Yes, Tom’s manager was trying to communicate a message to Tom. The manager, Russ, discussed attendance with Tom three times. After the first conversation, Russ agreed to allow Tom to begin work at 8 AM instead of 7 AM. Russ was generous as Tom had been late seven times in one month. In fact, Russ asked what he could do to help Tom get to work on time. Even though Tom’s start time changed to 8 AM, Tom was still late eight times in the next month. Russ talked to Tom again and agreed to change Tom’s start time to 9 AM.
In January, Russ posted a notice to all employees that anyone late twice within one pay period may be fired. This was another means of communicating with Tom. During January, Russ put Tom on written warning for his tardiness. Tom signed the warning to show he understood. The warning is yet another means of communicating with Tom.
Despite the warnings, Tom continued to be late during February and March. Because of his tardiness, Russ notified Tom that he was fired for tardiness. During the period of October through March, Russ was trying to communicate to Tom that tardiness is unacceptable.
No, Tom should not get his job back. First, Russ agreed to change Tom’s start time. Russ did this two times. Russ was more than accommodating. Second, Russ posted the current attendance policy that would affect all employees, not just Tom. Third, Russ did the right thing by developing an attendance policy and communicating it to all employees.
Most employers do not tolerate tardiness. No company that I know of would have allowed Tom to remain as an employee for as long as he did considering how many times he was tardy. Employee tardiness negatively affects the workload and morale of other employees, especially when one employee appears to receive special treatment on this issue. In addition, tardiness affects customer service. If employees are late, they have less time to devote to the customers or to get work done for the customers.
If Tom were to get his job back, it would send a message to other employees that tardiness is acceptable and does not carry any penalties. Some employees may take advantage of a lax attitude toward tardiness and arrive at work whenever they felt like it. Other employees would continue to arrive at work on time but harbor bitterness and resentment towards the employees who arrived late without punishment. I have seen this happen firsthand.
If I were an arbitrator in this dispute, I would ask to view timecard records to determine if any other employees arrive late. If there were proof of other employees checking in late, I would advise Russ those employees have to be dismissed per the tardiness policy.
If necessary, I would monitor the time clock for a period to see if Russ is clocking in for anyone. If Tom really wanted to pursue this matter, we could have everyone involved go before the leadership of the local union and tell their side of the story. Then the leaders of the local union could make a decision based on evidence and testimony.
I would approach this differently than the union representative in the case study. I would tell Tom that he did not deserve his job back because he broke company policy. Even union members need to abide by company policies. Union employees should not expect special treatment just because they are union members.
