Employee should have been allowed to follow same procedure as before when reporting absenceWorker was shocked to be fired for not providing a doctor's until after his absence though it had been allowed previously09/21/2007|Canadian Employment Law Today The Ontario Arbitration Board has ruled a warehouse worker should not have been fired for being absent from work when he followed a procedure which had been allowed before. Brian Darroch worked in the manufacturing plant of Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd. in Waterloo, Ont. The company’s attendance policy requires employees to call in absences or lateness before a shift starts, except for “exceptional circumstances.” The policy stipulates voicemail messages must include the employee’s name, clock number, reason for absence and estimated date or time of return to work. At the plant, there are also rules posted which ask employees to report absences prior to the start of a shift. When Darroch transferred to his latest department, the supervisor told him at orientation to call him before the shift if he was going to be off sick. On May 30, 2006, Darroch left a voice message on the supervisor’s voicemail saying he was sick and going to the doctor. There was no other explanation nor any indication when he would be back at work. Darroch was absent the next two days but the company didn’t hear from him. To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In Remember Me Forgot Password If you are a current Subscriber, please click here to set-up or update your login information.