regularly
ed day off at home. She was called by her supervi-
gor and told to talk to three union members and instruct
m to attend a work function called a “Quest for Quality
action Committee” meeting. The Quest for Quality pro
Le
the
inter
gram was a high priority with the employer for improving
patient care at the facility and was part of a corporate pro-
gram. The unian had objected to the impfementation of the
Quest for Quality program and had taken the position that
employees could attend the program if their jobs werethreatened, but they should do so under protest and then
file a grievance afterward.
On the day in question, the union shop steward, in a con-
ference call with the three employees, said she would not
order them to attend the Quest for Quality meeting, although
her supervisor had asked her to. The supervisor who had
called the union shop steward had herself refused to order
the employees to attend the Meeting, but relied on the union
shop steward to issue the order to the employees. When the
shop steward faited to order the employees to attend the
meeting, the employer suspended her for two weeks. She
grieved the two-week suspension
The union position was that the company had no author
ity to discipline the union shop steward on her day off for fail
ure to give what it termed “a management direction to per-
form the specific job function of attending a mandatory
corporate meeting.” The union pointed out that it was unfair
that the empioyer refused to order the employees directly to
attend the meeting but then expected the union shop stew
ard to do so. The union argued that while it is not unusual to
call @ union shop steward for assistance in problem solving,
the company had no right to demand that he or she replace
supervisors Or Management in giving orders and then disci-
pline the union official for refusing to do so.
The company position was that the opposition of the union
to the Quest for Quality meetings put the employees in a posi-
tion of being unable to attend the meetings without direction
trom the union shop steward; that the union shop steward was
given a job assignment of directing the employees to atteng
the meeting; and that failure to follow that job assignment yay,
insubordination and just cause for her suspension.
Nonetheless, the union contended that the arbitrato-
must examine the nature of the order when deciding whethey
the insubordination was grounds for discipline. As to the
nature of the order in this case, the employer had to demon.
strate that the order was directly related to the job classifi.
cation and work assignment of the employee disciplineg,
The refusal to obey such an order must be shown to pose a
real challenge to supervisory authority. The emptoyee did not
dispute the fact that she failed to follow the orders given to
her by her Supervisor, but pointed out that she was not on
duty at the time and that the task being given to her was not
because of her job with the company but because of her ste
tus as a union shop steward.
Questions
1. As the arbitrator, do you think the employer had just
cause to discipline the employee? Why or why not?
2. If the union's opposition to the Quest for Quality pro-
gram encouraged the employees not to participate, why
shouldn't the union be held responsible for directing the
employees to attend?
Source: Adapted trom Cheltenham Nursing Rehabilitation Center, 89 A361
{2987}, in Michael Cartet ang Christina Heavrin, Labor Relations and
Collective Sargaining (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995), pp.
100-101,