PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES: A DAYCARE SCHEDULE DOES NOT JUSTIFY TARDINESS

Release date: January 1st, 2006

The employee contested a one-day suspension for having arrived late 3 days in a row (5 minutes each day).

He explained that, for one week a month, he had custody of his son and had to drive him to the daycare centre, which opened at 6:30 a.m. Since his work shift started at 7:00 a.m., he had half an hour to cover the 28 km between the daycare centre and the plant. According to the adjudicator, the family responsibilities of the employee do not constitute an extenuating circumstance, because it is not up to him to decide on the advisability of allowing accommodations, since the collective agreement says nothing on the subject. Moreover, the tardiness does not constitute the dividing up of a day of leave for "family responsibilities" in the sense of article 79.7 of the LNT, because such a division is only possible if the employer agrees to it, which is not the case in point. The grievance is therefore dismissed. Lomex and Union internationale des travailleuses et travailleurs unis de l’alimentation et de commerce, Local 1991-P FAT-COI-CTC-FTQ TUAC Canada (D. Beauchemin), DTE 2006T-566 (T.A.) Me. Bruno Leclerc

From bulletin Gestion Plus
To suscribe, click here!

Back to the list
To the exclusive service of employers

To the exclusive service of employers, Le Corre offers training workshops and publications on subjects solely pertaining to labour law. Both these tools help managers and human resources professionals to deal more effectively with the daily legal framework of their businesses.

Laval

450 973-4020

Toll free

1 877 218-4020

Fax

450 973-4010
By email