Initially, Leamon made no claim that any of the three absences were excused. Leamon had informed Campbell that the remaining two absences were personal in nature. Some nine months later, after he was fired, Leamon recanted, claiming these absences also were caused by industrial injury. The panel directed that Leamon be reinstated as of the date of the decision without backpay and benefits. . . . ' It concluded: '[The] evidence establishes that when it terminated [Leamon, Campbell] was not acting on the basis that [Leamon] had been industrially-injured or absent from work because of his industrial injury; it acted solely on the basis that, under [Campbell's] Code of Conduct, [Leamon] appeared to be an unsatisfactory employee.

Download full case here.