HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-0517.Merle and Richardson.82-04-23Between:
IN THE -MATTER OF AN AREITRATION
Under
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Before
TIIE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD
Before:
For the Grievor:
OPSEU (Mr. Merle D. Richardson)
Griever
- And -
The Crown in Right of Ontario
(Ministry of Correctional Services) Ea?lcyer
Prof. P. G. Barxon Vice.Chairman
Mr. 5. Robinson Kember
Mr. K. Preston Member
Yx. 5. T. Gcudge, Counsel
Cameron, Brewin & Scott
For the Employer: Mr. D. Brown, Q.C., Counsel Ministry of the Attorney General
Hearings : November 13, 1951
Febrilary 12 and 24, 1932
-2-
INTRODUCTION
This is a rather unusual case which unfortu-
nately has taken for some time to resolve. On November i3,
1981, a Board composed of this Chairman, K. Preston and
H,. Simon met to deal with the matter. The grievance and
the letter of termination were filed as exhibits, and a
Wayne Kruse was called. His evidence was that he as a
Shift Supervisor had been with the Ministry for 14 years
and it was his job to assign duties, admit and discharge
inmates, etc. He produced an exhibit (Exhibit 3) and a
discussion concerning this exhibit ensued. As a result of
this discussion, the Board adjourned sine die and a
ruling was made with respect to the evidence that the
Employer would be allowed to introduce. It will be seen
from the ruling, attached as Appendix +l, that the Ermcloyer
wished to base its case in part upon misuse of the sick
leave system. It was the ruling of the then constituted
Board that the letter o f dismissal was couched in terms cf
innocent absenteeism and that the presentation of the case
should be restricted to that issue.
On February 12, the parties again met with the
substitution of L. Robinson for H. Simon as sitting member.
It was agreed on that date that neither of the parties had
any problems with the substitution, given that
all evidence which had been heard was inconseqentlal.
- 3 -
1 r.
In addition it was intended that !ir. Kruse wculd teSi
again at this hearing, as he did. Exhibits 1 and 2 were
made exhibits in the reconstituted hearing and because
the Union specifically requested us to continue rather
than to wait for the arrival of H. Simon from points south,
we did so.
At the hearing on February 12, 1982, the
Employer indicated that it planned to bring in more evidence
relating to "other aspects of the job performance" which
had been referred to in Exhibit 2. This related to a
suspension for failure to follow Ministry policy and for
leaving a post during a shift period. The Board ruled tihat
because these matters were approximately seven to eight
years old and because this case was essentially an
absenteeism case, such evidence would not be admissible.
Thus the case continued and was conducted on the basis of
innocent absenteeism, the Grievor having been dismissed
on July 14, 1981.
THE ATTENDANCE RECORD
The attendance record at the Jrockville Jail
is as follows:
January 1976 to January 1977 - 18 creciits
i
January 1977 to JanuasL' 1978 - 11 credits
January 1978 to October 1978 _ 15 credits
October 1078 to October 1979 - 67.5 credits
October 1979 to October 1980 - 22.5 credits
November 1980 to July 3, 1981 - 13 credits (plus 11 Workmens'Compensation Board days
It should be noted that ,because the employees
work 12 hours shifts, each shift is worth l+ credits and
accordingly, a loss of 13 credits means an absence of 9
shifts. Thus on a period from November 27, 1980 to
July 3, 1981 the Grievor missed 20 days of work.
The Grievor stertedwork October 1, 1972 as a
full-time employee at Ottawa. In January of 1976, he
moved to Brockville and it is his attendance record at
the Brockvilie Institution which is in issue in this
matter.
On November 12, 1976 the Superintendent
W.Schneider, following a conversation with the Grievor
indicated to him that he was running short of credits in
the sick leave bank and stated "I will be maintaining a
close check on future absences".
.
On May 26, 1977 the Superintendent made the
Grievor subject to the mandatory medical certificate
requirementsof the Collective agreement. A letter cf tna:
- 5 - 3
i date states "I am requesting a medical certificate be
submitted by you for absence due to sickness for the serict
of six months from the state, at which time your attendance
record will be again reviewed".
On February 23, '1978 the Grievor attended the
Employee,Health Centre foramedical examination. The man:
datory medical certificate requirement was continued by the
Superintendent on April 24, 1978. The letter referring, to
this suggests that it is part of a "Continuing Review of
your Attendance".
On October 12, 1978 the Superintendent met
with the Grievor to discuss an allegation that "you are
continuing to utilize attendance credits in an excessive
rate I*. The letter referring to the meeting (Exhibit 13:
suggests:
The final paragraph continues
'- 6 -
sitxtion wilZ i,yrsve, 7 ic2e nc
oZteraaztve but to <asue ~0-2 vitii
c; iincl warnin,-; tizc: skouid xjcli
no> establish and mair.tc$n a sctis-
factor3 attendance record, gou ui35
be dismissed.
On September 10, 1979, the Grievor was
appraised in an Annual Appraisal. The remarks
refer to the attendance problem.
On May 22, 1980, a subsequent appraisal
was done. Reference is made therein as follows:
Prior to his appraisal on February 21, 1980,
a meeting was held ~between the Grievor and the Superinten-
' dent, Mr. Schneider. It was to discuss the allegation
that:
The memorandum (Exhibit 16) concerning this meeting sets
many of the above facts and continues:
- 11 -
of absenteeism which is excessive. In the second slate
it is necessary to show that the prognosis is not good.
In some situations where the Employer faiis on the second
branch of the test, an Employee may be reinstated on a
probationary basis. Where the absences are for reascns
beyond the control of the Employee, as in this case, and
where the Employer cannot show that the prognosis is
black, the purpose of the probationary reinstatement is
to see whether or not the situation will improve.
I first dealwiththe question of whether
the Grievor's absences wareexcessive and whether or not
the Employer had reason to be discomforted by them. AS
stated in the letter of dismissal (Exhibit 2) the use of
sick credits of the Brockville Jail for the period from
November 1980 to July 3, 1980 was an average of three
credits per employee. The record of use of the Grievor
was 13.5 for the same period, not including the 11 days
missed for Workmens'Compensation purposes. Evidence of
both Y!.Schneider and Mr. Hudson was to the effect that
the Brockville Jail took great pride in a low absenteeism
record. In fact Mr. Hudson's evidence was that since
his arrival the absentee rate has decreased. Various
figures were discussed at the hearing concerning what
should be an acceptable level of absenteeism. One figure
which was suggested was the level of 15 credits i.e.
10 shifts under the old sick leave plan. It was suc:estee
- 12 -
that because an employee could bank up to 15 credits per
year, that was an indication that.such absences were
acceptable. We do not find the logic of this argument
compelling. In addition, under the new plan, the Ninistr;
now aims of approximately 6 days per year for short term
illness.
Figures were entered for the Ministry of
Correctional Services for June 1980 to June 1981 which
suggest that a use of sick credits was approximately 10
per year. We do not know on what basis these figures
were calculated or which employees are covered by them.
During the same period the Grievor used approximately
15 credits.
From the above figures it appears to us that
the use of sick leave credits for the period since 1976
by the Grievor can be called excessive. Fe feel that it
is best to compare his use with that of other employees :
in the institution,which figures show that he is at 2 to 3
times'the institutional average.
There are however two other employees in the
institution who are high use employees, one of whan, Mr. Jo%stcn
missed a blockof time in 1981 because of an accident.
The other misses more time than the Grievor on some
occasions, indeed between November 1980 and July 1981 he
- 13 -
used 24 credits on intermittent basis. Evidence at the
hearing suggests that this Employee is also a candidate
for action in that he has also been sent for the conpul-
sory medical check and has been counselled on various
occasions. We do not feel that the fact that there may
be one employee whose attendance record is as bad as the
Grievor must of itself mean that the Grievor cannot be
dismissed for his record.
The record of attendance at the
institution takes on p articular significance
when the problems that unscheduled absences can cacse are
investigated. In 1981 at the institution there were 13 full
time correctional officers, three part timers (casuals)
five OM staff, clerks and part-time female staff. Three
shifts starting at 7:00 a.m., 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
are run for 12 hours on a shift rotation which occupies
13 weeks. During this period employees work 43 on, 48 off.
They work a maximum of four days a week and have a minimum
of three days off each week. During the day approximately
three correctional officers are on duty and at night
approximately two. If a person fails to show for the
7:00 p.m. shift a person on duty during the day may be
kept over until a relief person can be found.. The 3001 of
available relief persons is rather small given the small
overall complement. If a person is absent on the 7:00 8.Z.
- 14 -
shift the Shift Supervisor begins to call at 5~45 a.m.
Casuals are called first because they are less expensive
and then full time employees who are scheduled to be off
duty are called. In the case of an absence on a 9:00 a.m.
shift calls are made between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m.
Naturally every absence is eqensive. In the
case of casuals it costs approximately. $100.00 to fill a
shift, and if a full time person is called back it costs
approximately $180.00 per shift. Where a Supervisor must
stay on until relief can be obtained the cost is even
greater. Where the absence occurs on a statutory holida:I
such as July lst, or where the absence occurs during the
Christmas period when staff complement is low, par?icular
problem can be encountered in finding relief staff.
Two Shift Supervisors testified at the hear-
ing and both indicated that in a substantial number of
cases the Grievor did not call in until a short time
before the scheduled shift. Although the Grievor stated
in his evidence that he did not think he did so more than
anybody else, it is b&case that his absences apparently
could cause the Employer considerable trouble. This
trouble was in part because of the more than occasional
short notice given by the Grievor (its being hard to find
the replacement on short notice), and in part by the fact
that as stated by the Supervisors, they seem to have had par=i-
- 15 -
i.
cular difficulty in finding staff who were willing to take
over.the Grievor's shift. Thus, in the particular circus-
stances at the Brockville Institution, we have no doubt
in finding that the Griever's innocent absenteeism caused
considerable scheduling problems, cost the Employer money,
and could only be described as excessive. The fact that
many of the absences were.associated with holidays or
weekends bears on the extra difficulty the Employer had
in finding relief for the Grievor.
The second branch of the two-pronged test is
whether or not the Employer has shown that the prcgnosis
is not good. With respect to the nature of the Grievor's
absences in the past, some were for Workmens Compensation
Board purposes. Others were for such sicknesses as flu,
colds, etc., the sort of sicknesses which all people tend
to have and which are in all probability likely to arise
in the future. None of the medical examinations in the
past showed any particular medical problem and a letter
of Dr. Holmes dated February 5, 1982 indicates that the
Grievor was fit to work in July 1981 and has no medical
problems that would prevent him from employment as of the
date of the letter. Thus as far as medical prognosis is
concerned we have a Grievor who seems to catch more than
his share of the regular illnesses and he can be expected
to continue in this pattern. This distinguishes the case
from others in the jurisprudence in which the absences
- 16 -
were for a specified medical problem which had ended at
the date of the hearing. As far as the prognosis for the
future in the eyes of the Grievor is concerned, he stated
at the hearing that he felt that his record of attendance
was a normal one, and that he hopes for the best in the
future.
In the meeting of July 3, 1981 with Mr. Eudscn,
Mr. Hudson concluded from his interview that the Grievor
would not be attending regularly in the future.
With respect to the guestion of whether the
prognosis is a good one, we are satisfied that the Employer
has shown that it is not. In so finding we are influenced
by the fact that in effect this Employee was on probation
on two previous occasions with respect to absences and that
his medical situation has not changed over the years. in
,
the result the grievance is dismissed.
We cannot close without thanking Counsel for
their able presentation. In the case of Mr. Goudge, he
presented a difficult case with considerable compassion.
In the case of Mr. Brown, he showed remarkable restraint
in walking the fine line created by our preliminary
ruling and largely avoided reference to matters which
we had ruled were inadmissible.
- 17 -
DATED at London, Ontario this 23rd day of April, 1982.
Prof. P.G. Barton Vice Chairman
"I dissent" (see attached.)
Mr. L. Robinson Member
Mr. K. Preston Member
/lb
i
D I S S E N T
I cannot in good conscience agree with the majority
award which upholds the grievor's discharge in this case.
In the first place, a correct analysis of the grievor's
record of innocent absenteeism does not justify the Employer's
decision to discharge him. The record since Mr. Richardson
transferred to Brockville is set out in the majority award
as follows, based on Exhibit 2:
January
January
January
October
976 to January 1977 - 18 credits
977 to January 1978 - 14 credits
978 to Oc'tober 1978 - 15 credits
978 to October 1979 - 67.5 credits
October 1979 to October 1980 - 22.5 credits
November 1980 to July 3, 1981 - 13 credits
It is understood that the employees work 12 hour shifts and
that consequently 18 sick credits mean that Mr. Richardson
1977, and missed twelve shifts from January 1976 to January
so on.
One period, from October 1978 to October 1979 , stands out
in this record. If this period is excluded, and if one-and-
a-half credits are deducted from the 22.5 shown for October
1979 to October 1980 - a ones day's absence was due to strike
which occurred on December 5. 1979 - we then have a total
of 54 shifts missed during a total of 54 months. That makes
an average of one shift per month Such a record simply cannot
support the decision to discharge the grievor, especially when
it is compared with some of the absentee records reported
in other cases submitted to the Board in which the grievor
was either not discharged or wa's reinstated.
Moreover, standing alone, the record as set out above
is misleading for the two periods from October 1978 to
October 1980. In neither oftheeetwo periods were the
absences incurred evenly throughout the two years. An
examination of Exhibits 16 and 25 shows that most of the
67..5 credits in the first period were incurred in the l'ast
three months of 1978, and two-thirds of the 22.5 credits
(21 after allowing forthe absence due to the strike) were
incurred in December 1979. Thus Mr. Richardson's record
shows two bad periods of concentrated absences; in these
two periods comprising four months, he missed some 45 to 50
shifts. During the rest of the five-and-a-half years of his
employment in Brockville, he missed less than one shift a
month on the average.
The record does not explain the concentration of absences
during the two bad periods, nor was any reason suggested
to the Board during the hearing. However, it is perhaps
not surprising that after the second period of concentrated
absences. the grievor's supervisor, Mr. W. F. W. Schneider,
wished to discuss the matter with him. He later wrote to
Mr. Richardson as follows:
- 3 -
Mr. L. R. Hudson replaced Mr. Schneider as
son's supervisor in June 1980. He assured the
well as other employees) of his goodwill, tell i
he was starting with a new slate and that he
at his file unless some untoward occurrence
As proof of his attitude, he lifted-the requ
I4 r . Richard-
griever (a;
ng him that
would not look
ed him to do SO.
rement which the
grievor was then under of presenting a medical certificate
for each absence. There were two of these in September, ,one
in November, two in March 1981 and one each in April and May.
This'excludes the eleven shifts in January and February 1981
which were taken on Workmen's Compensation. These absences
were not only innocent, they were work related and should be
entirely excluded in assessing the grievor's record. Thus,
from January 1980 to May 1981, the grievor had eleven absences
in a period of seventeen months, an average of just under two
to every three months. This compares with an average of close
one absence a month for the two years and ten months from
January 1976 to October 1978.
In a memorandum of February 26, 1981, Mr. Hudson congra
lated the grievor "on the improvement shown during the last
period noted (i.e., the second half of 1980.). Keep up the
good work." (Exhibit 24). However, the figures of sick
tu-
credits used shown in the exhibit do not tally with the Sick
Leave Reports collected in Exhibit 25. Exhibit 24 shows 7
shifts missed in the first half of 1980 and one in the second
half. According to Exhibt 25, the grievor,missed four shifts
in the first half of the year and three in the second half.
- 4 -
The average for all of 1980 was neverthe 1
two absences every three months.
It appears then that, as time passed, the grievor's
record of absenteeism did not get worse; on the contrary, it
g~ot better. The second period of concentrated absences lasted
only one month , compared to the three months of the first
period.' And a fter the second period, his absences were on
the average 30 percent less than they had been before the
first period. Under these circumstances, to uphold the dis-
charge is unwarranted and unfair.
In June 1981, Mr. Richardson was absent for three days,
June 17th to 19th. and again on July lst, which was a holiday.
There was also a mix-up with respect to a meeting to which
he had been summoned by letter, at which his attendance record
was to be discussed. The meeting eventually took place on
July 3rd. By this time, Mr. Hudson had decided to discharge
him. His letter to Mr. Richardson, dated July 14th, was in
fat t dictat ed immediately following the meeting and signed by
Mr. Hudson before he went on vacation.
What seems to have happened is that Mr. Hudson lost his
ess less than
patience at the latest absences, in addition to which he
mistakenly believed that the grievor's absences in the previous
months had significantly increased over those of the latter
half of 1980. He seems also to have taken into account the
grievor's absences on Workmen's Compensation, since these are
- 5 -
mentioned in his letter of discharge. As he told the Ecard,
"I had to look up Mr. Richardson
attendance while I was there.. he
earlier pattern." A more carefu 1
s file and, based on his
was falling back to his
examination of the record
then no doubt Mr. Hudson's conclus
In the meantime, to keep this from
to Mr. Richardson's attention that
would have shown that this was really not so, and that Mr.
Hudson gave an exaggerated importance to the absences of
June and July. If absences at this latest rate had continued,
ion woul
happeni
he was
ing from the "straight and narrow", a suspension might well
have been in order. Mr. Hudson's impatience may perhaps be
understandable, but a careful and correct analysis of Mr.
d have been justified.
ng and. tcbringsharply
in danger of stray-
Richardson's record shows that the
fied and ought to be rescinded.
discharge was not justi-
In cases of innoncent absentee i sm, the employer must sati-
sfy two requirements to justify discharge. The first is
excessive absenteeism in the past, the second is evidence
that there is no realistic prospect for improvement in the
future. The onus with respect to both requirements is on
the employer, and with respect to the second requirement,
a simple extrapolation or projection of the past record is
notenough; the employer must usually show specific reasons
why a change for the better is not to be expected.
cf regular attendance in ihe futitre.” De
United Automobile Workers, Local 452, c%?
Massey Ferpusor. Industries Ltd. 11972/, 24
LAC 344 (Stiimel at pages 345 end 34e (en?iiasis added)
“The onus, it has genera2 Zy been izeZd, is 01: t;?e
employer to show tiat the nrobobC2Ctie.s ore thnt ax emplcyee wilZ not be abie to provide reason-. cbie re,-uZ.crity of attendance in the fxtxr~. 2’F.i ie the stanaard of prco.? 5s that of tire .?cZcr.ce qf probabiltties, since the employee’s 2ivei;i.c;Z
zs ct stake, it must sure2y be that c2ect.n crc’
cogent evjdence must be add;rceL. In sore cases,
the absenteeism record itse2.T may, deTer,dir.,- 9~
i~ts ncture. create cn assum:tion on w’nici: employer rni~ reiy,
tie
ished.‘!
unless the contrary is estcbz-
f?e PLctoria Hos9ita2, London, CK? : CYirn.
and Distrzct ,luildinc Service iv‘orkers ’ Vniox,
LOCCZ 220 (iG?.ol, 24 ;;i;C (26) 172 (Fecther<TL) cf
page i74.
- 7 -
from the .fo.“e~oin,- I/OQ lliirst z;srec:z:i
t&l; 2our c7isniss;~ ,frm tili sEr-i-l2e
acs ~Gramo;int ir. 7:. cGns~derc:i;~a.
.iG.deVer, -I,? Vie2 9:f IjO%?’ re~i+GS.e,?:C- .
Tzve’s crgunen: concernir,g sour
improved attendnnce record bex7;een &nuar~ and December 1,373, tjle .TccC
that I/o14 are considered -free fro71 any conditions that would inter;.ene
with 20% ab<litg to perform correct-
ional c,f.ficers cuties as per ssirr recent ezamincsion at the EmzzTc?ee
Heaith Services 3ranch and ?;jx*
statement .that hour attendance prcb- lems are resolved, I have dec<ded to
give you one ~“incl opportunity to
demonstrate thct ZJOU are ca~co:e s”
gOGd job performnce. Your services wiZ1 be mowltoreci closei an6 every
ef.fort wiZZ be extended to css<st
'GU. Pieverttie5easi I must -u)crn ?‘j.,
tkct fcilure to ccnieve ezcesz tee levels Of work Ter’ : GZT?C~C6, WhiCh
incl.ua’e attendance can oniy resoZve
iz terminction cf em3Zo;iment or re-
assigment t3 z1 ~2CSi-tiO?7 consistent
t;irii your abilities.
It should be noted here that the Grievor
and the then Superintendent Mr. Schneider did not get
along particularly well and that the Grievor considered
that they had a personality conflict.
A new Superintendent, Mr. L. Hudson, arrived
at Brockville in the spring of 1980, following the above-
mentioned appraisal. He had a discussion with the Grievor
in the summer of 1980 on an informal basis and suggested
that he hoped that the Grievor's attendance would improve.
On November 3, 1980, he also lifted the requirement that
the Grievor submit medical certificates. It was the
Superintendent's wish that he be allowed to judge zhe
- 8 -
Grievor fresh and as stated by the Grie,;or "?z :;-;:I :I<;
jr<% i-1,; '/s 2,:;es: ~-:~~~ ,; ?e"j.>y -0 ,jc SC!'. IF. fzc=
between !<a'> 198i and the end of sovember 1969, the
Grievor's attendance record was quite good, the Griever
missing only approximately five shifts.
In January 1981, the Grievor missed three
$hifts because of Workmens'compensation problems. In
February 1981, the Grievor missed approximately eight
scheduled shifts. Despite this, the appraisal conducted
of the Grievor on April 23, 1961 does not mention an
attendance problem. Indeed in February 1981, the
Superintendent congratulated the Grievor on improvement
shown during the period from July 1, 1980 tc December 31,
1980.
Following the absences in February,
Mr. Hudson became concerned about the attendance record
of the Grievor. In March he missed two scheduled shifts
and in May he missed one. On June 17, 18 and 19 he missed
three scheduled shifts and at this stage the Superintendent
decided to hold a meeting with him. On June 22, 1981 he
hand delivered a letter in which he suggested a meeting
on June 26., 1981 atlO:OO hours. The purpose of the meet-
ing was to inquire into the absence onMarch 14, 15, 1981 and
on June 18,'1981. It concludes "as'there is a possibilit?
of disciplinary action, you may be accompanied by a
representative of your choice and it will be your res;ons-
ibility to make any such arrangements". a seco-d letter da*&
-9-
June 24 was given to the Grievor concerning the same
meeting. It indicates "as this meeting may result in
disciplinary action, you are ~entitled to be accompanied
1, . . .
On June 26, 1981 the Grievor missed this
meeting,arriving at 1:00 p.m. His evidence was that he
had misread the letter and thought that the meeting was to be
at 1:00 p.m., an explanation which we have no reason to
doubt. In any event the meeting was rescheduled for
July 3, 1981. The Grievor was informed of this in a
letter dated June 26, 1981.
On July 1, 1981 (Dominion Day! the Grievor
missed a scheduled shift.
On July 3, 1981 meeting was held between
Mr. Hudson, the Grievor, a representative of the Grievor,
at which the use of attendance credit was discussed.
Following the meeting, some of the details of which will
be discussed ir.jra, the Superintendent decided to dismiss
the Grievor and subsequently the Grievor received the
letter of dismissal.
The “arbitral jurisprudence" if I may cali it
that concerning innocent or blameless absenteeism in the
private sector has been accepted by this Board in such cases
as Steljzrt 27/76, lm;Ie 12/76, Moss 62/76, and others.
Such private sector cases as 2~ i.i~ 3:3?- (2
- 10 -
::‘os?itr;l (Weatherill 1979) 24 LAC 2nd 172, .!G i';?-:;+i
.4z,?cncbjls Workers ani Masses-Feryuson ~$2‘. (P. Keilerj
20 LAC 370 (1969), and .?e Unite? ;.utojcgcE<ie :,Iorke:c; :cc-c
458 and Mcssey-Ferguson Industries iti. (Shime 1972) 24 WC
344, have been accepted by this Board. These cases and
others establish the proposition that in certain serious
situations excessive absenteeism may warrant termination Of
the employment relationship. Such termination is on the
basis that the employee is not able to satisfy his sides of \
the bargain to come to work on a regular basis. It 1s i
quite clear that such dismissal is not discipline in the ;
sense of a dismissal for blameworthy conduct, rather it is ! I
primarily because the interestsof the employer are substan- I
tially impaired by such absenteeism. Naturally each case
must be decided of its own factsand absenteeism with
respect to an employee in one type of industry may cause
the employer less grief than absenteeism in another. For
example in .?e Aliments Steinberg itee. and ginior. >c>s
Zm?iosees to Comeroe Local 501 (Frum kin 1981)
29 LAC (2nd) 297, although the Grievor had been missing
between 25 and 50 days per year, there was a pool of
employees available and the employer was not unduly
prejudicedby such absence.
The cases make it clear that it is up to the
employer to justify discharge by satisfying two require-
ments. .In the first place it is necessary to show a record
I