## Facts

- Chanute Manufacturing Company hired a new general manager who sought to improve productivity and reviewed attendance data.
- The manager concluded employee absenteeism was unusually high and estimated it cost the company more than $100,000 per year.
- Chanute discussed attendance problems and possible changes with the union that represented bargaining-unit employees.
- Chanute then implemented a revised attendance program described as a no-fault, points-based system.
- Under the prior attendance policy, termination occurred at 18 negative attendance points.
- Under the revised policy, termination occurred at nine negative attendance points (a lower stated threshold than the prior system).
- The revised policy also added benefits and credits that reduced the practical effect of the lower threshold:
  - Employees received four personal days that could be applied retroactively to cover a missed workday.
  - Employees received a floating holiday.
  - In operation, the added personal days meant employees could avoid termination even after more than nine negative points (described in the summary as effectively allowing up to 14 negative points).
  - Employees could also reduce negative points by working a month with no negative points and by working overtime.
- The revised policy changed how long negative points remained on an employee’s record:
  - Under the prior policy, negative points dropped off after nine months.
  - Under the revised policy, negative points did not expire automatically and remained unless reduced through overtime or months of perfect attendance.
- The policy included provisions addressing leaves of absence.
- The policy also included language providing for notice to employees of possible termination “if possible.”
- After implementation, company statistics showed improved attendance.
- The union filed a grievance challenging the new policy under the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement, focusing in part on whether the “if possible” language allowed Chanute to decide at its own option whether to give warning of impending discharge.
- Chanute maintained the “if possible” language referred to whether the employee reported to work and whether it was physically practicable to give notice.

## Issues

1. Whether Chanute’s implementation of the revised no-fault attendance points policy was permitted under the collective-bargaining agreement, including management-rights authority and any just-cause limitations on discipline and discharge.
2. How the policy’s requirement of notice of possible termination “if possible” should be construed under the collective-bargaining agreement: as discretionary with management, or as limited to situations where notice cannot practicably be given.

## Decision

- The arbitrator upheld Chanute’s authority to implement a points-based, no-fault attendance policy to address absenteeism, so long as the policy operated consistently with the collective-bargaining agreement’s disciplinary standards.
- The arbitrator rejected the union’s view that the “if possible” notice language granted Chanute open-ended choice to withhold warnings.
- The arbitrator interpreted “if possible” to refer to practical feasibility (for example, whether the employee is available to receive notice), requiring notice when it can reasonably be given rather than allowing notice to be skipped by preference.

## Legal Principles

- A management-rights clause may allow an employer to issue and revise reasonable attendance rules aimed at operational needs, but those rules remain subject to express collective-bargaining agreement limits on discipline and discharge.
- In evaluating a no-fault attendance system, an arbitrator may consider both the stated discharge threshold and the program’s offsetting features (such as personal days, holidays, and point-reduction credits) when assessing overall fairness.
- Contract language concerning employee warnings is generally construed to preserve meaningful notice before discharge when notice can be provided without genuine practical barriers.
- Ambiguous notice qualifiers such as “if possible” are not read as permission to deny warning at will; they are read to excuse notice only when notice cannot practicably be delivered.

## Conclusion

In *Chanute Manufacturing Co.*, the arbitrator addressed a union grievance challenging a revised no-fault, points-based attendance program adopted after the employer identified costly absenteeism. The award treated the employer’s adoption of an attendance rule as within management authority in principle, but read the policy’s “if possible” warning language as a practical limitation tied to feasibility, not as a discretionary escape from giving employees notice when discharge became likely.


Chanute Manufacturing Co., 101 Lab. Arb. Rep. 765 (1993)