues.

This information is not intended as legal advice.