The Pattern on the Attendance Sheet
Firefighter Ramos, eight years on the job with no prior discipline, has used 96 hours of sick leave across 11 occurrences in five months. Seven occurrences fall on the day before or after a scheduled day off, and two fall on the first day of a vacation block. He provided a physician's note for two absences; neither note identifies a condition. A coworker mentioned to you that Ramos is going through a divorce. You have not yet addressed attendance with him. The union steward has already said, informally, "if you come after him, we'll file." Department policy permits attendance monitoring but contains no written pattern-review procedure, and your shift commander wants "documentation that will stick."
1. Is this a discipline case right now? Explain what you can and cannot do, and what you must avoid saying or asking.
Read the worked answer
No - not yet, and treating it as one now is how departments lose arbitrations.
What you have is a statistical pattern, which is a legitimate reason to look, not a finding of abuse. The pattern is genuinely suspicious: seven of eleven occurrences adjacent to days off is well outside what you would expect from random illness. But suspicion is not a finding, and the absence of a written pattern-review procedure means any discipline issued today rests on an unpublished standard.
What you may do: compare Ramos's usage against similarly situated firefighters in the same platoon and seniority band; review whether any of the absences were designated as protected leave; and convene a non-disciplinary attendance review.
What you may not do: ask what his illness is, request a diagnosis, require a fitness-for-duty exam without a job-related basis, or act on the divorce rumor. A medical inquiry must be job-related and consistent with business necessity; a leave request that may qualify for FMLA protection cannot be counted against him, and interference with protected leave is a separate violation from whatever attendance issue exists.
What you must not say: anything that reveals you heard about his marriage. "I understand things are tough at home" is not support - it is evidence that your attendance action was pretextual. If he volunteers personal information, acknowledge it and steer to the Employee Assistance Program by name, as an option, not a referral.
The steward's warning is information, not a threat. Treat it as a signal that the file will be scrutinized. Build the file so it survives scrutiny rather than reacting to the warning.
2. Describe the conversation you will have and the documentation you will create. What employee rights attach?
Read the worked answer
Frame the meeting as attendance review, not investigation - and say so at the start, on the record, because the framing determines which rights attach.
Structure of the conversation (15 minutes, private, with a witness):
- State the purpose: "This is an attendance review. It is not discipline."
- Put the record in front of him: 11 occurrences, 96 hours, the dates, and the comparison to the platoon average.
- Ask an open question: "Is there anything affecting your ability to be at work that you want the department to know about, or anything we can do?" Then stop talking. Do not probe a yes.
- Remind him of the EAP and of any leave programs available, without asking which one he might use.
- State the expectation plainly: regular, scheduled attendance; notification per policy; a physician's note where policy requires one.
- Tell him the review will be documented and placed in the supervisory file, not the personnel file.
Rights that attach: If the conversation turns toward potential discipline - if you start asking about specific absences with an eye toward charges - it becomes investigatory and he may request union representation (Weingarten). If he asks, stop and get the steward. Do not discourage the request.
Documentation: date, time, location, attendees, that the meeting was announced as non-disciplinary, the data presented, his statements in his own words, resources offered, expectations stated, and his acknowledgment signature (with a line for "refuses to sign").
Do this before the meeting: confirm with HR whether a written pattern-review procedure exists anywhere, and if not, recommend one be adopted and applied prospectively to everyone - including retroactively to Ramos only if consistent with the CBA.
3. Six weeks later the pattern has continued and you have a complete attendance record. What is your next step, and what would make the resulting action defensible or indefensible?
Read the worked answer
Escalate on the record, in a straight line, with the comparison group intact.
Next step is a written reprimand with a corrective action plan - typically the first formal step in a progressive system for an employee with eight years and no prior discipline. Before issuing it, verify three things: that no absence in the calculation was protected leave (recompute using the CBA's designated 12-month method and exclude FMLA-designated hours); that the written expectation given at the review is in the file; and that the standard has been applied to at least one comparable employee, so the department is not treating Ramos differently in either direction.
Defensible looks like: a published rule or procedure, notice to the employee, an opportunity to correct, consistent application across the shift, a documented comparison group, an accurate leave calculation, and a discipline step proportionate to the record.
Indefensible looks like: a rule invented after the fact; a charge sheet resting on the divorce rumor; requests for a diagnosis in the file; discipline of Ramos while another firefighter with the same pattern was left alone; any absence counted that should have been designated protected; or a supervisor telling the steward "we'll deal with the grievance later."
One more judgment: if the record now shows a cluster of absences with a single unexplained cause, the right move may be a referral to HR for a confidential process rather than an escalating reprimand. A department can win the discipline and still lose the employee it was trying to correct. The officer's goal is reliable attendance, not a clean win.