Attendance, FMLA, and a Coworker Complaint
An operator with nine years of service has nine unscheduled absences in 12 months, six of them on Mondays or Fridays. She has intermittent FMLA leave for her son's asthma, approved for up to four days per month. The agency attendance policy triggers progressive discipline at six occurrences but excludes FMLA-protected leave. Her supervisor wants to issue a written warning for the three non-FMLA absences. A coworker says she is 'gaming' the system and has posted about it in a private group; another operator has filed a grievance claiming the supervisor is harassing the first operator. You are the new operations superintendent, and the union steward has asked for a meeting. The HR leave administrator has not yet designated the last two absences, both of which the operator reported as FMLA-related.
1. Which of the nine absences may be counted under the attendance policy, and what must you verify before issuing discipline?
Read the worked answer
Only non-FMLA absences can be counted, and the threshold may not be met.
- First get the leave administrator's designation for all nine absences. Intermittent FMLA for the son's asthma protects up to four days per month when the leave is for the covered reason and the operator gave proper notice. The last two absences are still undesignated, so they cannot be counted yet.
- The Monday and Friday pattern is a red flag worth reviewing, but a pattern by itself is not proof that the leave was abused. Do not use the coworker's 'gaming' claim as evidence; it is hearsay and may be retaliatory.
- Count only the three non-FMLA absences. If the policy triggers progressive discipline at six occurrences, three countable absences do not meet the threshold. Issuing a written warning anyway would be a policy violation and likely a grievance loss. Verify whether any earlier attendance occurred in the rolling 12-month window; the setup says nine total, so do the math before acting.
- If some FMLA days were not properly noticed or were for a non-covered reason, HR, not the supervisor, should make that designation. Give the operator notice and a chance to respond.
- Document the analysis and the basis for no discipline. The defensible conclusion is to counsel, clarify call-in expectations, and monitor, not to issue a warning on an incomplete record.
2. How do you respond to the coworker's 'gaming' claim and the grievance?
Read the worked answer
Handle the grievance and the social-media claim as separate matters.
- Meet the union steward promptly, share the policy analysis but not confidential medical details, and commit to a written response. The grievance alleges supervisor harassment; review the supervisor's recent interactions, scheduling, and discipline history for inconsistent treatment. If the supervisor has been singling her out, correct that and document the correction.
- Do not retaliate against the operator for filing the grievance. Retaliation is a separate violation and will overshadow the attendance issue.
- Investigate the coworker's post only if it violates a policy on harassment, confidentiality, or social-media conduct. A private group post is not automatically unprotected, but discipline must be based on a proven policy breach, not on the claim that the operator is 'gaming' the system. Interview witnesses and preserve the post.
- Reiterate confidentiality to the supervisor and coworkers; remind staff that medical leave information is not a topic for the floor.
- Going forward, apply the attendance policy consistently, audit FMLA designations monthly, and train supervisors on leave laws. The judgement call is to protect the employee's legal leave rights while still managing genuine attendance problems, and to separate rumor, protected leave, and misconduct rather than blending them into one discipline decision.