The employee’s argument was predicated on the absence of any prior notification about misuse of sick time and the historical precedent of being compensated for sick days without having provided a doctor’s note. Furthermore, the employee presented their actions on the day in question, emphasizing their commitment to work until a supervisor could take over, despite feeling unwell. This point was contested by the board, which posited that the employee should have remained at home if they were sick. The dialogue also encompassed the supervisor’s awareness of the employee’s health condition and the use of vacation time surrounding the holiday.

The discussion raised questions about the practicality of requiring a doctor’s note within a specific timeframe, which in this case was 10 days.

The dispute highlighted broader issues with the sick leave policy and its enforcement. The board suggested a review of the policy to ensure that future decisions are made based on a clear understanding of the facts and contractual language. Despite the discussion and exchange of viewpoints, the board ultimately upheld their initial decision regarding the employee’s sick leave, choosing not to reverse their stance on the matter.

The meeting concluded with an acknowledgment of the need to potentially revisit and clarify the sick leave policy to prevent similar disagreements in the future. No further action was taken on the grievance, and the meeting was adjourned shortly after the conclusion of the debate.