Failure to Ask Questions Deprived Employer of Discretion To Deny Personal Leave
Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations Arbitrator Tim Hatfield arguably substituted his judgement for that of a School Superintendent in finding that a School District violated the collective bargaining agreement by denying a psychologist’s request to use three consecutive personal days. In Spencer-East Brookfield Reg’l Sch. Dist. and Spencer-East Brookfield Teachers Assoc., the Superintendent rejected the request to take three consecutive days as personal leave without providing a rationale that met the requirements of the agreement, and failed, in the arbitrator’s view, to make a sufficient inquiry into the reasons for the requested leave.
The parties’ collective bargaining agreement had a complicated set of requirements, spelling out the permissible reasons for personal leave, and that personal leave was intended to permit an employee to attend to matters that could not be scheduled outside the school day. The contract indicated that an employee was not required to specify the reason when requesting personal leave, yet it also permitted the District to inquire to determine whether the request should be approved or disapproved, including asking two specific questions about whether the teacher was making money on the side, or extending a vacation or holiday.
The grievant’s request for three consecutive days off was unaccompanied by a specific explanation, but she checked the boxes on the form for “Personal” and “Family.” Her supervisor initially approved the request, and it was sent to the Superintendent for final approval pursuant to the time off policy. Upon reviewing the request, the Superintendent denied the request without comment or inquiry. The employee re-submitted the request indicating negative answers to the two questions posed in the contract. The supervisor denied the modified request but invited the employee to provide the reason for the leave which she declined to do.
The Union argued that the Superintendent was limited in her investigation to asking the two questions specified in the contract and no others, but the Arbitrator rejected that, finding that the Superintendent was free to inquire to determine whether the personal leave was being taken in accordance with the contract. However, in this case, the Superintendent did not inquire, but instead reached unilateral conclusions about the permissibility of the leave, no doubt based upon the unusual nature of the three-consecutive-day request, and the employee’s decision not to volunteer a reason for the leave.
Accordingly, the DLR Arbitrator found the Superintendent’s failure to conduct further inquiry meant no finding was ever made regarding whether the personal leave request was in accordance with the contractual purposes of personal leave. Therefore, the Arbitrator ruled that denying grievant’s request was arbitrary and capricious. (The remedy, repayment of three days lost pay was unexplained in the award, although it suggests that the employee took the days unpaid).
Although the Superintendent could have made a better investigation before denying the leave request, the real culprit in this case was poor contract language that failed to provide clarity around the responsibilities of the players to justify the use of personal leave. Involving qualified labor counsel in the negotiation of contract language can avoid disputes of this kind and protect the discretion that should be accorded to routine managerial decisions of this kind.
