First Transit Employee Handbook

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate First Transit on the new Employee Handbook that was given to employees in February, 2009. Given that First Transit has 13,000 employees, I would have expected this handbook instead of the photocopied pages I was given when I went to work for the company in 2006.

I don't believe it has any effect on me because it was distributed AFTER I terminated and the company was governed by whatever policy was in effect on that date. I hate to keep beating a dead horse but what exactly was that policy?

The policy will effect some other employee in the future and so I'll offer a couple of criticisms. I quote:

Substitution of Paid Leave for Unpaid Leave

Employees may choose or employers may require use of accrued paid leave while taking FMLA leave. In order to use paid leave for FMLA leave, employees must comply with the employer's normal paid leave policy.

Pretty much out of FMLA but I have to point out it's incomplete. I would challenge the blanket statement  'employers may require' and point out there are exceptions. It's true that an employer can define any policy they want and even enforce that policy up to the point where a regulatory body or court decides differently, but I would suggest that there are penalties when a policy is found to not comply with the law.

4.06 Leave of Absence without Pay

 In either case, the employee is removed from payroll, but maintained as an employee for the duration of the leave.

Hmmm, why did I continue to get a First Transit Earnings Statement  through January 23rd, 2009? Could it be that because of contractual obligations FMLA and/or Medical Leave of Absence are paid leave? And if it is paid leave, can an 'employer require use of accrued paid leave'? 

4.07 Administrative Termination

If more than one period of absence due to the same related cause exceeds six months, the employee will be Administratively Terminated. If an employee returns to work for 30 consecutive calender days or more, any recurrence of disability is considered a new disability.

I think I know what the policy implies but I'm confused by the 'more than one period of absence'. I might interpret that statement to mean that a  employee would be terminated the second time a period of absence exceeded six months. I won't quibble about the details but I do have a serious question regarding 'due to the same related cause'. 

In my case, I went out on July 26th, 2008 with an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and then contracted MRSA on September 18th, 2008. I was actually due to return to work on September 22nd, 2008 and had every intention of doing so. I'm trying to figure out how the policy (had it been in effect) would have been interpreted in my case. Would it have been counted as one absence or two because my two conditions were only casually related? It might be important for someone else in the future.

All in all, I think the new policy is a good start but needs a little work. I think there's still some exposure. The policy however, no matter how well written, is only as good as how well it's followed.

I believe this statement to be true: My rights would have been violated under the new policy as well as whatever policies were in effect prior to February, 2009.