BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION OF A DISPUTE
CITY OF MANITOWOC
CITY OF MANITOWOC EMPLOYEES LOCAL 731,
Case 133 No. 55110 MA-9902
Mr. Patrick L. Willis, City Attorney, City of Manitowoc, City
Hall, 817 Franklin Street, PO
Box 1597, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, 54221-1597.
Mr. Gerald D. Ugland, Staff Representative, Wisconsin Council
40, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
PO Box 370, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, 54220-0370.
The parties stipulated to the following issue:
Did the employer violate the collective bargaining agreement by denying
Zimmer, sick leave on January 27, 1997? If so, what is the appropriate remedy?
RELATIVE CONTRACT PROVISIONS
Article X - Vacations, Sick Leave, Holiday, and Leave of Absence
Section 2. Sick Leave
(a) Accumulation of Sick Leave. Following the completion of ninety (90)
calendar days of
employment employees shall accumulate sick leave as follows:
Page 2 MA-9902
(2) Beginning with the second year of work and thereafter, all employees shall
one (1) day of sick leave following each month of employment making a total of twelve (12)
days each year. All sick leave days shall be granted with full pay.
Verification. All absences shall be subject to verification by the
(f) Use of Sick Leave. An employee may use sick leave with pay for absence
personal illness or injury incurred off of the job or if the employee's presence is required
at home in the event of illness or injury of members of his family living in the employee's
This grievance arises from a claim by Michael Zimmer (grievant) that he was denied
of four hours sick leave on Monday, January 27, 1997. The grievant is an Engineering Aide
in the City of Manitowoc Engineering Department. His supervisor is William Handlos.
January 27, 1997, was the day after the Super Bowl. The grievant attended a Super Bowl
party on January 26, 1997, during which time he ate different kinds of food and estimated
he had between four and five alcoholic beverages. The grievant was unsure of the exact
that he returned home; he estimated that it was approximately twelve midnight. The grievant
starts work at 7:30 a.m. On January 27, 1997, grievant called the Engineering Department
at approximately 8:00 a.m. and talked to Engineering secretary, Carol Adler. Grievant
testified that he was not coming in to work and was going to take sick leave. Ms. Adler
kidded the grievant whether he had celebrated the Green Bay Packers' victory too much; the
grievant responded that he would not be coming in, that he was going to be off and take sick
leave. Ms. Adler did not question the grievant as to why he was taking sick leave, and it
not the practice of the Department to question employees regarding the reason they needed
to take sick leave.
Approximately an hour after the grievant called in, Mr. Handlos was informed by
the grievant was not coming in, and was taking sick leave. Handlos was upset because he
already short-staffed because of the Super Bowl weekend and called grievant at home. The
parties disagree as to what was said between grievant and Handlos. The grievant testified
he told Handlos he was tired and was sick to his stomach; Handlos recalls that grievant only
stated that he was tired because of the effects of the party he attended on January 26.
Handlos made the assumption that grievant was hungover; Handlos admitted on the record
that this assumption was his and not anything to which grievant agreed. Handlos told the
grievant, during the phone call on January 27 that he could not take sick leave, but he would
allow him to use vacation to which the grievant at that time agreed. The grievant came in to
work the afternoon of January 27 and worked half of his normal shift.
Grievant decided later that day (27th) that he wanted to take four
hours of sick leave instead
of vacation and filed a request for use of sick leave (Joint Exhibit 4). This request was
by his supervisor, Mr. Handlos, on January 29, 1997. Handlos took the
Page 3 MA-9902
position that grievant was hungover and that this was an improper use of sick leave.
and grievant met on January 29, 1997, and January 30, 1997, to discuss grievant's request
for sick leave. Both grievant and Handlos testified about the discussions that occurred on
January 29 and January 30 in Handlos' office. Handlos testified that grievant never said he
was sick, only that he had been tired; grievant testified that he explained to Handlos that he
not been just tired and drowsy, but had been sick to his stomach as well. Handlos testified
that the first time the grievant made a claim of being sick to his stomach was before the
Personnel Committee where grievant's grievance was considered. The City never asked the
employee for verification of his illness. The City took the position that it did not have to
verify the grievant's claim that his absence on January 27 was because he was tired. The
grievant filed a grievance for being denied the use of four hours of sick leave on January 27,
1997, (Joint Exhibit 2). The Union contends that the denial of the grievant's request to use
four hours of sick leave on January 27, 1997, is a violation of the collective bargaining
The grievance, dated January 30, 1997, was processed through the parties' collective
bargaining agreement grievance procedure. The parties were unable to resolve the
and the Union petitioned the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission on April 8,
to appoint an arbitrator from the Commission. An arbitration hearing on this matter was
by the arbitrator on June 26, 1997, in the City of Manitowoc. The parties were given the
opportunity and filed briefs which were received on July 17, 1997 (City), and July 24, 1997
(Union). The hearing was not transcribed. The hearing was closed at approximately 4:00
p.m. on June 26, 1997.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
It is the position of the Union that when grievant called the Engineering Department on
January 27, 1997, and told the Department secretary that he was not coming to work because
he did not feel well and was going to take sick leave, the grievant was following the normal
practice of the Department when employees determined they were sick and not coming to
work. The Engineering secretary did not, pursuant to that practice, question the grievant as
to his symptoms or why he was sick. It is the Union's position that when grievant's
supervisor, William Handlos, talked to the grievant later that morning, the grievant told his
supervisor that he was tired and sick to his stomach, and that this was all an employee had to
do to be granted the use of sick leave.
The Union argues that under the collective bargaining agreement the City had the right
request verification from the grievant as to his illness, but never did so. Handlos, despite
having talking with the grievant on January 27, and meeting with him on January 29 and
January 30, never inquired or investigated as to why the grievant was sick or as to his
symptoms. The Union argues that it was the employer's obligation to ask for verification if
it was going to question and/or deny the grievant the use of sick leave. The Union takes
Page 4 MA-9902
the position that the grievant told Handlos he was sick to his stomach not only in phone
conversation of January 27, but during their meetings on January 29 and January 30. The
Union further alleges that grievant's supervisor, Handlos, tried to intimidate him from filing
a grievance for Handlos' denial of grievant's use of four hours of sick leave on January 27,
1997. The Union points out that Handlos admitted that the use of the word hangover was
Handlos' term not the grievant's, and that "hangover" was what Handlos
presumed based on
what grievant had told him.
The Union requests that the arbitrator sustain the grievance and that the grievant be
to credit the four hours vacation he used to his vacation account, and that four hours of sick
leave be debited, and that any and all references to this matter be removed from the
It is the position of the City that the only reason that the grievant ever gave for
sick leave was that he was fatigued or tired from having attended a Super Bowl party on
January 26, 1997, and that this is not a valid reason for the use of sick leave. It is the
of the City that it was not until the Personnel Committee meeting to consider grievant's
January 30, 1997, grievance that grievant stated to anyone in management that he did not
come in for four hours on January 27, 1997, because he was sick to his stomach as well as
fatigued. It is the position of the City that had the grievant claimed that he was sick to his
stomach, even if from partying on January 26, 1997, the day before his regular shift on
January 27, that his sick leave would have been allowed; it was only because the grievant
Handlos on January 27, 1997, that he was not feeling well because of fatigue that the sick
leave and, ultimately, the grievance were disallowed.
The City argues that grievant's testimony shows that the severity of the grievant's
on January 27, 1997, increased as the grievance progressed through the grievance procedure,
and even continued to do so at the arbitration hearing where for the first time grievant stated
on the record that not only was he tired and sick to his stomach, but also suffered diarrhea
on January 27, 1997. The City argues that the grievant had ample opportunity in phone
conversations on January 27 with Adler and Handlos to indicate to them that he was sick
because of a stomach ailment. Grievant further had the opportunity to describe his symptoms
on January 29 and January 30 when he met with Handlos. The City points out that the
grievant never told his Union Steward, Neuser, when he spoke to Neuser about filing a
grievance, that he felt he should be allowed to use sick leave because he had a stomach ache.
The City argues that although the grievant testified in detail from his diary of conversations
with Handlos about his sick leave claim, he did not testify from his diary that he claimed to
have a stomach ache on January 27, 1997.
Employer argues that the hearing testimony establishes that grievant only claimed that
sick because he was tired and that the Employer was not obligated to proceed under Article
X, Section 2(c), to verify fatigue as such verification would have established
Page 5 MA-9902
nothing further than what the grievant had already told Supervisor Handlos. Lastly, it
Employer's position that fatigue is not a sufficient justification for the use of sick and does
not qualify as a personal illness under the collective bargaining agreement. The City argues
that the grievance should be denied.
This case presents the arbitrator with creditability issues similar to the companion case
on the same date. 1 Both the grievant and his
supervisor, Handlos, testified from their
recollection" notes or summaries which are also inconsistent. The collective
agreement does not define illness or injury. 2
The City did not have a procedure in place
the time of this incident as to what an employee was to do if the employee called in sick.
arbitrator finds, based on the testimony, and particularly the testimony of Carol Adler, that
the practice was that all employees had to do was call the Department and say that they were
not coming in because they were sick and no questions were asked. 3 The City's right to
ask for verification of personal illness was apparently never used. Therefore, it would be
reasonable for an employee, the grievant in this case, to assume that once he called in and
that he was sick, to not expect that he would be questioned further.
Even if the City in this case did not waive its right to request verification of grievant's
of sickness, the City did not try and verify the illness further. The City argues that this was
not necessary because the grievant only said that he was tired or fatigued, and there was no
point in trying to verify "fatigue" any further. As noted above, the grievant
testified that he
did tell Handlos that he was sick to his stomach as well as fatigued and that Handlos never
questioned him further either on the phone on January 27 or on January 29 or 30 when they
met in Handlos' office.
The City represented at the hearing that if the grievant had originally said in his phone
Ms. Adler that he was sick to his stomach that it would not have been questioned, and he
would have received the use of sick leave for January 27. This acceptance of personal
even from partying was confirmed by the Union Steward who creditably testified that
employees have been allowed to use sick leave even if the illness (being sick) was caused by
too much drinking. The arbitrator agrees with the City that the grievant's symptoms seemed
to worsen even during the course of the arbitration hearing, but the arbitrator finds that it is
Supervisor Handlos' characterization of grievant's personal illness that is critical.
Handlos characterized the fatigue or sickness as a "hangover" and that was the basis on
he denied the use of four hours of sick leave on January 27. 4 A hangover has been defined
as having symptoms of headache, nausea (stomach ache) tired and a general feeling of not
being well. 5 If Handlos thought that the
grievant was suffering from a hangover, then it
incumbent on him to request further verification from the grievant that he was truly sick.
Given the fact that the City accepted a "stomach ache" from too much
drinking as a
legitimate personal illness, Handlos probably could not have achieved
Page 6 MA-9902
much more by such a request. Handlos' choice of hangover to describe the illness of
grievant may be unfortunate given the City's position in this case, however, at the time of
incident, the symptoms of a hangover met the City's definition of acceptable personal
illness under the collective bargaining agreement to justify the use of sick leave.
Where a question of illness arises when an employee is actively employed, the burden
normally on the employer to prove that the illness is not legitimate. 6 In this case, it is the
decision of the arbitrator that the City did not meet that burden. Lastly, the City had an
obligation to place the grievant and other members of the bargaining unit on notice that the
practice was going to change whereby they would now have to be prepared to verify their
illness. It is the decision of the arbitrator that based on the record, including a review of the
briefs, the grievance is sustained.
The grievance of Mike Zimmer is sustained.
The grievant will be allowed to use four hours of sick leave on January 27, 1997, and
four hours to his vacation account and debit his sick leave account by four hours. Any
record of this incident shall be removed from his personnel record other than the
documentation of the use of sick leave.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 26th day of August 1997.
Paul A. Hahn /s/_________________________
Paul A. Hahn
Page 7 MA-9902
1. Safeway Stores Inc. And United Food and Commercial
Workers Union Local
7, 96 LA 304 (Coyle, 1990).
2. Article X, Sick Leave Section 2 (f).
3. The parties testified that subsequent to the incident
giving rise to the instant
new call in procedure for illness is in effect; this has no bearing on this matter or decision.
4. Union Exhibit 7, the letter from William Handlos to the
grievant dated January 30,
denying grievant's use of sick leave on January 27, 1997.
5. "Hangover" Webster's Third New
International Dictionary (1993)
Merriam - Webster Inc.,
6. Elkouri and Elkouri. How Arbitration Works
5th Edition (1997)
Voltz and Groggin, Co-Editors, pg. 413.