Opinion ID: 178097
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: TSA’s Attendance Policy

Text: Under TSA’s written Attendance Control Policy, an employee is required to notify his supervisor within one hour of the start of his shift if he will be absent. 3 An employee who fails to notify his supervisor may be considered absent without leave, or AWOL. An employee who is AWOL three or more times is “reported up the chain of command with a recommendation for formal disciplinary action up to and including removal.” The Attendance Control Policy included progressive discipline for excessive absences (regardless of whether they were with leave), ranging from: (1) an initial, non-disciplinary discussion when there were six absences within a twelve-month period; (2) a Level I warning when seven absences occurred within a twelve-month period; (3) a Level II warning if another absence occurred within twelve months of the issuance of the Level I warning; and (4) a Level III issuance of a leave restriction letter if there was second absence within the same twelvemonth period as the Level II warning or “if the offense is of an extremely serious nature such as an employee not notifying the supervisor when scheduled, (AWOL)” at which point the employee would be “immediately placed on Level III.” The Level III portion of the Attendance Control Policy warned that “[e]mployees who are AWOL could face further disciplinary action to include termination.” Initially, TSA screeners at FLL notified their screening manager if they were going to be absent. Beginning in February or March 2003, TSA created an 4 Operations Center at FLL that employees were required to call to report being late or to request sick leave. Under the Attendance Control Policy, a supervisor could require an employee to provide a doctor’s certification. Generally, TSA supervisors requested a doctor’s note after three days of sick leave. According to Bryant Chevalier, if a TSA employee had an attendance problem, the issue would be addressed initially with the employee’s first-line supervisor and would proceed up through the levels of management, who worked with Human Resources to determine the appropriate course of action to take with respect to progressive discipline. If the problem continued, the issue would be taken to the Operations Manager (in this case, George Cruz), who would brief Chevalier on the issue. Whatever action Chevalier took “would be based on the information provided to [him] from the management team and HR.”