You are on page 1of 2
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 were threatened, 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,

You might also like