104 Absences Later: When Innocent Absenteeism Justifies Termination

To listen to an audio recording of this article, click here.

Regular attendance is essential in any workplace, but it is especially critical in operations that rely on scheduled shifts, such as transit services. A recent British Columbia arbitration decision involving Prince George Transit Ltd. (“PGT”) and one of its drivers (the “Grievor”) highlights the challenges employers face when dealing with excessive absenteeism and how they should respond in such situations.

Prince George Transit Ltd. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31, 2025 CanLII 124344, demonstrates that even “innocent” absences arising for legitimate reasons can accumulate to a level that seriously disrupts operations and justify termination where the employee cannot maintain reliable attendance or demonstrate that they are capable of regular attendance.

What Happened

The Grievor was employed by PGT from November 2021 until May 2024 as a transit driver. Concerns about his absenteeism arose early in his employment. Over the course of his employment with PGT, the Grievor accumulated a total of 104 absences, with six non-culpable absences in his first two months, 37 in 2022, 29 in 2023, four in 2024 and more that were not fully captured by PGT.

The Grievor’s absences were due to a variety of reasons, including personal matters and health issues, which were most often intermittent and of short duration. PGT stated that the intermittent nature which provided short notice to the employer of the employee’s absences made it particularly difficult for PGT to arrange coverage and maintain service standards.

PGT implemented an Attendance Management Policy in February 2023 (the “Policy”), which set out procedures for addressing absenteeism and distinguishing between culpable and non-culpable absences. Under the new Policy, non-culpable absences could still be relied upon to support termination if deemed excessive.

PGT held five meetings with the Grievor between 2022 and 2024 to discuss his attendance. At each meeting, management reviewed specific absences, emphasized the need for improvement and followed up in writing. Despite these efforts, the Grievor’s attendance did not improve.

By May 2024, PGT had concluded that the Grievor’s absenteeism was excessive and that he was unlikely to be capable of regular attendance in the foreseeable future. On May 13, 2024, the Grievor’s employment was terminated for frustration of contract due to excessive innocent absenteeism.

Teamsters Local No. 31 (the “Union”), which represented the employee, argued that some absences were “approved” by PGT, that PGT’s records were inconsistent and that certain absences should have been permitted under statutory leave entitlements. The Union also argued that the Grievor’s personal circumstances and health situation were improving, which would have allowed him to maintain regular attendance going forward. Additionally, the Union claimed that PGT was not following the thresholds and steps established by its own Policy and that it was applying the terms of the Policy inconsistently as it related to two other PGT employees.

The Decision

Arbitrator Koml Kandola carefully reviewed the evidence and found that PGT had established both elements required to justify termination for innocent absenteeism:

1. The employee’s absenteeism was excessive; and
2. The employee was incapable of regular attendance in the future.

Arbitrator Kandola emphasized that the Grievor’s absences were objectively excessive, disruptive to operations and reliably documented. Specifically, the minor errors in PGT’s recording system did not reduce the absenteeism below a concerning threshold and the text message communications sent to PGT did not constitute formal approval of absences. Also, when considering statutory leave entitlements under the B.C. Employment Standards Act, the Grievor’s absences remained excessive.

Regarding the likelihood of future regular attendance, Arbitrator Kandola noted that the Grievor’s absences were varied, short and intermittent, which were precisely the type of absences that posed the greatest operational challenges to PGT. Despite repeated counselling, verbal and written warnings, offers of support and discussions about potential adjustments (accommodation), attendance did not improve. Evidence presented by the Grievor about personal or health improvements were insufficient to demonstrate a reliable plan for consistent future attendance. The Union’s allegations of differential treatment were also dismissed.

Interestingly, Arbitrator Kandola did not substantively address the reasonableness of PGT’s Policy, nor did the arbitrator address the Union’s allegation that PGT was not following the terms of its own Policy. In discussing the Policy itself, Arbitrator Kandola merely stated that while an attendance management policy is an administrative tool and guide for management as to when and how to communicate attendance concerns and to investigate causes of absenteeism, it is not a substitute for the accepted arbitral principles regarding innocent absenteeism.

Based on these findings, the Arbitrator Kandola concluded that the employee had been appropriately terminated for innocent absenteeism and the grievance was dismissed.

Takeaways

Managing attendance in a unionized environment requires discipline and vigilance. The concept of “innocent absenteeism” is specific to the unionized context. Non-culpable absenteeism can be subject to the duty to accommodate, and before an employee is terminated for innocent absenteeism, the employer must not only show that the attendance pattern is unreasonable but also demonstrate that alternatives have not worked despite opportunity provided, and that the employee is likely not capable of regular attendance in the future.

This decision underscores the importance of keeping clear and consistent attendance records and involving the union at various steps of the attendance discussion. It also highlights the necessity of clear communication with employees regarding expectations and consequences. For example, PGT consistently documented meetings, followup letters and verbal warnings to ensure the Grievor was aware of the need to improve attendance and the consequences associated with a failure to do so.

And finally, the decision also demonstrates that non-culpable absences can still lead to a supported termination when such absences are frequent, varied and disruptive to operations. In these instances, fault is not imposed, and the process of support and accommodation – while procedural safeguards to the employee – ultimately do not require the employer to retain an employee who is unable and unlikely to maintain their contractual obligation to be able to regularly attend work.

Conclusion

Employers have a right to expect reliable attendance from their employees. When absenteeism is excessive and disruptive, regardless of valid reasons for such absences, an employer may be justified in moving to termination. These can be the hardest cases to prove, as they are often intertwined with evidence of justifiable reasons for such absence and a process of accommodation imposed. While employers may want to move quickly to terminate, clear policies, thorough documentation and consistent communication will be critical to managing attendance effectively and supporting the difficult decisions necessary, even within a unionized workplace.

The Workplace Law Group at Aird & Berlis LLP provides strategic labour advice to help employers navigate union-related challenges, from resisting certification to managing collective bargaining and arbitration. Please contact the authors or a member of the team if you have any questions or require assistance.