This question has undergone some serious revision since is was marked as a duplicated. While I agree the question sounds similar to the dup, let me explain why I believe it should be re-opened.
- His contract does not state hours of work
- OP is an exempt employee meaning they collect a salary rather than paid per hour
- OP is actually doing more work that what was asked of him in this case, where in the dup, OP did not do anything more than the 1 thing he was assigned
- There is no question of dishonesty or inserting bugs into anything (which was a main component of the dup)
- OP is still available to work when asked. In the dup, OP was out with his son
In light of these facts, I think it should be reopened. Because he is paid as a salary worked with no defined working hours, I believe that itself is just cause for reopening.