Question

What should a could attendance management policy contain? How does the KVP Test apply here?

Case Study: Molson's

At the Molson's plant, a unionized workplace, management is extremely concerned about employee attendance. The company is suspicious that many employees are calling in sick and then working at other jobs. However, it also recognizes that some employees are truly ill once in a while. Some managers are very proactive in monitoring their employees' attendance and holding discussions with certain employees. Other managers are pretty lax about the whole attendance issue. They feel that the employees bargained for the sick leave provision and shouldn't be given a hard time about using it.

The company has asked you to look at the following attendance management policy that they are thinking of implementing, and to advise on whether, if challenged, an arbitrator would uphold it.

Attendance Policy

All employees must attend work regularly. When an employee is ill and cannot work, he or she must call his or her immediate supervisor and disclose the nature of the illness and the expected return to work date. All absences must be verified with a note from the employee's doctor.

Meetings between the employee, his or her manager, and a union representative will be held when a full-time employee is absent on more than four days per month. This meeting will be followed up with a written warning placed on the employee's personnel file. Any employee who receives four letters in any year will be terminated without recourse to the grievance procedure.

Use the KVP test to assess the clause.

Answer 1

Answer:

Attendance management policy should contain the testing of the employee who was absent and provided the reason that he was ill. Such employee should be tested whether he was actually ill or was misrepresenting to the employer. This test should be conducted by in house doctor who would analyse whether employee was really ill and whether he has taken any prescription. If it is found that the employee was not ill, then he would be served with a notice of warning and if he is again found to be indulged in such an activity or misrepresentation, then he should be terminated from the company.

The scope of the employer's ability to unilaterally impose rules in a union environment was established by Re Lumber & Sawmill Workers' Union, Local 2537, and KVP Co (1965), 16 LAC 73, and is known as the “KVP test.”

The KVP test asserts that any rule or policy introduced unilaterally by the employer must be both reasonable and consistent with the collective agreement.

However the rule that is mentioned in the case “Meetings between the employee, his or her manager, and a union representative will be held when a full-time employee is absent on more than four days per month. This meeting will be followed up with a written warning placed on the employee's personnel file. Any employee who receives four letters in any year will be terminated without recourse to the grievance procedure” is not in lines with the KVP test. Before providing a warning letter, employer should authenticate the claims of the employee that whether he was really ill or not from their own in house doctors. If he was really ill, employer should not provide written warning letter to the employee and if he was misrepresenting that he was ill, then and then only; employer should give a warning letter to the employee.